Anonymous wrote:My daughter goes to a FARMS school. She happens to be special needs and very underweight. I've never seen a cafeteria staff more devoted to helping a child. The cooks will hold back items they know she can and will eat (mashed potatos, gravy) to try to tempt her and get a little extra food into her. My hat is off to them and they have my thanks.

Just want to say that the cafeteria staff at my FARMS school are equally amazing. They know every kids name, and they really do care. Talk about a hard job. They have my thanks, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Why on earth *isn't* it the government's job to see that its youngest, poorest citizens are adequately nourished, housed, cared for?

They are adequately nourished. Just because it isn't up to your standards does not mean that it is not adequate. If you want premium, pack a lunch for your child to take to school.

My post was in response to the PP who said that schools are "subsidized daycare." Which, we all agree, they are - schools provide an array of social services to the poor which are not strictly speaking education-oriented in nature. This is because there is no other context in which the poor will receive what they need (in various ways).

It's not about food up to my standards. It is about the PP's comment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is that this food needs to be cheap for the FARMS so yes we all suffer.

+1, public schools have turned into subsidized daycare

Maybe if we as a people/our government supported children in more substantial ways, schools would not need to step in and play these various roles in addition to the educational one they were set up for.

Federally, we spend $7 on programs for elderly people for every $1 spent on programs for children. (That disparity is boggling, at least to me.) The result of that has been an incredible reduction in the number of older people living in poverty since the 1970s — but 21 percent of the children in the United States live in families with incomes below the poverty level, the highest percentage since 1993 and the highest numbers (about 16.4 million) since 1962.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/11/05%20spending%20children%20isaacs/1_how_much_isaacs.pdf

Why is it the government's job to do that.

All civilized governments in highly-developed nations have programs to care for their most vulnerable citizens - every last one of them. I defy you to name ONE country in the developed world that does not do this. Or do you prefer that the U.S. align its policies with those of e.g. Somalia?

Why on earth *isn't* it the government's job to see that its youngest, poorest citizens are adequately nourished, housed, cared for?

Or are you Mittens Romney, looking to weed out the weakest members of the 47%

Hey moron , unless they are orphans dad and mom are supposed to be doing this. Or do you want mother government to step in. Remember mother russia? How'd that turn out.

Anonymous wrote:
Why on earth *isn't* it the government's job to see that its youngest, poorest citizens are adequately nourished, housed, cared for?

They are adequately nourished. Just because it isn't up to your standards does not mean that it is not adequate. If you want premium, pack a lunch for your child to take to school.

Anonymous wrote:I am surprised that people think that it is elitist or funny to want elementary schools to serve healthy food. There is a movement to provide fresh food in an affordable way in the DCPS. http://dcfoodforall.com/2010/01/ramping-up-farm-to-school-in-healthy-schools/ Michelle Obama has been behind healthy school lunches as well. Why is it crazy to ask if MOCO schools are cooking healthy fresh meals? I asked specifically about Potomac because I was looking into a town house there. With all the hype about the school district I am surprised that they only warm processed food. However, the point about wanting things to be fair and standardized across the county and keeping lunch prices at an affordable level is well taken. It would be unjust for only the schools in wealthier pockets to offer the more nutritious meals. Schools across the county could have healthier food at a reasonable cost if this issue was made a priority. Here are some good articles about issues with school lunch in DC: http://www.theslowcook.com/blog/tales-from-a-dc-school-kitchen/

Because you seem to forget that such meals are expensive. At a time when schools and departments of education are repeatedly underbudgeted and have many programs cut, you want them to provide more expensive food programs. Sorry, but the schools primary purpose is to provide an education and academic programs are more important than food programs. The food programs are adequate to sustain the children, especially children who have a hard time getting solid meals any other time of the day. If you are so concerned about the quality of the food, you need to send your child to school with a lunch. But I really don't need to see teacher's retirement or salaries cut, education equipment or textbooks not purchased or programs cut because they are spending more money on lunch programs just so your snowflake can have organic milk and chicken for lunch. You obviously have not been paying attention to MD state education budgetary battles for the last several years if you think any school can afford to spend more money on their lunch program.

You have to pay to get premium services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is that this food needs to be cheap for the FARMS so yes we all suffer.

+1, public schools have turned into subsidized daycare

No education for the poors! No food either! If you can't afford it, we aren't paying your way!

I'm starting a petition. Change.org here I come.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is that this food needs to be cheap for the FARMS so yes we all suffer.

+1, public schools have turned into subsidized daycare

Maybe if we as a people/our government supported children in more substantial ways, schools would not need to step in and play these various roles in addition to the educational one they were set up for.

Federally, we spend $7 on programs for elderly people for every $1 spent on programs for children. (That disparity is boggling, at least to me.) The result of that has been an incredible reduction in the number of older people living in poverty since the 1970s — but 21 percent of the children in the United States live in families with incomes below the poverty level, the highest percentage since 1993 and the highest numbers (about 16.4 million) since 1962.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/11/05%20spending%20children%20isaacs/1_how_much_isaacs.pdf

Why is it the government's job to do that.

All civilized governments in highly-developed nations have programs to care for their most vulnerable citizens - every last one of them. I defy you to name ONE country in the developed world that does not do this. Or do you prefer that the U.S. align its policies with those of e.g. Somalia?

Why on earth *isn't* it the government's job to see that its youngest, poorest citizens are adequately nourished, housed, cared for?

Or are you Mittens Romney, looking to weed out the weakest members of the 47%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So OP and others in this thread basically are advocating for separate and unequal priveledges in public schools. Lovely. I sure hope none of you are my neighbors.

What about if the schools offered a premium meal at an additional cost! That would help bring in more money for the schools and provide higher quality meals for paying customers. This is a great idea, let's do it! Or maybe we can get a business to offer this as a food truck outside the school? Love this idea.

Are you going to subsidize "premium" meals for FARMS students? Or do they have to eat the limp chicken nuggets while your speshul snowflake feasts on quinoa and salmon?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is that this food needs to be cheap for the FARMS so yes we all suffer.

+1, public schools have turned into subsidized daycare

Maybe if we as a people/our government supported children in more substantial ways, schools would not need to step in and play these various roles in addition to the educational one they were set up for.

Federally, we spend $7 on programs for elderly people for every $1 spent on programs for children. (That disparity is boggling, at least to me.) The result of that has been an incredible reduction in the number of older people living in poverty since the 1970s — but 21 percent of the children in the United States live in families with incomes below the poverty level, the highest percentage since 1993 and the highest numbers (about 16.4 million) since 1962.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/11/05%20spending%20children%20isaacs/1_how_much_isaacs.pdf

Why is it the government's job to do that.

Why isn't it?

And why is so much spent on the end of life for our citizens, and so little on the start of life?

Anonymous wrote:So OP and others in this thread basically are advocating for separate and unequal priveledges in public schools. Lovely. I sure hope none of you are my neighbors.

What about if the schools offered a premium meal at an additional cost! That would help bring in more money for the schools and provide higher quality meals for paying customers. This is a great idea, let's do it! Or maybe we can get a business to offer this as a food truck outside the school? Love this idea.

Anonymous wrote:So OP and others in this thread basically are advocating for separate and unequal priveledges in public schools. Lovely. I sure hope none of you are my neighbors.

I thought she was just asking a question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is that this food needs to be cheap for the FARMS so yes we all suffer.

+1, public schools have turned into subsidized daycare

Maybe if we as a people/our government supported children in more substantial ways, schools would not need to step in and play these various roles in addition to the educational one they were set up for.

Federally, we spend $7 on programs for elderly people for every $1 spent on programs for children. (That disparity is boggling, at least to me.) The result of that has been an incredible reduction in the number of older people living in poverty since the 1970s — but 21 percent of the children in the United States live in families with incomes below the poverty level, the highest percentage since 1993 and the highest numbers (about 16.4 million) since 1962.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/11/05%20spending%20children%20isaacs/1_how_much_isaacs.pdf

Why is it the government's job to do that.

My daughter goes to a FARMS school. She happens to be special needs and very underweight. I've never seen a cafeteria staff more devoted to helping a child. The cooks will hold back items they know she can and will eat (mashed potatos, gravy) to try to tempt her and get a little extra food into her. My hat is off to them and they have my thanks.

So OP and others in this thread basically are advocating for separate and unequal priveledges in public schools. Lovely. I sure hope none of you are my neighbors.