Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not understanding the argument that poor people need a panwich more than they need fresh fruit.

+1

"Joe, b/c you're poor, this prepackaged breakfast danish will be sufficient. We'll ignore the fact that it's high in fats and calories and low in protein. But you are poor! So you're lucky to have it."

30 lbs later . . .

There is no prepackaged breakfast Danish on the MCPS school breakfast menu. Please check your facts.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/2014-Dec-ElementaryMenu_English.WEB.pdf
http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/foodserv/menus/secondary%20breakfast.pdf

For what it's worth, the chicken sausage panwich has 140 calories, 3 g of fat, and 7 g of protein.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/departments/foodserv/menus/NUTRIENTS%20WEB%20VERSION%2012.12.14.pdf

Anonymous wrote:I'm not understanding the argument that poor people need a panwich more than they need fresh fruit.

+1

"Joe, b/c you're poor, this prepackaged breakfast danish will be sufficient. We'll ignore the fact that it's high in fats and calories and low in protein. But you are poor! So you're lucky to have it."

30 lbs later . . .

Anonymous wrote:

OP is not qualified to speak for the parents of the children who qualify for free breakfast.

Not exactly. If she confers with these parents, and most or some of them agree with her, I would have absolutely no problem with her being their spokeswoman if that is what they want. But to me, it seems a bit presumptuous for her to petition to change the breakfast program if that is not actually what the people who are actually the intended beneficiaries want. If they are on board she should go for it, but not without consulting them.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and that works for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: it all detracts from the schools mission which is to teach. If school’s returned to that mission, the education they provide would improve. Thus I’m not P-ing vinegar… I’m offering solutions that will actually help.

They can't perform their primary function of teaching if the kids are hungry. In fact, this is what makes the rest of your slippery slope hyperbolic argument nonsensical, because all these hungry people are not being taught by the school, so there is the logical extension to students only.

Why bother buying food and feeding your child if you know the good, rich folks of MoCo will do it for you?

Your argument is that, if there were no free breakfast at school, then the children would get breakfast at home. What if they don't? Before there was free breakfast at school, did all children get breakfast at home? If you canceled free breakfast at school, and 5% of children did not get breakfast at home and therefore went hungry, would you consider that an acceptable percentage? How about 10%? How about 20%? How many children should go hungry to support your principle that parents should provide for children?

OP is not qualified to speak for the parents of the children who qualify for free breakfast.

Not exactly. If she confers with these parents, and most or some of them agree with her, I would have absolutely no problem with her being their spokeswoman if that is what they want. But to me, it seems a bit presumptuous for her to petition to change the breakfast program if that is not actually what the people who are actually the intended beneficiaries want. If they are on board she should go for it, but not without consulting them.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not understanding the argument that poor people need a panwich more than they need fresh fruit.

I'm not the PP, but as I understand it, the argument is that OP is not qualified to speak for the parents of the children who qualify for free breakfast.

I'm not understanding the argument that poor people need a panwich more than they need fresh fruit.

OP have you done any research to find out how the parents at your school whose kids actually need to have the free breakfast feel about the menu?

Tell the teacher that your kid is not to get breakfast
and tell your kid not to eat it
simple
There are poor hungry kids that need that panwich
DEAL THE F*** with it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: it all detracts from the schools mission which is to teach. If school’s returned to that mission, the education they provide would improve. Thus I’m not P-ing vinegar… I’m offering solutions that will actually help.

They can't perform their primary function of teaching if the kids are hungry. In fact, this is what makes the rest of your slippery slope hyperbolic argument nonsensical, because all these hungry people are not being taught by the school, so there is the logical extension to students only.

Why bother buying food and feeding your child if you know the good, rich folks of MoCo will do it for you?

well then get out your pocket book and buy the school lunches, breakfasts, weekend take home food yourself.

that or start begging taxpayers for more money for your FARM and kids' taxpayer-subsidized food.

I have a feeling the poor parents whose kids need these breakfasts are grateful for them and aren't concerned that a panwich has more calories than plain cheerios. They are probably pleased it has more calories than plain cheerios.

There is real advocacy going on to help make school lunches and breakfasts healthier. Our ES has participated in the free breakfast program for three years now. "Pink milk" used to be a beverage option in addition to chocolate and plain but was removed thanks in part to Real Food Montgomery's efforts. IMHO having ANY breakfast beats none at all, but I agree strongly that the options should be healthier.

http://www.realfoodforkidsmontgomery.org/

Chocolate milk is not on the MCPS elementary-school breakfast menu.

http://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/uploadedFiles/2014-Dec-ElementaryMenu_English.WEB.pdf

And I know lots of parents will say that if chocolate isn't an option my will drink plain..but he will not.