Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we live in the USA where everyone is on their own. No one cares for anyone. Just indivisible families.

What are you talking about? Millions of US school children receive free lunch (and breakfast...and sometimes even dinner!) Definitely not "on their own."

That free breakfast & lunch is garbage food.

If you want quality food like the French, be prepared to pay for it (like the French.)

Yes, it's just a matter of priorities. In the US we ensure our military buys the highest-quality toilet seats whereas in France they ensure their school children get food that is fit for human consumption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Individual schools can’t do anything about the food issue. It’s due to low school lunch reimbursement rates & Tyson lobbying to have their crap served to kids.

That's true about school lunch but not true about all the garbage handed out by teachers as rewards or given out/sold at school events. My kid knows all about Doritos, every possible kind of candy, etc., because this stuff gets served during class parties, given out at the end of the week as a reward for doing well, and is present at every school event.

If you suggest creating school policies that encourage healthier eating by ensuring the kids are provided with healthy snacks and there is less overall junk, you will be accused of being classist or racist or both.

This!!!! And I do not think teachers should be allowed to hand out food.

+1. So many teachers give out candy as a reward. I’m surprised they don’t have to get parent permission for that.

Hard to believe that ANYONE with a four year college degree can think candy is a good thing for developing children. So few people seem to care. Or are they that stupid? Or evil?

Neither stupid or evil, they are just lazy. Teachers who use candy and junk food as "teaching tools" are aware, on some level, that it's bad for kids. But they are tired and trying to get through the day. I think there is a direct link between the presence of junk food and screens in the classroom and burnout among public school teachers -- just like a lot of parents are resorting to not-great parenting due to stress and overwhelm, teachers are using the same tactics. It's not stupidity or even intentional wrongdoing, just laziness and reaching for the easiest short-term solution. And burned out teachers have even less incentive to make better choices because they don't have to deal with the longterm consequences of raising kids this way. The kids move on to the next great and are no longe their problem. Plus I bet you anything that most teachers who are handing out junk food in class are near retirement age and just counting the days until their pension vests.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Individual schools can’t do anything about the food issue. It’s due to low school lunch reimbursement rates & Tyson lobbying to have their crap served to kids.

That's true about school lunch but not true about all the garbage handed out by teachers as rewards or given out/sold at school events. My kid knows all about Doritos, every possible kind of candy, etc., because this stuff gets served during class parties, given out at the end of the week as a reward for doing well, and is present at every school event.

If you suggest creating school policies that encourage healthier eating by ensuring the kids are provided with healthy snacks and there is less overall junk, you will be accused of being classist or racist or both.

This!!!! And I do not think teachers should be allowed to hand out food.

+1. So many teachers give out candy as a reward. I’m surprised they don’t have to get parent permission for that.

Hard to believe that ANYONE with a four year college degree can think candy is a good thing for developing children. So few people seem to care. Or are they that stupid? Or evil?

Anonymous wrote:To the people saying this is on parents:

I pack my kid's lunch, serve healthy food at home, and limit screen time.

At her public school, my child is regularly given junk food (like almost every day), spends a significant portion of her day on tablets or looking at a screen (they have even been known to show the kids videos during lunch), and also regularly gets screen-based homework (in lower elementary).

When I have vocalized concerns about these things, it's been made clear to me that (1) it is unfair for me to expect teachers to be able to teach without using junk food as an incentive or reward, (2) it's elitist for me to want my child to spend less time on screens at school, and (3) it's selfish for me to expect my values, of healthy eating and limited screen time, to hold the day in a public school where many other parents don't hold those values.

So, as a parent, I'm moving my kid to a school that shares my values. It's a public charter and next I'll be told that I'm betraying public schools and teachers unions by doing so.

You can't tell parents everything is their fault and also they aren't allowed to provide input, and then also get mad when they decide to remove their child from your crappy school that feeds them junk food and screen time all day long.

Amen!

You're right, and people who whine about your views or actions on this are wrong. Most will never realize it because 1) you can't go back and raise your kids differently to see if it would have helped, and 2) people don't want to think that they're f'ing up their kids by being lazy and casual about things just because the rest of the crowd is.

Your kid is lucky to have you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure people outside your bubble really feel as strongly about this as you do.

I have no issue with screen time. Children need to be technically capable. I spend my entire work day staring at a screen. This is how professional jobs are structured. I want the schools teaching my kid how to use technology - including learning on screens.

I also don’t understand the outrage over occasional snacks for celebration. DC had a parent once that organized a “garden” party where the students celebrated an event with carrots and celery. The students thought it sucked - because it does suck. Your household rules of no sugar ever do not match most the nation. It’s not really fair to the other students to have your views pushed upon them.

It’s not “pushing our views” on everyone to say that we shouldn’t provide free junk and bad habits to every kid in the country. That’s our money we’re talking about spending. And then it’s our money that has to go into medical care and therapies to try to fix the damage done by it. You think that not handing out cocaine for free on street corners, courtesy of the US taxpayers, is some of us “pushing our views” onto everyone else? We’re not talking about banning junk entirely but we don’t want our money paying for it.

This. If the argument is now that it's "culturally insensitive" to say you don't want your child to get Doritos and non-stop YouTube at school, then maybe it's time to actually have a conversation about how some "culture" is better than other "culture". Instead we're being asked to silently acquiesce to the least common denominator. No thank you.

Anonymous wrote:1. All the screens make it difficult for them to entertain themselves without, cause eye strain, make them distracted.

2. Crap processed food everywhere you turn. Compare to France and Japan where they have freshly cooked appetizing school lunches, no snacks allowed

Yes I know we as parents can tell our kids to not get distracted by the school laptops, and to only eat their healthy packed lunch. And hopefully they will listen. But why do schools make it so tempting for them to do things that will affect their long-term health? Why not inculcate healthy habits instead?

Dear OP,

What exactly makes you believe that school administrators or school boards care about kids’ long term health, or even basic education? Just about everything happening in our public schools these days is destroying education, not to mention kids’ mental or physical health. Let’s be honest here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the people saying this is on parents:

I pack my kid's lunch, serve healthy food at home, and limit screen time.

At her public school, my child is regularly given junk food (like almost every day), spends a significant portion of her day on tablets or looking at a screen (they have even been known to show the kids videos during lunch), and also regularly gets screen-based homework (in lower elementary).

When I have vocalized concerns about these things, it's been made clear to me that (1) it is unfair for me to expect teachers to be able to teach without using junk food as an incentive or reward, (2) it's elitist for me to want my child to spend less time on screens at school, and (3) it's selfish for me to expect my values, of healthy eating and limited screen time, to hold the day in a public school where many other parents don't hold those values.

So, as a parent, I'm moving my kid to a school that shares my values. It's a public charter and next I'll be told that I'm betraying public schools and teachers unions by doing so.

You can't tell parents everything is their fault and also they aren't allowed to provide input, and then also get mad when they decide to remove their child from your crappy school that feeds them junk food and screen time all day long.

I’ve heard the bolded before and the argument made by schools is that low-income kids don’t have laptops & tablets at home, and therefore they wouldn’t learn how to use such devices in ways that will be necessary for them to get through life if not at school.

I am not sympathetic to that argument & refuse to have my kid use screens much at all before high school, so I moved my kid to private.

It's also a BS argument because while low-income kids may not be getting access to certain kinds of technology at home, they absolutely have access to screens. Poor people have phones. The REAL truth is that a lot of people in poverty regularly use screens as babysitters because they can't afford actual childcare, and that low-income kids are even more in need of a healthy environment in the classroom that de-emphasizes screens and emphasizes person-to-person interaction. A lot of these kids are getting hours a day of dumb games and un-moderated TikTok and YouTube on a parent or grandparent or other minder's phone, and then coming to school and getting more YouTube videos and tablet apps, etc. They are basically getting NO time where they are expected to entertain themselves or function without a screen as a distraction or intermediary. And that's going to make it extra hard for them when they are in jobs where they can be fired for staring at their phones or where they will be expected to focus on work activities for long stretches or interact with customers. These kids are not going to wind up in office jobs behind a computer with internet access.

But of course if I say that, suddenly I'm the racist. But I'm just telling the truth. My kid will be less harmed by the horrible school environment because I can provide a better environment at home that actually prepares her for a life as a functioning adult.

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure people outside your bubble really feel as strongly about this as you do.

I have no issue with screen time. Children need to be technically capable. I spend my entire work day staring at a screen. This is how professional jobs are structured. I want the schools teaching my kid how to use technology - including learning on screens.

I also don’t understand the outrage over occasional snacks for celebration. DC had a parent once that organized a “garden” party where the students celebrated an event with carrots and celery. The students thought it sucked - because it does suck. Your household rules of no sugar ever do not match most the nation. It’s not really fair to the other students to have your views pushed upon them.

It’s not “pushing our views” on everyone to say that we shouldn’t provide free junk and bad habits to every kid in the country. That’s our money we’re talking about spending. And then it’s our money that has to go into medical care and therapies to try to fix the damage done by it. You think that not handing out cocaine for free on street corners, courtesy of the US taxpayers, is some of us “pushing our views” onto everyone else? We’re not talking about banning junk entirely but we don’t want our money paying for it.

My kids go to public school and teachers don't hand out any food including candy.

The school breakfasts are terrible and the lunches aren't great. My kids eat breakfast at home and bring their own lunch.

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure people outside your bubble really feel as strongly about this as you do.

I have no issue with screen time. Children need to be technically capable. I spend my entire work day staring at a screen. This is how professional jobs are structured. I want the schools teaching my kid how to use technology - including learning on screens.

I also don’t understand the outrage over occasional snacks for celebration. DC had a parent once that organized a “garden” party where the students celebrated an event with carrots and celery. The students thought it sucked - because it does suck. Your household rules of no sugar ever do not match most the nation. It’s not really fair to the other students to have your views pushed upon them.

Lol. I don’t think we should be looking to “most of the nation” for authority on nutrition matters!

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure people outside your bubble really feel as strongly about this as you do.

I have no issue with screen time. Children need to be technically capable. I spend my entire work day staring at a screen. This is how professional jobs are structured. I want the schools teaching my kid how to use technology - including learning on screens.

I also don’t understand the outrage over occasional snacks for celebration. DC had a parent once that organized a “garden” party where the students celebrated an event with carrots and celery. The students thought it sucked - because it does suck. Your household rules of no sugar ever do not match most the nation. It’s not really fair to the other students to have your views pushed upon them.

I don't know the OP and therefore I'm outside their bubble, and I disagree with you. I very much care about things such as screen time and the food my kids eat, and all of that is controlled at home and their school does a great job controlling it at school as well (for example the policy is to not allow candy, chips, juice, etc. to be packed in a lunch).

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure people outside your bubble really feel as strongly about this as you do.

I have no issue with screen time. Children need to be technically capable. I spend my entire work day staring at a screen. This is how professional jobs are structured. I want the schools teaching my kid how to use technology - including learning on screens.

I also don’t understand the outrage over occasional snacks for celebration. DC had a parent once that organized a “garden” party where the students celebrated an event with carrots and celery. The students thought it sucked - because it does suck. Your household rules of no sugar ever do not match most the nation. It’s not really fair to the other students to have your views pushed upon them.

Don’t complain when nobody of financial means decides to send their kids to the neighborhood school. My views are fundamentally at odds with philosophies like what’s written above, and aren’t going to change.

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure people outside your bubble really feel as strongly about this as you do.

I have no issue with screen time. Children need to be technically capable. I spend my entire work day staring at a screen. This is how professional jobs are structured. I want the schools teaching my kid how to use technology - including learning on screens.

I also don’t understand the outrage over occasional snacks for celebration. DC had a parent once that organized a “garden” party where the students celebrated an event with carrots and celery. The students thought it sucked - because it does suck. Your household rules of no sugar ever do not match most the nation. It’s not really fair to the other students to have your views pushed upon them.

The reality is that middle class & wealthier families have different needs & values than low-income families. I can teach my own kid how to be technically capable without them spending hours on screens while in elementary school, and I don’t want my kid eating foods I don’t approve of. Don’t berate families for sending their kids to private school or moving to public schools in certain areas, and then say what you’ve written above.

Most of the nation is obese, FYI.

Anonymous wrote:To the people saying this is on parents:

I pack my kid's lunch, serve healthy food at home, and limit screen time.

At her public school, my child is regularly given junk food (like almost every day), spends a significant portion of her day on tablets or looking at a screen (they have even been known to show the kids videos during lunch), and also regularly gets screen-based homework (in lower elementary).

When I have vocalized concerns about these things, it's been made clear to me that (1) it is unfair for me to expect teachers to be able to teach without using junk food as an incentive or reward, (2) it's elitist for me to want my child to spend less time on screens at school, and (3) it's selfish for me to expect my values, of healthy eating and limited screen time, to hold the day in a public school where many other parents don't hold those values.

So, as a parent, I'm moving my kid to a school that shares my values. It's a public charter and next I'll be told that I'm betraying public schools and teachers unions by doing so.

You can't tell parents everything is their fault and also they aren't allowed to provide input, and then also get mad when they decide to remove their child from your crappy school that feeds them junk food and screen time all day long.

I’ve heard the bolded before and the argument made by schools is that low-income kids don’t have laptops & tablets at home, and therefore they wouldn’t learn how to use such devices in ways that will be necessary for them to get through life if not at school.

I am not sympathetic to that argument & refuse to have my kid use screens much at all before high school, so I moved my kid to private.

I’m not sure people outside your bubble really feel as strongly about this as you do.

I have no issue with screen time. Children need to be technically capable. I spend my entire work day staring at a screen. This is how professional jobs are structured. I want the schools teaching my kid how to use technology - including learning on screens.

I also don’t understand the outrage over occasional snacks for celebration. DC had a parent once that organized a “garden” party where the students celebrated an event with carrots and celery. The students thought it sucked - because it does suck. Your household rules of no sugar ever do not match most the nation. It’s not really fair to the other students to have your views pushed upon them.