USDA school visit

[gardener]

The wife is a librarian at a local high school and told me this morning that they have to get ready for the school's annual USDA inspection to determine if the school is feeding the urchins all the good stuff and not offering the bad stuff in any manner or fashion that might make the little buggers fat.
The point here?
For some time now, the school library has been offering hot chocolate for purchase by the students at a nominal $1 price. Any profits go straight back into the library fund to buy goodies that the library needs or wants but isn't covered by their budget. At most, I would think the hot chocolate program might be self substaining at best but the kids like it and it gets them into the library where they can use the services before and after school, etc.
The chocolate mix is the same that any of us can go and purchase at any grocery store and the school furnishes cups, chocolate packets, hot water, stir sticks, and whatever else one typically uses in the preparation.
NOW... the USDA apparently isn't coming to check the usual things you'd think they'd check like location, cleanliness, etc., but rather... is coming to check to see if the chocolate mix meets their dietary guidelines for schools.
I'm sorry but give me a break...
The silly buggers eat and drink what they want and as much as they want outside of school but the school AND library has to meet certain dietary standards for what is available DURING the day. Yep, that makes perfect sense...
Morons...

[crazeazn]

i had frito pie for lunch in high school... thats not nutrition

[texkam]

Sorry, I really don't have a problem with this.

but the kids like it and it gets them into the library

Frankly, I'm tired of schools pushing empty calorie, sugary products as incentives, rewards, or to fund raise with. It's everywhere. No thank you. find another revenue generator.

[gardener]

But at what point does the responsibility for appropriate nutrition become the parent's problem instead of your kid's school...
I agree that what schools used to serve was devoid of much nutrition except calories but times have changed and most schools have changed with it, serving foods that are regulated by nutritional boards that quietly choose to ignore the fact that once outside of those hallowed lunchroom halls, kids may choose to eat, or are served at home, high fat, high calorie, fat laden plates of glop with no monitor looking over their shoulder 24 hours a day to say "now be good and don't eat that because it's bad for you."
YOU may choose to abide by certain dietary guidelines with your own family with the appropriate pre-planning of menus and followup and I applaud that but you can't make a child healthy by feeding him or her one decent meal a day while he's somewhere else.
The continual and regular consumption of "high calorie, sugary products" as well as the consumption of high fat, high anything else is a parenting education issue... not a public school issue.
I would also ask what is wrong with a "revenue generator" type activity? Businesses do it all the time with great success. In this case, it gets kids into the library to use services that they might never use or visit otherwise. Besides, I doubt that one cup of hot chocolate per day or even per week is going to bring on health issues that weren't already there to begin with and were brought on by issues encountered far away from school grounds.

[rab3rd]

So the schools should just not try because they have no control over what happens outside the campus walls???

[texkam]

Steve, I agree, it's up to the parents. Public schools simply have the responsibility of offering what's right. They have a responsibility to not "offer" non-nutritious foods. If the kids/parents wish something else, so be it, bring it, but the school has met it's responsibility.

My experiences:
Jasper HS in Plano allowed fund-raising candy sales everyday at lunch. WTF! Really?!?

The Plano West Band Boosters were allowed to sell fruit (grapes, apples, bananas, etc.) to students attending summer school. The kids cleaned them out daily! $$$! So yes, fund-raising can be done right.

[gardener]

Not what I said... As far as I'm concerned, the schools are being saddled with health concerns that are ignored or belittled by the general population of parents.
Should they serve and/or provide healthy or healthier food than historically they have in the past? The answer to that is yes. The flip side of that though is why are not parents being pushed an equal or greater amount to provide smarter/healthier meals outside of school hours? Because I don't believe they are and the lines at McDonalds and other fast food outlets somewhat prove that theory. In fact, look at what's in a few baskets while you're waiting in line to check out next time at the grocery store... There is far more junk food in those grocery carts than kids are ever going to get during the school day.
The main issue here is that taxpayer supported entities such as school systems are being forced to provide basic health type services and educational items that would be better served and at a far cheaper cost by the parents of those using those services.
To answer your question more directly, no... once the children get out of school and off school grounds, they fall under the auspices of other caretakers. To do otherwise leads to more comments and complaints about schools, local government, local officials, and any/every other pseudo entity taking the child raising authority/power out of the parents hands and putting it under someone else's hands. If parents want the power and authority to dictate their child's menu, schedule, or any other activity then far more parents should take an active part in deciding what's good and what's bad and do something about it by providing other choices outside of the system that they find fault with.
Quite honestly, it's far past time for the educational system in this country to be charged with babysitting children and trying to instill certain values, among them nutritional and moral values, while many parents don't spend squat trying to do the same for their own kids.

[brewercm]

What will happen is half the crap that the school is saddled with having to feed the children will end up in trash cans. Their thought process is that this may be the only healthy meal that some of these kids may get if any at all.

Come on schools and grow a pair. Your job is not to raise the children and feed them and make sure their self esteem is good.

Just TEACH THEM!

[texkam]

it's far past time for the educational system in this country to be charged with babysitting children and trying to instill certain values, among them nutritional and moral values

Agreed, and that's why the USDA needs to see if the chocolate mix meets their dietary guidelines for schools. IMHO it should not, and therefore should not be offered.

[texkam]

What will happen is half the crap that the school is saddled with having to feed the children will end up in trash cans.

Perhaps, but the school (government) has met it's responsibility.

[rab3rd]

How about they just stop serving lunch and let the parents send there kids to school with a sack...

[brewercm]

Originally Posted by texkam

Perhaps, but the school (government) has met it's responsibility.

Wow, that quote alone is scary to me. Not that it's not true that many have now accepted that the school is just another arm of the government.

If that be the case, all freedom is lost.

[texkam]

How about they just stop serving lunch and let the parents send there kids to school with a sack...

Fine with me. Traditionally the role of school has been to educate, the responsibility of parents to feed. Of course this leads to opening another can of worms.

many have now accepted that the school is just another arm of the government

Um, public school is. I send them tax dollars and elect a school board. Just how close to local/state level it should remain is debatable.

[brewercm]

I realize I pay the taxes too (and way too much IMHO). Like you said though, it's just how close to local/state/and in this case federal stepping in, is still very debatable.

[carrbowl]

I'll add to the mix. Saw a news clip that in LA there were complaints that kids were "only" getting graham crackers and milk because the parents didn't pay the kids lunch bill. So the school was taking the parents to court I believe. So the big discussion was A. we pay enough taxes let them all have lunch for free B. make everyone bring their own lunch C. poor kids shouldn't be punished because their parent don't pay the bill D. kids shouldn't be punished because parents can't afford to pay for the lunches (even thought these are parents that are not low income) then they go on to talk about how mean this is to these kids to give them only graham crackers and milk for lunch.

I have two comments...have you looked at how fat our poor kids are? do you think "only" having sugar for lunch is going to hurt them? and even the parents in this world don't know what the word responsibility means. The squeaky wheel gets the grease...let those kids go without lunch a couple days...I guarantee those kids will whine to their parents so long and so much their parents will pay their bill.