Your School's Lunches

The kids do not go hungry.

The schools that have banned home lunches are forcing students to pay $2.25 a day to purchase the school lunch. They are allowed to run up a tab but they must pay their debt to the school in order to play sports, attend field trips, pick up report cards, etc.

The school I student taught at was 50% reduced lunch- so 50% either didn't have to pay or paid a reduced fee (.40) while 50% had to pay $2.25 to eat school lunch. They did not have a meatless option and the food is not made fresh but rather delivered once a week by a company (I forget which one) and then re-cooked on the day it will be served.

This movement is not a district decision but rather than individual school movement and the school I student taught at discussed it and decided that they will not be implementing this. The CPS district does have some funny policies in it about lunches though. We can't have any type of sale or celebration that reduces the amount of money that the cafeteria takes in. We went to great lengths in order to get around that. It's all a money game.

 

Little Village Academy has been doing this for 6 years. I don't know why it's suddenly news.

 

What immediately stands out to me is that there are many days where every single choice includes cheese. I do NOT eat cheese. I did not as a child. It isn't an allergy so I wouldn't have a medical reason-I just HATE cheese. Poor me if I were a student here. Which brings me back to my life-long question-why do people insist on covering everything-EVERYTHING-in CHEESE????

 

ChicagoTurtle-

Our school lunch menu looked nothing like yours. The one you posted has more options and healthier options. The school I student taught at had only one option.

 

I actually enjoy school lunches and hospital food.

Although I am an oddball.

My local school district has food by Chartwells.

The food is alright, a bit too... bland tasting.

I prefer Sodexo's hospital food to Chartwells school food

 

I see.

Interesting. Well, this is the 1st I'm hearing of this & I'm sure a 1st for many others too.

I've eaten hospital food very rarely. :mellow: It's just bland & flavorless since they don't want to put in too much salt & seasonings.

 

I have eaten our school lunches but only certain ones. I LOVE hamburger day as well as beef teriyaki dipper day. They JUST started serving brown rice and whole wheat pasta (thank goodness!) BUT when they cook it in oil and butter it kind of defeats the purpose.

I find it HILARIOUS when on our lunch menu it states how our lunches are nutritious at 600 calories, 20g of fat and 500mg of sodium. Someone needs to educate these people on nutrition.

 

I LOVEDDDDDDD the hospital food when I was pregnant going into labor. I was lucky they let me eat before and after labor. YUMMMMMMY pancakes!

 

Sorry, I haven't read the whole 5 pages.

But legally, how can a public school say that? Basically, they're saying it costs $2.25 a day to attend school.

I think they have a heck of a nerve, and suspect that it won't be long before the decision is challenged in court.

Aside from issues such as peanut allergies, it's no one else's business what I pack in my kids' lunches.

And, for what it's worth, my kids normally DO buy the school lunch. But that's a matter of choice-- MY choice as a parent, not the choice of the school administration.

 

Thank you for the menu. Of course, it's not only about meat. There are various personal/religious/health diets (I realize there are health exceptions) that are far more restrictive.

 

That's what I was thinking. I have a myriad of health issues that require me to watch what I eat. I went vegetarian for a long time, and in past years (for various reasons) I've fasted during Lent and during Ramadan. I kept kosher for a time in college. While those were personal lifestyle decisions for me, for many students they are a part of a culture and belief system. To deny them a kosher meal would take away their right to practice their religion. I definitely think that parents should be in control over what goes in their child's body.

I have many friends who only eat local food produced using organic and sustainable processes. They also only eat ethically obtained meat (no hormones, free-range, humanely slaughtered, etc.) and would have a big problem serving their kids food that was not obtained the same way.

Parents should have the choice! That said, my diet growing up was not spectacular (it wasn't horrible, but I ate chips, soda, etc.) and I turned out pretty well. My parents would not have liked being told what they had to feed me.

 

Like I said, most schools use this chartwells menu. Also this is new this year the "healthy" options, but they have been slowly testing the items for at least three years.

I think the 1 vs. 2 options might depend on a "cooking kitchen" or not. But I think now salad is supposed to be offered daily.

 

99 percent of the school is free/reduced

 

Lots of stuff is roaring in Chicago. I guess this is the story that got picked up.

Okay I was just stating the facts before.

Here is the common opinion among most of us around here.

Chartwells Thompson is a Chicago based company. There is probably some political connection to them. We have many mandates and kickbacks going on in our schools on the backs of children and teachers for political gains. Starting in the next month every school will use 15 minutes of the morning to serve breakfast in the classroom at the same time that everyone is crying we have the shortest school day and year in the country. Our district is constantly in crisis (because they pay millions of dollars for things that don't work- oh and the former board president that spent $800,000 of board money to get the Olympics- and then committed suicide when the story broke).

 

We had the same thing in AZ but the reason had to do with the federal government's lunch program.

 

I would be outraged and like someone else said, if at all within my power, I would be bringing a lunch every day and signing my kids out to eat it.

We eat mostly organic food and lots of fruits and vegetables. School lunches do not meet my food criteria and chocolate milk is not something I serve on a daily basis! My kids will be eating a bag lunch that I pack.

 

Wow... I just looked at the menu. Yeah, if I were forced to eat there, I would starve. It's funny how they put the word meatless next to items such as fish taco and tuna salad. Do they not understand what the term meat means? And, what about students who are lactose intolerant too? There just doesn't seem to be enough options. Not fair, in my opinion.

 

It is amazing how many freedoms people are willing to give away when they have no money. Isn't that the best way to control people? Make them dependent and used to it. After that you can justify just about anything as "helping" them.

 

Oh, Morning Max! I think CPS makes a profit on those breakfasts. I was told they get over-subsidized for them and then keep the difference. Not surprised. We already only go from 8:30-2:15. Let's be real, we will lose 8:30-9:15 on entry, breakfast, morning work, meeting, and bathroom run. We have lunch at 10:45. When do I get to actually teach?! I'd rather they just stick from 8:00-8:30 breakfast in the cafeteria like they did before.

 

Our accountant told us that if the school gave us a "break" on our lunches, that amount would have to be reported as taxable income to the IRS.

 

Yeah in certain wards the food sucks.

I like the food they serve to patients when they are in the neurology wards.

so good compared to the cardiac ward.

the only bad thing about hospital breakfast is getting scrambled eggs. Hospital eggs taste weird.

 

We have an organic farm at our school. We are not allowed to serve what we grow as a "meal" because we have to provide, in advance, a nutritional information list which has to include a standard serving size. Isn't that nuts? We regularly grow, tend, harvest, cook and serve from our garden, but as part of our science class, not as a "meal."

 

I don't have an automatic problem with the concept of kids not being allowed to bring food from home, as long as a few things were in place:

1. Any child with a medical need for altered diet could bring food, or would be accommodated by the kitchen.

2. The food at the school passed some sort of approval from a third party organization with a reputation of understanding healthy.

3. Parents could opt out, but be required to provide a reason, and still have certain restrictions.

4. The food were provided for free at the school, regardless of who qualified.

I don't see protecting a parent's right to give their child Doritos as important, but I can see many legitimate reasons why parents would want to pack their child's lunch, from medical to personal choices about diet (e.g., being a vegetarian, religion).

As is typical in education, we take a potentially good idea too far by not considering nuances and practical implementation, and kill it. After all, here are a couple of things I've experienced or have heard:

1. Obesity is a problem
2. Diet affects learning, attention, behavior, etc.
3. Some parents pack healthy lunches, but in many lower income schools they don't - bagged lunches are filled with crap (probably literally).
4. The push for healthy food in schools is great, with some great initiatives taking place. (Anyone watch that eating healthy show by Jamie whats-his-name?)

Sounds like the school has set themselves up for the baby to go with the bath water, though.

 

Bit of a side topic, but I live in a district that runs its lunches very similarly to the way czacza's district does -- imported from various area restaurants (including pizza and sushi days). It's kind of expensive, and our kids just have "school" lunches a couple of days a week.

My oldest son says quite a few students bring lunches -- and essentially throw anything of any nutritional value away and just eat chips, juice, and candy. He says one student whose mother packs lunch every day calls it "dog food" and throws the entire lunch away and then begs for chips and junk from other students.

I'm doubt there's any choice as a parent so inviolate that there isn't a school district somewhere that would readily take it away.

 

Good timing of this thread:

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution is back


http://www.hulu.com/watch/231711/jamie-olivers-food-revolution-maybe-la-was-a-big-mistake

 

It seems to me that it's a case of "Do as I say, not as I do."

How many teachers can't be weaned off their coffee for long enough to teach a lesson? Or are seriously overweight? Or stink of cigarette smoke?

Yet these people are going to tell my daughter she can't bring a PB&J to school in the name of making healthy choices?

Sorry, I think the schools have seriously overstepped their bounds.

If my daughter's lunch will cause another child harm, I'll happily skip the PB&J and replace it with bolgona.

But with all the problems in education today, THIS is the problem that's being tackled??? Not the functionally illiterate, not the number of kids who can't do basic math or write a grammatical sentence, but whether or not I'm allowed to send in lunch for my own child???

And once they've forced my kids to buy the school lunch, are they going to sit there as they chew each bite, to ensure that my $2.25 worth of healthy food isn't spit out or simply thrown out? Or is it a matter of BUYING the lunch as opposed to EATING it?? And who says that the lunch they provide will be healthier (or tastier) than the mozzerella and tomato salad Kira adores?

Sorry, folks, I'm not convinced that it's any of the school's business. As long as it's a juice box and not a Budweiser, they should stick to education and leave the parenting to me.

 

Again at the school in question 99.9% of the school qualifies for free/reduced lunch. Which means nobody is paying for lunch.

Also according to an above poster this has been happening at this school for six years. I don't remember what their source was on that.

We have far bigger fish to fry in Chicago at the moment. Not sure why this is the story that made national news.

 

School Information:

http://www.cps.edu/Schools/Pages/school.aspx?unit=2590

 

Our school received a grant and we have a salad bar once a week from Whole Foods, it is a great idea!

 

Bigger Fish to Fry?

To be quite honest, I think food and health/wellness is the biggest fish to fry of them all! If these kids are coming in with junky lunches (or no lunches) because of their SES, then making sure that they all have a nutritious meal is FAR more important than teaching them math or reading. If they haven't eaten properly, they won't be able to focus, and in addition, if they are not educated on proper nutrition, teaching them other things won't be useful for them if they're in an early grave. This is a reason I have a problem with schools cutting health/PE programs. I think health and wellness should be the first goal.

Now, is this the right way to do it? I don't know, but I suspect the motivation behind it has to do with this.

 

I totally agree! I personally never drank coffee & never will. I'm glad I don't depend on it to get my "motor running" as w/ many people. I'm glad I don't smoke or drink either.

It's like how nurses are in the healthcare industry, yet many of them smoke & have an unhealthy lifestyle. How hypocritical!

 

That is true for Little Village Academy but that is not necessarily true for the other CPS schools that are initiating this as well.

 

I googled WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF EDUCATION? and I found this article it is quite interesting. it is a little of a thread highjack but it points out how the role of education has changed in the up bringing of children.

in the past the "gears" of up bringing (learning) were a ratio 2:2:1 (Parents: Church: School), Now it is becoming 1: i :∞ (Parents: Church: School)*
Read the comments at the end of the article too.

*i imaginary number the square root of -1
I am sure if you don't understand imaginary numbers Alice can explain it

 

Interesting link Irishdave - I also think that the role of schools should be beyond core academics. If educators are to not get involved in things that are traditionally in the realm of parents, we'll leave out too many things that kids need from the good folks in schools.

 

Well I do not agree with the shift mainly because of the decreased role of parents I believe that the teacher should reenforce the teachings of the home, kind of like "the chicken or the egg" problem. I will not touch the role of faith as for the debate on religion is being carried on in other threads

 

If I were king
My plan of learning would be

with the home at the foundation of all learning with all other learning in balance with each other.
For some reason food has become a battleground of what the parents' role and what is the school's role in education of our children

 

I disagree.

It is not the schools job to teach kids what to think, but how to think.

 

Yeah, I don't think the shift is good, but I guess my point is that it happened, so as educators we're left to either do nothing or do what we can to help pick up the slack.

 

Could you explain more?

 

EdEd, could you explain to me what the "good folks" in school believe and why their view of how to live life is the right way.

Don't get me wrong, there are parents dropping the ball, but why should a school determine what is the right way to believe? Should some liberal leaning socialist be able to tell a kid to be living their life right they must _______. fill in the blank Should some conservative righty be able to do the same?

Morality, politics, religion, merge in many social behaviors.

So exactly what parenting topics do you feel important to teach kids. Schools have already taken over, se x, nutrition, environmental concerns, etc