So let's put aside the Trix yogurt/sugar debate for a moment.

Title 1 schools have some gentrifiers who want to help. What would you have them do? They have already decided the Title 1 school is a good place for their child to go - is it possible we could all take a moment and think about that? It wasn't all that long ago that these parents were choosing suburbs over moving to areas in the City that have "up and coming" Title 1 schools. Clearly some of these new parents have irritated their fellow parents with their approaches; clearly they ought to be more sensitive to their surroundings. But what does that mean exactly? Show up, ideally add to the "up and coming" quotient, but otherwise keep your mouth shut? Doesn't sound particularly welcoming. If you want these new parents be part of the community, give them some time to figure it out. Any pre-K parent in any school in DCPS will burn out by 1st grade if they battle Trix-type issues. Or, better yet, reach out, say hello, and fill them in (if you really think they are that clueless) in a gracious way about what you think the priorities should be.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. We all know that food high in sugar results in hyper behavior that's hard to control. Why give it to kids if all it does is create distractions in the classroom 1/2 hour later? More importantly, school meals are the only meals many of these kids get. Shouldn't one of the highest priorities be making sure these kids get food that will actually help them to thrive, rather than just get them by until they get diabetes?

Interestingly, sugar isn't really a cause of hyperactivity. https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/sugar-doesn%E2%80%99t-make-kids-hyper-and-other-parenting-myths Parents are likely to perceive their kids as being hyper if they believe that they just ate sugar, though. So don't ask your kid about the breakfast yogurt and just choose to believe they had something plain and organic.

Oh, yes it is:

http://news.yale.edu/2015/02/09/energy-drinks-significantly-increase-hyperactivity-schoolchildren

And, beyond hyperactivity, added sugar to food just isn't healthy.

See also the sugar addiction study done at Princeton, http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/88/56G31/index.xml?section=topstories, and read "Little Sugar Addicts." It is the withdrawal symptoms that are the bigger concern and none of the hyperactivity studies looked into that - -they were all about the immediate reaction, not the addiction and withdrawal, which can cause oppositional defiant behavior and ADHD-like behavior.

That Princeton study is really interesting. Clearly, we have so much more to learn about the harm caused by processed sugar in human bodies. But for now, it should be enough to know that we get enough natural sugar in our diets for purposes of good health, and that adding even more sugar does no one any good, especially kids.

Whoever started this thread, are you offering to volunteer and do constructive things??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mega monster entitled aspiring dcps parent here. My head would effing aesplode if dcps fed my child McDonalds.

+1 I absolutely have to agree. That would be totally unacceptable.

Way to overreact. The charge is offering a child Yoplait's Trix yogurt. Oh, the abuse.

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.

+1. We all know that food high in sugar results in hyper behavior that's hard to control. Why give it to kids if all it does is create distractions in the classroom 1/2 hour later? More importantly, school meals are the only meals many of these kids get. Shouldn't one of the highest priorities be making sure these kids get food that will actually help them to thrive, rather than just get them by until they get diabetes?

Interestingly, sugar isn't really a cause of hyperactivity. https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/sugar-doesn%E2%80%99t-make-kids-hyper-and-other-parenting-myths Parents are likely to perceive their kids as being hyper if they believe that they just ate sugar, though. So don't ask your kid about the breakfast yogurt and just choose to believe they had something plain and organic.

Oh, yes it is:

http://news.yale.edu/2015/02/09/energy-drinks-significantly-increase-hyperactivity-schoolchildren

And, beyond hyperactivity, added sugar to food just isn't healthy.

Isn't the concern re: energy drinks moreso the massive quantities of caffeine they contain than the sugar? If so, any energy drink research isn't that relevant here if the argument here is about sugar in schools.

What happened to everything in moderation?

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.

+1. We all know that food high in sugar results in hyper behavior that's hard to control. Why give it to kids if all it does is create distractions in the classroom 1/2 hour later? More importantly, school meals are the only meals many of these kids get. Shouldn't one of the highest priorities be making sure these kids get food that will actually help them to thrive, rather than just get them by until they get diabetes?

Interestingly, sugar isn't really a cause of hyperactivity. https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/sugar-doesn%E2%80%99t-make-kids-hyper-and-other-parenting-myths Parents are likely to perceive their kids as being hyper if they believe that they just ate sugar, though. So don't ask your kid about the breakfast yogurt and just choose to believe they had something plain and organic.

Oh, yes it is:

http://news.yale.edu/2015/02/09/energy-drinks-significantly-increase-hyperactivity-schoolchildren

And, beyond hyperactivity, added sugar to food just isn't healthy.

See also the sugar addiction study done at Princeton, http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S22/88/56G31/index.xml?section=topstories, and read "Little Sugar Addicts." It is the withdrawal symptoms that are the bigger concern and none of the hyperactivity studies looked into that - -they were all about the immediate reaction, not the addiction and withdrawal, which can cause oppositional defiant behavior and ADHD-like behavior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That browbeating someone with "OMG the kids here have it so much worse than YOUR first world problems, you should just shut up" (which is not precisely what was said above, but I think amounts to the same thing) is basically going to drive many (not all, but many) new families away. In the suburbs if they don't want sugary yogurt for their kids, or TV, there is at least a chance they will taken seriously - they may not win, but they won't be guilted into shutting up. There are already enough factors pulling families to the suburbs, this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back for some.

And I find the narrative of misguided, elitist, uncaring, liberal gentrifiers profoundly unhelpful, and unfair to people who are so different, in a good way, from the mass of upper SES parents.

I know there have been some people browbeating about it, but I think the majority of posters are really just suggesting a little humility and to keep things in perspective. Principals, teachers, students and parents at high poverty schools have a lot on their plates. We have a really great principal who is very supportive of things like "no screen time" and "healthy food" but she has a huge job in front of her. It's nice to say that everything deserves some attention, but if I have to choose between my principal focusing on getting Chartwells to remove Trix yogurt from the menu and focusing on the many other issues the school faces (discipline system that needs to be consistently enforced, open houses staffed and outreach done, staffing issues in the school addressed, our playground equipment fixed so that kids can go down the slide safely, etc.), I'm going to focus on the bigger issues that are actually within the principal's control. Perspective, and some recognition that the thing you think is the biggest deal in the world is probably one of a huge list of things they need to address.

I don't know anyone at my IB title one school who is fighting about trix yogurt etc. This is just a distraction (although I agree that I don't want junk food in school) the "entitled" parents want more music, gym etc for preschoolers, more fundraising, fighting down at city council for money for renovations etc...thats what the entitled parents are fighting for. So OP, you sound pissy cause maybe you were running the show at your underpeforming school, hell maybe you are the principal and now you are put on notice. Get over it or get a new job. You dont' have to thank these parents for doing YOUR job and making the school fucntion better for everyone but at a minimum get the eff out of the way.

I'm not the OP, but a parent at our Title 1 DCPS is fighting over Trix yogurt.

Why can't that parent just tell their kid not to eat the trix yogurt?

They want to change the system, not just have a way around it.

Yes, because the trix yogurt ban will fix everythings

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

That browbeating someone with "OMG the kids here have it so much worse than YOUR first world problems, you should just shut up" (which is not precisely what was said above, but I think amounts to the same thing) is basically going to drive many (not all, but many) new families away. In the suburbs if they don't want sugary yogurt for their kids, or TV, there is at least a chance they will taken seriously - they may not win, but they won't be guilted into shutting up. There are already enough factors pulling families to the suburbs, this could be the straw that breaks the camel's back for some.

And I find the narrative of misguided, elitist, uncaring, liberal gentrifiers profoundly unhelpful, and unfair to people who are so different, in a good way, from the mass of upper SES parents.

I know there have been some people browbeating about it, but I think the majority of posters are really just suggesting a little humility and to keep things in perspective. Principals, teachers, students and parents at high poverty schools have a lot on their plates. We have a really great principal who is very supportive of things like "no screen time" and "healthy food" but she has a huge job in front of her. It's nice to say that everything deserves some attention, but if I have to choose between my principal focusing on getting Chartwells to remove Trix yogurt from the menu and focusing on the many other issues the school faces (discipline system that needs to be consistently enforced, open houses staffed and outreach done, staffing issues in the school addressed, our playground equipment fixed so that kids can go down the slide safely, etc.), I'm going to focus on the bigger issues that are actually within the principal's control. Perspective, and some recognition that the thing you think is the biggest deal in the world is probably one of a huge list of things they need to address.

I don't know anyone at my IB title one school who is fighting about trix yogurt etc. This is just a distraction (although I agree that I don't want junk food in school) the "entitled" parents want more music, gym etc for preschoolers, more fundraising, fighting down at city council for money for renovations etc...thats what the entitled parents are fighting for. So OP, you sound pissy cause maybe you were running the show at your underpeforming school, hell maybe you are the principal and now you are put on notice. Get over it or get a new job. You dont' have to thank these parents for doing YOUR job and making the school fucntion better for everyone but at a minimum get the eff out of the way.

I'm not the OP, but a parent at our Title 1 DCPS is fighting over Trix yogurt.

Why can't that parent just tell their kid not to eat the trix yogurt?

They want to change the system, not just have a way around it.

Anonymous wrote:Is OP posting to the wrong blog? DCUM is not famously full of Title 1 parents complaining about gentrifiers.
Second: OP please talk about what specifically the parents are doing that is annoying. Because I'm sure it is true and its sure to be funny.
We are type B parents who moved from a more Title 1 EOTP school to a more economically advantaged school WOTP and I have noticed a difference but mostly the involvement manifests in a good way. Better options for aftercare enrichment, and no one is holding a gun to our head to force us to buy tickets to the fundraiser...the kind of fundraiser our original school never even tried to put together. It's like that earlier thread, you go from "what's a room parent?" to "OMG did you see the email the room parent sent, I think he/she is coming unraveled."
We get so many emails from our new school/teachers/PTA/Funding Committee that we can't keep up.

The OP gave specifics, but it got buried by the anti-Trix mafia.

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.

+1. We all know that food high in sugar results in hyper behavior that's hard to control. Why give it to kids if all it does is create distractions in the classroom 1/2 hour later? More importantly, school meals are the only meals many of these kids get. Shouldn't one of the highest priorities be making sure these kids get food that will actually help them to thrive, rather than just get them by until they get diabetes?

Interestingly, sugar isn't really a cause of hyperactivity. https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/sugar-doesn%E2%80%99t-make-kids-hyper-and-other-parenting-myths Parents are likely to perceive their kids as being hyper if they believe that they just ate sugar, though. So don't ask your kid about the breakfast yogurt and just choose to believe they had something plain and organic.

Oh, yes it is:

http://news.yale.edu/2015/02/09/energy-drinks-significantly-increase-hyperactivity-schoolchildren

And, beyond hyperactivity, added sugar to food just isn't healthy.

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.

+1. We all know that food high in sugar results in hyper behavior that's hard to control. Why give it to kids if all it does is create distractions in the classroom 1/2 hour later? More importantly, school meals are the only meals many of these kids get. Shouldn't one of the highest priorities be making sure these kids get food that will actually help them to thrive, rather than just get them by until they get diabetes?

Interestingly, sugar isn't really a cause of hyperactivity. https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/sugar-doesn%E2%80%99t-make-kids-hyper-and-other-parenting-myths Parents are likely to perceive their kids as being hyper if they believe that they just ate sugar, though. So don't ask your kid about the breakfast yogurt and just choose to believe they had something plain and organic.

Anonymous wrote:I miss our old Title 1 school in many ways. The kids were great, the parents were more laid back, and the admin and PTA KNEW not to constantly ask the parents for more money. It was more egalitarian in many ways. There was a lot of support from the administration. The teachers ran the aftercare. If you drove a beater car, nobody would look at you sideways. But there are plenty of nice parents and kids at the new school as well. I appeciate what the upper SES parents can bring, even if I am not one of them.

Your PTO is not asking YOU for more money, they are asking every parent to contribute SOMEthing to the PTO, for the benefit of the entire community. At my WOTP school, barely half of the parents contribute to the PTO, but at least the PTO has enough funds to provide some extras (but not enough, certainly not Janney-level). Since you appreciate the extras you are getting at your new non-Title 1 school, I hope your family is contributing something to the PTO. On other boards, it's remarkable how many EOTP parents (perhaps not you) come up with a litany of lame -- entitled? - excuses for not contributing to their WOTP PTO.

I miss our old Title 1 school in many ways. The kids were great, the parents were more laid back, and the admin and PTA KNEW not to constantly ask the parents for more money. It was more egalitarian in many ways. There was a lot of support from the administration. The teachers ran the aftercare. If you drove a beater car, nobody would look at you sideways. But there are plenty of nice parents and kids at the new school as well. I appeciate what the upper SES parents can bring, even if I am not one of them.