AAFitz wrote:thegreekdog wrote:AAFitz wrote:All I can say is, I wish to God my school offered healthier food, and taught nutrition when I was growing up, because my parents were absolutely clueless. Only when I went to college and was surrounded by healthier options and education did I come to understand healthy living, and am thankful every day I gained that experience and education at school.
When I was a kid in school, they made me do lots of things. I had to sit in my seat, do my homework, go on fire drills, etc, etc. I hardly would say school is even meant to be free, and in fact is quite the opposite in every way. Its kind of the point to help train children to be more productive members of society, and how better can they do so, than by regulating their actual food while they are there.
Given the number of actual diseases and health problems that do arise from poor nutrition, its arguable that the nutritional education is possibly the most important thing they ever could learn in many cases.
The reason we have schools is because most parents are quite incapable of teaching the essentials that are learned in school, and that certainly does not stop at food for many. I think arguing its just some liberal agenda to get some jolly out of making kids into puppets, and not a sincere effort to educate and improve their lives, the ultimate goal of most educators is really just conspiracy lunacy.
I look conspiratorily at an item that puts more money in the hands of the cafeteria contractor. While you may see this as education, I see this as cronyism (at least) and, yes, it freaks me out that a child cannot bring his or her own lunch to school and most of you think that's great.
Actually, you don't see me saying its great. What you see is me defending that the idea of providing a healthy school lunch and providing it as a part of a nutritional education program as not necessarily being some evil cronyism, any more than teaching math and forcing children to buy a standardized textbook for each class as cronyism.
Also, I am all for regulating the types of food that the contractor may provide, the quality of them, and even the amounts he is able to charge and even profit from, as part of the contract, to insure the children are in fact receiving the best meal, and cost effective one possible within reasonable limits. There are many contractors that make their living providing supplies and services to schools, but I dont think the fact that a textbook manufacturer is chosen to provide all of the math books, hardly suggests that he will have some unfair monopoly, if children are not allowed to pick their own text book, just because it is cheaper or they like it better. And again, I am also not suggesting that the school pay more than the fair market rate for those text books, but that is a completely different matter altogether.
The choice of the math books, the art supplies, the building materials, the playground materials, and the food provided are all purchased from contractors, but suggesting that standardizing them is wrong because of this is simply faulty logic. I absolutely agree that much diligence must be put into making all of these decisions, and that is why school officials are hired and voted into office to make them. Some parents may decide they prefer their children to play on real grass rather than artificial turf. But the fact that the school board has chosen one over the other hardly implies corruption of the process. Any corruption is on an individual level, and it is the responsibility of every community to insure against corruption. The simply fact that contractors are used to provide for students, does not make it corrupt defacto. Cost vs education value is all part of the variable mix, in which the board chooses from the various options.
Im sure there are many cases where there is corruption, and one text book was chosen over another because of some impact of economic gain, but that hardly means that all standardizing of text books in a school is some great big conspiracy for a profit. The economic cost is simply part of the expense of providing adequate nutrition and nutritional education as part of an overall education for each student.
Im also not in any way suggesting that this particular program has been implemented perfectly, and actually assume there are flaws as there are with many programs. What I am pointing out however, is that the basic principle hardly needs to be considered bad and flagged, and it is just a case of picking up on a new educational approach, and in my opinion an important one, and labeling it a liberal conspiracy designed to turn a profit for a cafeteria supplier is just ridiculous grounds for deciding a new program cannot be effective. A child cannot bring a phone to school, an ipod to school, a gun to school, alcohol to school, fireworks to school, porn to school, and even certain types of clothing to school. In fact, I would suggest conservatives work to limit some of these more than liberals in some of these examples. These choices are all part of the individual educational program that each school chooses to offer. I agree some are better than others, but contend that it does not limit the viability or benefits of all programs or regulations set up by individual schools. In this case, if implemented correctly and with prudence, I simply suggest a great benefit to the students is possible. The fact that a kid wants to eat a bowl of sugar for lunch every day, does not necessarily mean we should allow it on school property, any more than we allow them to smoke or drink alcohol, or jump out of a window.
A school is for children, and children absolutely do not have the same rights as adults. We restrict those rights in many ways as a society both in school, and outside of it, and it is in the interest of protection, and education. A program to provide a nutritional meal not only in the effort to provide a healthy meal, which certainly is likely to be far more healthy and balanced than many home provided meals, as well as education as to how that meal is beneficial, is again, absolutely a worthy idea for a program, and simply should not be dismissed simply because it happens to limit the perceived rights of children, who by attending that school, have already agreed to limit their own rights, by following the many rules and procedures of that institution.
Again, Im not saying this particular contractor is great or even that particular program and menu is great. My only point is, as a means to offer nutrition and nutritional education to students as part of their overall education, is absolutely a great idea, especially given what some health care professionals call an epidemic of poor nutrition in this country. Im sure some rebelled at the idea of providing physical fitness to children as some conspiracy to sell soccer balls and gymnasiums, but I think the benefits of a physical education for students warrants the investment in these areas as well. At the same time, Im sure in individual cases, millions have been fleeced through corruption in the effort to provide these, but that does not discount their usefulness as part of a balanced educational program. There is corruption possible in every aspect of any school decision. You simply have to be prudent to fight against the corruption, not suggest that no education be given because of this potential.
Further, if you suggest that a program could be set up to insure nutritional quality for children while still allowing parents to provide those meals, as long as they fit into the nutritional guidelines, I would be the first to suggest it is very possible to make that work. But there we are simply discussing the individual plans and choices which is a completely different subject than simply discussing the idea of providing a nutritional education program for children. Again, given the state of the health of children in this country, it may turn out to be the most important part of the educational program itself for many of them.
) --- it's got SHIELDS!
Seriously