The Chicago Tribune reports on a school in one of that city's districts where the principal has banned lunches from home unless a student has a medical exemption or a food allergy.
That's right. Kids are forced to eat whatever the school cafeteria doles out, whether they like it or not.
The goal is to save children from their parents' poor choices or, in some cases, from themselves.
Now, as a mom of four I'm all for saving kids from themselves. Given the choice between a wholegrain muffin and a sugary doughnut, I guarantee my children would make a run for the doughnut.
I would, too.
But this story is really about the school (the state, the government) stepping in to once again relieve parents of their parental responsibilities.
The plan, according to the news story, is backfiring.
Quote: "At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad."
At $2.25 a meal, if the child isn't receiving free breakfast and lunch, parents' hard-earned money is being thrown away. And those free breakfasts and lunches that are hitting the garbage? Yeah, that's taxpayer money being thrown away.
Never mind that the food is apparently so awful that little kids would rather go hungry during the school day than eat. Lots of learning takes place when the mind and body are hungry, right?
Please don't misunderstand me. I am NOT saying that children perform optimally when they're hyped up on soft drinks and chips. I am NOT saying public schools -- which are already doing the bulk of parenting since they have custody of students for 8 hours a day -- shouldn't encourage healthful eating.
What I am saying is that if public schools can now dictate the kinds of food parents send to school or the kinds of food students must eat, what's next? They already dictate what students wear (and given much of the obnoxious fashion that's sold to children I'm actually okay with that), they dictate what students will learn, they dictate healthcare for kids in the form of mandated vaccinations, and they dictate to an appalling degree what sort of worldview children will develop before they leave school.
Really, if food is the final frontier what's left for parents to do?
The government schools are now doing it all!
It's no coincidence that the National Education Association is in bed snug and tight with those whose political leanings would have the government do everything for us from cradle to grave.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The best protector of children is rarely the government and then only in certain, select situations. Our cultures laments the inability of parents to parent even as it takes away virtually every opportunity for them to do so!
As long as parents let the government do our job for us, we should expect the government to make choices for our children that we don't like. We cannot have it both ways. Either raise our own and make educated decisions about their academics, health, and moral training, or else shut up and let the state do what it will.
Did I mention that, ultimately, we cannot have it both ways?
No comments:
Post a Comment