So now we as parents cant control what our own children eat for lunch.

[BehindBlueI's]

Homeschool. Private school. Those are the only options.

This note may be from a private "school". Preschool is glorified day care, and many of them are private. The original source is likely this blog: Forced to Eat School Lunches - Embracing Homemaking

Still light on details. I'll save my outrage for now.

 

[Double T]

Our kids pediatrician would write a note for us. I don't like my kids to eat only processed food, and I'll be damned if they eat that crap when they DO go to school.

They cannot force you to do this btw. You could simply stop paying.

 

[Principal Skinr]

I emailed Linda Brooks asking her for more info. She replied promptly:

I wouldn't bet my lunch on her story.

 

[GunnerDan]

Our kids pediatrician would write a note for us. I don't like my kids to eat only processed food, and I'll be damned if they eat that crap when they DO go to school.

They cannot force you to do this btw. You could simply stop paying.

Then they send you the bill, and if you refuse to pay, they will wreck your credit, and attach your home, so you wont be able to sell your house until you pay the school lunch bill. Well actually what they do in the Clark County school is to refuse to let your kids eat.

Gunner

 

[88GT]

This note may be from a private "school". Preschool is glorified day care, and many of them are private. The original source is likely this blog: Forced to Eat School Lunches - Embracing Homemaking

Still light on details. I'll save my outrage for now.

If it is a Head Start program, it is funded mostly by federal funds. Moreover, even private ones often get .gov money for lunches, which would subject them to the restrictions of .gov.

 

[Double T]

Then they send you the bill, and if you refuse to pay, they will wreck your credit, and attach your home, so you wont be able to sell your house until you pay the school lunch bill. Well actually what they do in the Clark County school is to refuse to let your kids eat.

Gunner

Not really. I never signed an agreement to pay for their slop. If they refuse to let my child eat, then I will be going to the principal's office daily and calling child protective services on them. If I am willing to send home cooked food for my child, why the **** won't they let them eat it and refuse to feed them?

Thankfully, our school system has done no such thing.

 

[HoughMade]

Here's where I earn the negative rep., but heck....

Tax-payer funded, supported or subsidized daycare (or preschool, if you prefer euphemisms) is nothing more than redistribution of wealth to make the breakdown of the traditional family more economically feasible. The traditional role of husband and father as provider and protector is intentionally being supplanted by the government. "No Dad? no problem. We have a place to stick you kids so Mom can make the money. Don't worry, we'll kick in for the food and housing too!"

What's more, American culture has been sold a bill of goods about lifestyle where people at every economic strata are told they need certain possessions to make their life complete. Multiple TVs per household. Everyone needs a smartphone and an unlimited data plan....for safety. Cable or satellite TV, of course. Multiple cars per household. Granite countertops....how could one live with laminate? 3 or 4 computers per house and AT LEAST one game system. Shoes that run at least 3 figures. Jeans that cost the same....and on and on.

....and then I hear "my wife would love to stay home with the kids, but we simply can't afford it." Government pushing Dad out. Culture of leisure and envy and greed pushing Mom out. Guess who's left? Yep, Big Brother.

 

[Principal Skinr]

Actually, the quality of the food in the Federal program has increased dramatically in the past few years. We serve fresh veggies and fruit, and only French fries are fried. We don't fry anything else. Also, all the chips are baked. The broccoli is some of the best I've had. The quality of the carrots, green beans, and other veggies is as good or better than what I buy at Kroger, and our cooks cook it right, in a VERY clean kitchen, that is randomly inspected, twice a year. I still can't tell much about what is in the chicken nuggets, but you can't tell much about that anywhere, in a store or restaurant, anyway, and again, at least ours are baked. Also, a high percentage of our food we serve is NOT processed. Much of it is made right in our kitchen, from natural foods and ingredients, by real people that know how to cook.

Generally, the federal programs give you some of the food, but they also give you a budget, so it is up to the school food service staff to decide how to spend it. Some do it well, while others buy crap. This is yet another reason to get involved in your child's education. Don't think private schools are so great, either. Many of them get their food.....you guessed it.....from the local public school! You should see some of the crap my kids' preschool feeds them. MUCH worse than what my school feeds kids. Much worse. For starters, they frequently eat peanut butter made with partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. That's slow death in a jar! Bacteria won't even eat that peanut-flavored Crisco!

Bottom line: Don't assume your school's lunches are bad. Go and check it out. I'd feed what we're serving to my kids in a heartbeat. In fact, I will be. My oldest will be attending my school next year.

Unfortunately, I can't speak for other schools, public or private. All I know is what we do and serve, and our kids seem to like it. It also beats the hell out of what most of them are eating at home, anyway. Much of our society has no clue how to eat anything at home other than processed food.

I'm sure many homeschoolers experience the joy of hot pockets and Totinos pizzas, too!

 

[88GT]

Here's where I earn the negative rep., but heck....

Tax-payer funded, supported or subsidized daycare (or preschool, if you prefer euphemisms) is nothing more than redistribution of wealth to make the breakdown of the traditional family more economically feasible. The traditional role of husband and father as provider and protector is intentionally being supplanted by the government. "No Dad? no problem. We have a place to stick you kids so Mom can make the money. Don't worry, we'll kick in for the food and housing too!"

What's more, American culture has been sold a bill of goods about lifestyle where people at every economic strata are told they need certain possessions to make their life complete. Multiple TVs per household. Everyone needs a smartphone and an unlimited data plan....for safety. Cable or satellite TV, of course. Multiple cars per household. Granite countertops....how could one live with laminate? 3 or 4 computers per house and AT LEAST one game system. Shoes that run at least 3 figures. Jeans that cost the same....and on and on.

....and then I hear "my wife would love to stay home with the kids, but we simply can't afford it." Government pushing Dad out. Culture of leisure and envy and greed pushing Mom out. Guess who's left? Yep, Big Brother.

No neg rep from me (big surprise there, no doubt). But I would add one thing: there is no difference between the level of schooling. Whether it's pre-school or high school or anything in between, it's all wealth redistribution disguised as the do-gooder goal of "educating" children. And, yes, even the K-12 schools are complicit is the breakdown of the family unit.

 

[Principal Skinr]

Agree with much of this. However, you just gave a nice excuse to the dead beat dads of America...."The government pushed me out!"

Right.

I know lots of single moms, and none have ever clued me in on their racket for making money. I'll have to check that out.

Here's where I earn the negative rep., but heck....

Tax-payer funded, supported or subsidized daycare (or preschool, if you prefer euphemisms) is nothing more than redistribution of wealth to make the breakdown of the traditional family more economically feasible. The traditional role of husband and father as provider and protector is intentionally being supplanted by the government. "No Dad? no problem. We have a place to stick you kids so Mom can make the money. Don't worry, we'll kick in for the food and housing too!"

What's more, American culture has been sold a bill of goods about lifestyle where people at every economic strata are told they need certain possessions to make their life complete. Multiple TVs per household. Everyone needs a smartphone and an unlimited data plan....for safety. Cable or satellite TV, of course. Multiple cars per household. Granite countertops....how could one live with laminate? 3 or 4 computers per house and AT LEAST one game system. Shoes that run at least 3 figures. Jeans that cost the same....and on and on.

....and then I hear "my wife would love to stay home with the kids, but we simply can't afford it." Government pushing Dad out. Culture of leisure and envy and greed pushing Mom out. Guess who's left? Yep, Big Brother.

 

[88GT]

I'm sure many homeschoolers experience the joy of hot pockets and Totinos pizzas, too!

Yes, but the big issue isn't what kids eat as much as it is who gets to decide. Unacceptable for a school to tell a parent the child can't have a brought-from-home lunch.

Totinos make great late night snacks!

 

[HoughMade]

....you just gave a nice excuse to the dead beat dads of America...."The government pushed me out!"...

There is no excuse for deadbeat Dads. (I forgot, on INGO, a statement like THAT is where one can find some reliable negative rep).

No matter what the government encourages, the responsibility to raise one's own children never changes. Raising means providing, protecting, teaching and guiding them....all of which requires a Dad to BE THERE. Look, I know all marriages don't work out (look at me, I just impliedly assumed kids should come along after marriage how quaint), but kids need BOTH parents so it is the job of BOTH parents to ensure that the kids have as much of both parents as necessary. Moving away should never be considered. Likewise, love your kids? If she moves away....do what it takes to be near your kids.

Now I'm sure we'll hear all sorts of reasons why this is impossible, impractical and "my situation is different." Really? People have a tendency to do what is important to them to do.

 

[Rookie]

Preach it!

 

[Hornett]

Much of this has been propagated by what I call "The Big Peanut Butter Butter Allergy Scandal".
I have talked to teachers in my local public school in Indiana and even the teachers are not allowed to bring peanut butter (or any nut butter) in their own lunches because there is probably some kid with a peanut butter allergy that is sooooo sensitive that they will know there is peanut butter in the school building and their throat will swell up and they will die.
Now I know that the allergy is real, but I am having a problem with thousands of kids being affected by the possibility (just the possibility) of a kid with an allergy.

 

[Pooty22]

There is no excuse for deadbeat Dads. (I forgot, on INGO, a statement like THAT is where one can find some reliable negative rep).

No matter what the government encourages, the responsibility to raise one's own children never changes. Raising means providing, protecting, teaching and guiding them....all of which requires a Dad to BE THERE. Look, I know all marriages don't work out (look at me, I just impliedly assumed kids should come along after marriage how quaint), but kids need BOTH parents so it is the job of BOTH parents to ensure that the kids have as much of both parents as necessary. Moving away should never be considered. Likewise, love your kids? If she moves away....do what it takes to be near your kids.

Now I'm sure we'll hear all sorts of reasons why this is impossible, impractical and "my situation is different." Really? People have a tendency to do what is important to them to do.

Not only did you imply that government-funded education programs are a conspiracy to "destroy the traditional family," now you're saying that a dad MUST be there in order for kids to succeed. I will have to disagree. I have a few friends that are quite happy their dads weren't around growing up. And what about the couple thousand fatherless children these two great wars have created?

 

[HoughMade]

Not only did you imply that government-funded education programs are a conspiracy to "destroy the traditional family," now you're saying that a dad MUST be there in order for kids to succeed. I will have to disagree. I have a few friends that are quite happy their dads weren't around growing up. And what about the couple thousand fatherless children these two great wars have created?

Conspiracy? I suppose in the broadest sense, but not the "Tri-Lateral Commision, FEMA Death Camps" kind. More like the: "I think the best way to raise kids is to let the government do it kind." Heart in the right place, head elsewhere.

Are there fatherless children success stories? Absolutely. Are there horrible fathers? No question. Never said there was not. Do a few anecdotes change the fact that the most positive environment for most kids is 2 parents who care about their kids and would do whatever it takes to parent them well? Don't even know why someone would fight that....unless they are trying to defend choices they or someone close has made.

I don't quite know what the geo-politics of the 2 world wars has to do with anything, but whatever.

 

[rambone]

If you don't eat your GMO-fed, hormone-injected meat you can't have any processed, artificially-sweetened pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat? Stand still, laddie!!

 

[jake blue]

This all started as soon as Michelle Obama got on the healthy kids kick because the only way for her to ensure your kids are getting healthy food choices is for her to control what they eat and not you. Never mind that paying for school lunches is not as cost-effective for families as 'brown-bagging' it because that's not her problem unless of course she's going to take a page from her husband's playbook and offer school lunch subsidies for qualified families.

 

[mrjarrell]

I think I'm going to have to agree with Principal Skinr. Official documents come on letterhead and this one looks to be just another rage inciter, not a genuine document from an actual school. While I've seen and heard of many outrages from the schools, this one just doesn't ring the truth-o-meter for me.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Tax-payer funded, supported or subsidized daycare (or preschool, if you prefer euphemisms) is nothing more than redistribution of wealth to make the breakdown of the traditional family more economically feasible.

Which came first, single parent households or subsidized day care? I think single parent homes are a lot more complex, and have many more roots in our modern culture, than a simple "the gov't subsidized it". Of course, I came from a zero parent household well before preschool was a thing, so what do I know.