Entitled EOTP parents

[Anonymous]

I have no problem with parents working to make breakfasts/lunches in school healthier. The problem is the way most of them go about it. Calling sugar poison inevitably alienates a lot of parents (high and low SES parents alike) who are more laid back about such things and allow their kids to have yogurt once in a while.

I know that I personally would respond much more positively to these movements if the leaders weren't so condescending. Personally I think there are more important things for the school to focus on and that's where I spend my time, but I'm supportive of others who want to focus on healthy eating. Just don't make me feel like I'm a neglectful parent because banning yogurt is not my #1 priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just like Dr. Oz is renowned?

Actually no. There are many other doctors who also think sugar is essentially toxic for us. 60 minutes also did a piece on this doctor and sugar. If you watch his talks it is quite compelling. Even the American Association has come out with recommendations on drastically limiting sugar in our diets since not only does too much sugar cause obesity, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cancer, and so on and so forth but too much sugar is also causes heart disease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm more of a Stoneyfield or Chobani girl myself, but has anyone looked at the nutrition information for Yoplait's "Trix" Yogurt? It's not like we're talking about Cheetos, people.

http://www.yoplait.com/products/yoplaittrixyogurt

Seriously, this is less sugar than that box of organic juice you give your kids.

Which is probably why Chartwell uses it since it falls under thier guidelines.

19:57 suggests that Yoplait has multiple labels and different versions of the same product. Which one is actually in the lunches? "Silly" food industry! Which ones are distributed to which grocery store in which neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It may look trivial to complain about yogurt/McD/TV, given all the issues Title 1 schools have to address; it clearly rubs people the wrong way. But maybe those are the obvious things "gentrifiers" feel comfortable addressing. They hardly can march in there and start demanding whole-scale curriculum change - imagine the reaction to that. Let it go - a donut here and there isn't so bad, but a regular diet of junk food isn't so good - if there is a way to use funds to promote healthier eating habits, why not? Or steer the energies towards things like art supplies, like one poster suggested. Sounds to me like, if parents want to help, want to make an investment in the future of a school, why is it so important to fight it? Pick the things that need fixing and go for it. Together. That's the goal, right?

The thing is, it doesn't matter what the specific change is, or however merited the request may be -- it's the "marching in" that rubs people the wrong way.

If you don't want to come across as entitled, muster some humility and ask how you can help, rather than assuming you know what needs to be changed.

Oh please. I am so tire of everyone trying to warn high SES parents about how to behave etc. so as not to offend the other parents. Lets have a reality check. At my title 1 school, most of the parents are immigrants from countries with completely dysfunctional civic institutions. Its not just low income that keeps them from speaking up. They don't have a culture of participating or "questioning authority" etc. Parents advocating and setting high expectations of school admins is not entitlement its part of a social contract in a community. I expect the teachers to be good, and the admins responsive. the rising tide lifts all boats in my opinion. I will also advocate for my kid and that in turn helps the other kids. I don't care if you are offended. Get over it.

Jesus, are you really that clueless? Don't you remember the Latino janitors marching a few years ago? They are the backbone of any remaining labor movement in this country.

So go ahead with your individualistic "advocacy" for your snowflake. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you are doing anything for the rest of the kids, and don't complain when you are called entitled and privileged.

How do you figure? if the "entitled parents" advocate for music classes, then ALL the kids benefit? Or for healthier lunches and no TV in aftercare then ALL the kids benefits. You have sited a good exampled but its not universal by any stretch. Most immigrants are working multiple jobs and are never going to be able to attend school meetings, or advocate for their kids. So yes, that does fall on the entitled parents you seem to really resent. Again, get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you think the Trix yogurt is freakout worthy, consider this: some of the children in your school won't get any dinner tonight. They won't get any breakfast tomorrow either, either. They may not have clean clothes, a warm bed of their own, or any books for anyone to read to them at night. They may not have a winter coat. They may have a parent (or two) who is missing from the home. They may be living with someone who suffers from addiction. They may be abused.

You need to step back and realize that if you are in a Title 1 school, you are in that school with families who are dealing with big life issues. The teachers know it. The principal knows it. And here you come, complaining about the goddamn yogurt. Pack your kid's lunch. And, since you clearly have time on your hands, find a way to make a real, meaningful difference in these kids' lives. Because getting them some Stoneyfield isn't going to change the trajectory of anyone's life.

How many times can I plus this?

We were at a title 1 school and I forgot what little thing I was zeroed in on regarding my child, something about the uniformed. If she could wear some kind of shoe...whatever. When the principal reminded me that some parents have one uniform shirt that they take home each day, wash and have the kids rewear (or just wear dirty all week).

This "trix" argument is so absurd it shows that some parents really have no idea about the lives of the children that attend their schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It may look trivial to complain about yogurt/McD/TV, given all the issues Title 1 schools have to address; it clearly rubs people the wrong way. But maybe those are the obvious things "gentrifiers" feel comfortable addressing. They hardly can march in there and start demanding whole-scale curriculum change - imagine the reaction to that. Let it go - a donut here and there isn't so bad, but a regular diet of junk food isn't so good - if there is a way to use funds to promote healthier eating habits, why not? Or steer the energies towards things like art supplies, like one poster suggested. Sounds to me like, if parents want to help, want to make an investment in the future of a school, why is it so important to fight it? Pick the things that need fixing and go for it. Together. That's the goal, right?

The thing is, it doesn't matter what the specific change is, or however merited the request may be -- it's the "marching in" that rubs people the wrong way.

If you don't want to come across as entitled, muster some humility and ask how you can help, rather than assuming you know what needs to be changed.

Oh please. I am so tire of everyone trying to warn high SES parents about how to behave etc. so as not to offend the other parents. Lets have a reality check. At my title 1 school, most of the parents are immigrants from countries with completely dysfunctional civic institutions. Its not just low income that keeps them from speaking up. They don't have a culture of participating or "questioning authority" etc. Parents advocating and setting high expectations of school admins is not entitlement its part of a social contract in a community. I expect the teachers to be good, and the admins responsive. the rising tide lifts all boats in my opinion. I will also advocate for my kid and that in turn helps the other kids. I don't care if you are offended. Get over it.

Jesus, are you really that clueless? Don't you remember the Latino janitors marching a few years ago? They are the backbone of any remaining labor movement in this country.

So go ahead with your individualistic "advocacy" for your snowflake. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you are doing anything for the rest of the kids, and don't complain when you are called entitled and privileged.

How do you figure? if the "entitled parents" advocate for music classes, then ALL the kids benefit? Or for healthier lunches and no TV in aftercare then ALL the kids benefits. You have sited a good exampled but its not universal by any stretch. Most immigrants are working multiple jobs and are never going to be able to attend school meetings, or advocate for their kids. So yes, that does fall on the entitled parents you seem to really resent. Again, get over it.

Because, while you are fighting over trix vs. stoneyfield - the principal could actually be spending his time focusing on big picture things like, programming, wrap around services, but you march yourself up there yelling about these small, tiny, issues. The irony is, you will leave the school (as I did) before any of your BIG CHANGES in yogurt even matter.

I also love how entitled you sound in your posts, you really think your yogurt and screen demands are helping other kids. You are dripping with your limo-liberalism. It's gross.

[Anonymous]

This thread is hysterical. Parents acting entitled and then flipping out when people call them on it and then acting MORE entitled. Less entitled people being accused of poisoning their children with yogurt. A lot of xenophobic crap being slung at Latin America. Can you guys even hear yourselves?

[Anonymous]

The food quality issue is most important at Title 1 schools. A school is determined to be Title 1 if they have a significant number of students whose families can not afford to feed them. Thus the school takes on the responsibility for ensuring their nutrition. This is one of the most basic wrap around services that there is, and it isn't hard to do. Schools that provide nutritionally unsound choices are failing the students, both in terms of their nutrition and their nutritional education. These are fundamental responsibilities of Title 1 schools.

Many of the families who need these services are not prepared to stand up for their rights on this. They are, by definition, low income and the vast majority are out working hard to maintain shelter for their families. They have neither the time nor the incentive to stand up for these issues. Many are just happy that there children are not hungry. It is the responsibility of the rest of society to insist that they not just be fed, but be fed in a nutritional way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The food quality issue is most important at Title 1 schools. A school is determined to be Title 1 if they have a significant number of students whose families can not afford to feed them. Thus the school takes on the responsibility for ensuring their nutrition. This is one of the most basic wrap around services that there is, and it isn't hard to do. Schools that provide nutritionally unsound choices are failing the students, both in terms of their nutrition and their nutritional education. These are fundamental responsibilities of Title 1 schools.

Many of the families who need these services are not prepared to stand up for their rights on this. They are, by definition, low income and the vast majority are out working hard to maintain shelter for their families. They have neither the time nor the incentive to stand up for these issues. Many are just happy that there children are not hungry. It is the responsibility of the rest of society to insist that they not just be fed, but be fed in a nutritional way.

I agree that food quality at these schools is important--I'm at a Title 1 school where everyone gets free meals (regardless of income), and that is breakfast, lunch, snacks, and supper for those who are in the free aftercare. But I don't blame the school for the Trix yogurt or the juice that replaces fresh fruit in some of the meal--that's squarely on central office, which lets Chartwells get away with it. Chartwells provides food for almost all the schools in DC, and I doubt that the West of the Park schools are getting something better than we are at my very high-poverty DCPS.

[Anonymous]

It's funny, coming from someone who as apparently been labeled "entitled," the only hysterical ones here look to be the ones doing the labeling.

Like, telling a principal to clean up his/her food policy and television time is going to take any significant effort, whatsoever to implement (hint: it wouldn't); and implying that low-income kids are somehow going to be hurt or burdened by the in-school changes. This is a big problem for Title 1 schools in attracting forces for positive change: defenders of the status quo are no-nothing and do-nothing, equipped only with grievances disguised as illogical arguments against "the other." The self-perpetuating victimization coming from these cats is so absurd and sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The food quality issue is most important at Title 1 schools. A school is determined to be Title 1 if they have a significant number of students whose families can not afford to feed them. Thus the school takes on the responsibility for ensuring their nutrition. This is one of the most basic wrap around services that there is, and it isn't hard to do. Schools that provide nutritionally unsound choices are failing the students, both in terms of their nutrition and their nutritional education. These are fundamental responsibilities of Title 1 schools.

Many of the families who need these services are not prepared to stand up for their rights on this. They are, by definition, low income and the vast majority are out working hard to maintain shelter for their families. They have neither the time nor the incentive to stand up for these issues. Many are just happy that there children are not hungry. It is the responsibility of the rest of society to insist that they not just be fed, but be fed in a nutritional way.

I agree that food quality at these schools is important--I'm at a Title 1 school where everyone gets free meals (regardless of income), and that is breakfast, lunch, snacks, and supper for those who are in the free aftercare. But I don't blame the school for the Trix yogurt or the juice that replaces fresh fruit in some of the meal--that's squarely on central office, which lets Chartwells get away with it. Chartwells provides food for almost all the schools in DC, and I doubt that the West of the Park schools are getting something better than we are at my very high-poverty DCPS.

Not PP. I'd agree with that, but would also suspect that WOTP, there are fewer kids overall eating the Chartwells food than at our schools EOTP.

Also, I think that food quality is important. I do not necessarily agree that it is the MOST important thing to focus on at a Title 1 school. If the yogurt crusader would like to bang her head against Chartwells and Central Office, I am all for that, but if you guys are seriously taking up the time of a principal at a school with a lot of other issues like this is the single most important issue, I really do not know how to respond to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The food quality issue is most important at Title 1 schools. A school is determined to be Title 1 if they have a significant number of students whose families can not afford to feed them. Thus the school takes on the responsibility for ensuring their nutrition. This is one of the most basic wrap around services that there is, and it isn't hard to do. Schools that provide nutritionally unsound choices are failing the students, both in terms of their nutrition and their nutritional education. These are fundamental responsibilities of Title 1 schools.

Many of the families who need these services are not prepared to stand up for their rights on this. They are, by definition, low income and the vast majority are out working hard to maintain shelter for their families. They have neither the time nor the incentive to stand up for these issues. Many are just happy that there children are not hungry. It is the responsibility of the rest of society to insist that they not just be fed, but be fed in a nutritional way.

I agree that food quality at these schools is important--I'm at a Title 1 school where everyone gets free meals (regardless of income), and that is breakfast, lunch, snacks, and supper for those who are in the free aftercare. But I don't blame the school for the Trix yogurt or the juice that replaces fresh fruit in some of the meal--that's squarely on central office, which lets Chartwells get away with it. Chartwells provides food for almost all the schools in DC, and I doubt that the West of the Park schools are getting something better than we are at my very high-poverty DCPS.

Not PP. I'd agree with that, but would also suspect that WOTP, there are fewer kids overall eating the Chartwells food than at our schools EOTP.

Also, I think that food quality is important. I do not necessarily agree that it is the MOST important thing to focus on at a Title 1 school. If the yogurt crusader would like to bang her head against Chartwells and Central Office, I am all for that, but if you guys are seriously taking up the time of a principal at a school with a lot of other issues like this is the single most important issue, I really do not know how to respond to that.

Oh, I fully agree with you. I was just pointing out that it's not a school that should be blamed for the food--that needs to be taken further up to central office. I do think that DCPS-run aftercare should not allow screen time regularly; that seems like it could easily be replaced with something more meaningful (even if it is more outdoor time/gym time, which I think the kids in our DCPS-run aftercare could use more of).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The food quality issue is most important at Title 1 schools. A school is determined to be Title 1 if they have a significant number of students whose families can not afford to feed them. Thus the school takes on the responsibility for ensuring their nutrition. This is one of the most basic wrap around services that there is, and it isn't hard to do. Schools that provide nutritionally unsound choices are failing the students, both in terms of their nutrition and their nutritional education. These are fundamental responsibilities of Title 1 schools.

Many of the families who need these services are not prepared to stand up for their rights on this. They are, by definition, low income and the vast majority are out working hard to maintain shelter for their families. They have neither the time nor the incentive to stand up for these issues. Many are just happy that there children are not hungry. It is the responsibility of the rest of society to insist that they not just be fed, but be fed in a nutritional way.

I agree that food quality at these schools is important--I'm at a Title 1 school where everyone gets free meals (regardless of income), and that is breakfast, lunch, snacks, and supper for those who are in the free aftercare. But I don't blame the school for the Trix yogurt or the juice that replaces fresh fruit in some of the meal--that's squarely on central office, which lets Chartwells get away with it. Chartwells provides food for almost all the schools in DC, and I doubt that the West of the Park schools are getting something better than we are at my very high-poverty DCPS.

Not PP. I'd agree with that, but would also suspect that WOTP, there are fewer kids overall eating the Chartwells food than at our schools EOTP.

Also, I think that food quality is important. I do not necessarily agree that it is the MOST important thing to focus on at a Title 1 school. If the yogurt crusader would like to bang her head against Chartwells and Central Office, I am all for that, but if you guys are seriously taking up the time of a principal at a school with a lot of other issues like this is the single most important issue, I really do not know how to respond to that.

Oh, I fully agree with you. I was just pointing out that it's not a school that should be blamed for the food--that needs to be taken further up to central office. I do think that DCPS-run aftercare should not allow screen time regularly; that seems like it could easily be replaced with something more meaningful (even if it is more outdoor time/gym time, which I think the kids in our DCPS-run aftercare could use more of).

I completely agree with you. I actually think that the central office should have consistent policies on all of these issues. But, I don't think that it is unreasonable that a parent tries to address them with the principal, who in an ideal world would point the parent to the correct decision-maker in the central office. Obviously that isn't how it works, and I have enough experience with the central office to be suspect of them ever making changes/decisions/policies on these important issues. Thus, we attend a charter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think the Trix yogurt is freakout worthy, consider this: some of the children in your school won't get any dinner tonight. They won't get any breakfast tomorrow either, either. They may not have clean clothes, a warm bed of their own, or any books for anyone to read to them at night. They may not have a winter coat. They may have a parent (or two) who is missing from the home. They may be living with someone who suffers from addiction. They may be abused.

You need to step back and realize that if you are in a Title 1 school, you are in that school with families who are dealing with big life issues. The teachers know it. The principal knows it. And here you come, complaining about the goddamn yogurt. Pack your kid's lunch. And, since you clearly have time on your hands, find a way to make a real, meaningful difference in these kids' lives. Because getting them some Stoneyfield isn't going to change the trajectory of anyone's life.

How many times can I plus this?

We were at a title 1 school and I forgot what little thing I was zeroed in on regarding my child, something about the uniformed. If she could wear some kind of shoe...whatever. When the principal reminded me that some parents have one uniform shirt that they take home each day, wash and have the kids rewear (or just wear dirty all week).

This "trix" argument is so absurd it shows that some parents really have no idea about the lives of the children that attend their schools.

Will guilting those parents again and again, till they get tired of it and move to the suburbs, really help? There lots of people in suburban schools rated 9 or 10 who don't want THEIR snowflakes coming within five miles of the kids you describe, and who don't want a cent of their tax money going to help them.

I guess Mercedes conservativism (cadillacs haven't been good enough in a while, right?) is so much better than limoliberalism.

[Anonymous]

@13:54 - this language is meaningless. What are you really trying to say?