Whoopity dee
I just finished reading a story about how some high school kids in Chicago are concerning themselves about the cafeteria offering more than the latest best acne products. I have kinda mixed feelings here.
The lowdown is that one of the nutrition classes went through a point by point on the nutrition of the average school lunch they were eating, and found *gasp* mostly sugar, salt, and fat, with little nutritional value. So of course, the kids started pitching a fit, probably writing letters and such, and acting indignant over the food they were buying from the school to eat.
Some of the comments recorded in the article were reminiscent of a man or woman locked up in jail and not given any options for his/her meals. I can almost care for the inmates situation, except that he's probably a criminal, so whatever.
The thing with the kids is that they are probably eating just like that at home, so why harass the school? And if they AREN'T eating like that at home, why not harass their parents for not encouraging them to pack a decent lunch? I packed a lunch pretty much every day, and in fact, I work in a grocery store and STILL pack a lunch.
I can see the value in teaching children to be politically active, but I think it's misguided when their efforts are focused immaturely on the school board and the lunch menu. In Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock does some interviews in school cafeterias with children, teachers, and workers. The bottom line is that kids eat the junk because they can't eat it at home, or because they DO eat it at home. Kids like junk.
Does that mean that I think kids should be able to eat it just because they like it? Of course not. But for the teachers to allow/encourage the kids to make the kind of remarks they are making is borderline irresponsible. The school's primary responsiblility is to TEACH. Teach nutrition, teach critical thinking, teach problem solving, too. If the lunch is so deplorable, they should be able to sit with their parents and talk about a better lunch program for themselves. Not one report in the article of cost analysis or what they children are aiming for in they're lunch, or even how many children are anticipating actually buying and eating healthier lunches. I bet it's about 23. We're apparently good at getting the kids bent out of shape, now how about a solution from the kids?
The lowdown is that one of the nutrition classes went through a point by point on the nutrition of the average school lunch they were eating, and found *gasp* mostly sugar, salt, and fat, with little nutritional value. So of course, the kids started pitching a fit, probably writing letters and such, and acting indignant over the food they were buying from the school to eat.
Some of the comments recorded in the article were reminiscent of a man or woman locked up in jail and not given any options for his/her meals. I can almost care for the inmates situation, except that he's probably a criminal, so whatever.
The thing with the kids is that they are probably eating just like that at home, so why harass the school? And if they AREN'T eating like that at home, why not harass their parents for not encouraging them to pack a decent lunch? I packed a lunch pretty much every day, and in fact, I work in a grocery store and STILL pack a lunch.
I can see the value in teaching children to be politically active, but I think it's misguided when their efforts are focused immaturely on the school board and the lunch menu. In Super Size Me, Morgan Spurlock does some interviews in school cafeterias with children, teachers, and workers. The bottom line is that kids eat the junk because they can't eat it at home, or because they DO eat it at home. Kids like junk.
Does that mean that I think kids should be able to eat it just because they like it? Of course not. But for the teachers to allow/encourage the kids to make the kind of remarks they are making is borderline irresponsible. The school's primary responsiblility is to TEACH. Teach nutrition, teach critical thinking, teach problem solving, too. If the lunch is so deplorable, they should be able to sit with their parents and talk about a better lunch program for themselves. Not one report in the article of cost analysis or what they children are aiming for in they're lunch, or even how many children are anticipating actually buying and eating healthier lunches. I bet it's about 23. We're apparently good at getting the kids bent out of shape, now how about a solution from the kids?
Comments