I know we homeschool but one day something might change and this might affect us on one level or another.
Interesting. In my opinion, the principles intentions are good, though I don't believe the approach she's taking will be productive. Banning homemade lunches all together is unreasonable. If she is concerned by the number of unhealthy lunches she's seeing brought from kids homes, she should attach the main culprits (soda, candy, etc) and focus on educating the kids about what they're putting in their bodies and what it's doing to them. Get rid of the junkiest junk in the vending machines, don't allow the soda, fast foods, and candy on campus. I believe an approach along those lines would receive far less resistance, save both sides more money, and be more productive all around.
My first thought went to this (which was written, tounge in cheek, about homeschooling, I think, and people wanting more government oversight for homeschooling fmailies)
Quote:Homefeeding Children: Threat or Menace? By Lydia McGrew The recent tragic death from malnutrition of seven-year-old Johnny Marfan of Bensonville draws our attention to the growing trend toward so-called "homefeeding." While the majority of the local children still receive their nutrition from state cafeterias or approved, registered private cafeterias, a growing minority of parents - hundreds by some estimates - are engaged in homefeeding, a practice in which children receive at least breakfast and dinner in their own homes as provided by their parents. In accordance with law, the Marfans informed the state health department that they were homefeeding Johnny. But in this state, homefeeding is relatively unregulated, giving carte blanch to parents to feed their children virtually any food under the sun; meat, milk, cookies, butter, pie - anything goes. Some states require parents to have a certified degree in nutrition or at least be monitored by an accredited nutritionist. But here, parents do not even have to fill out periodic reports detailing what they are feeding their children. Opponents of homefeeding argue that parents like the Marfans used homefeeding as a cover for abuse and neglect, with terrible results. While this remains in question, we've seen nothing to disprove this. Calista Nicole-Carson of the state Department of Cafeterias and Caloric Monitoring says, "I realize that there are conscientious parents who genuinely try to feed their children what they need. But they should have no objection to filling out the forms we are introducing, describing each of the meals they give." That seems a reasonable step in safeguarding our most precious resource - our children. "Pro-active steps are necessary to insure we are protecting all children," says Nicole-Carson. "It is ridiculous not to monitor what all children are fed because of a misguided concern for 'privacy' or 'freedom,' and such lack of regulation allows children to slip fatally through the cracks." Other critics are concerned about parents' lack of necessary qualifications. "Every year we make new nutritional discoveries," says Dr. Sue d'Panzoff of the University of Omasota. "Parents cannot possibly keep up with each breakthrough in nutritional science and give their children these benefits." It's preposterous for us to leave such vital functions to amateurs who claim authority based on something as flimsy as parenthood, particularly in the realm of keeping pace with nutritional advances. "Who knows what changes we may need to make next year to improve children's nutrition," asks d'Panzoff. "At a minimum, homefeeding programs must be carefully monitored in the domicile to make sure all the latest advances are represented." Still others point out the social skills homefed children are missing. Ms. Nicole-Carson tells us, "During meals at the public cafeterias, these children watch educational videos about crucial subjects like the environment, sex, and the evils of capitalism. The food itself is culturally diversified, and each day the children are taught a different set of table manners from another culture around the world." Homefeeders rely in large part on outmoded history in defending their decision to place their own children out of the mainstream. "As recently as 1992, the majority of children in the United States were homefed," says Philip Flicka, of the right-wing Home Food Legal Defense Association. "Even when kids went to school, they were allowed to bring lunches packed by their moms." Whether Mr. Flicka is right or not, it seems that homefeeding is here to stay, consequences be damned. But we cannot be too vigilant. Homefeeders of good will should, as Ms. Nicole-Carson says, be entirely open to having their homes and programs monitored by qualified nutritionists for the good of our children. Any small amount of time and privacy this costs parents will be more than repaid in lives saved. If the Marfans had been properly monitored, Johnny would still be alive. There is nothing more valuable than the life and safety of a child, and for that reason, strictures on homefeeding must be tightened in this state.
It may sound silly, but in situations like these I often think of the quote
"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."
Sonita - Mom to Ephram (7) and Malachi (4)
Mod for CafeMom-run Homeschooling Moms Group
I personally don't care for it. I don't know about other mothers but when I provide food for my children I do it thinking about their overall wellbeing.
Is everything I provide 100% nutritious, nope but overall they have a very well balanced meal. I've seen and eaten some of the things offered in public school and quite frankly I wouldn't offer it in my home so why should I expect my kids to want it.
This is one meal of the day unless you are senting your child to school to get breakfast and lunch, either way a parent has a lot more choices for feeding their child outside of schooltime.
This statement in the article you posted particularly caught my attention:
"It's preposterous for us to leave such vital functions to amateurs who claim authority based on something as flimsy as parenthood, particularly in the realm of keeping pace with nutritional advances."
I seek continued education about health and wellness, because I love my family and only want the best for us; I do not believe that every mother feels and acts similarly to myself.
If it were the case that a certified nutritionalist and health official would be required by law to come to my home, then I would accept it and uphold the process. It would give me piece of mind if I believed that it was helping to keep less fortunate children safe.
Looks like the article isn't there anymore.
I didn't find the article, but I would be angry if a school around here took that stance. Lunch is actually one of the reasons we brought my kids home, so I have very strong feelings about how much schools should be involved in feeding our kids.
Switch to Mobile Site
Getting Started Guide
Frequently Asked Questions
Part of the CafeMedia family
© 2015 CMI Marketing, Inc. All rights reserved.
Already Joined? LOG IN