So if you follow the facebook page you probably saw how a Richmond preschool program has banned students from bringing sack lunches unless they have a doctor's note deeming said lunch necessary. From what I gather, the expense of feeding each and every preschooler in this program will be covered by federal dollars -- federal dollars which I'm sure could be better spent elsewhere, like paying for another teacher or at minimum teacher's aid, or provide supplies to classrooms. I know, I'm just a silly stay at home mom whose child is not yet in preschool, so what do I know?
I know that first off, the fact that they're taking away the choice of the parent what to feed their child is ridiculous. By mandating and acting like they're going to provide a much more nutritious and filling lunch for the kids is just silly. We all saw how well Michelle's school lunch program went over -- kids were left still hungry and school districts had wasted much needed money. I'm sure that we can all remember times when we were in school and how hard it was to pay attention when you were starving. And I remember when I was little, my mom always made sure we had plenty to eat in our lunchboxes -- the basic minimum was a sandwich, a drink, and two snacks, sometimes she'd add a thermos of soup or a salad or whatever to switch it up. Yes, we had lunchables from time to time and we were usually allowed to buy lunch no more than twice a week until we got older. I enjoyed bringing my lunch honestly because it meant that I didn't have to stand on line and wait to eat and have less time to eat -- which again should be considered in if our children are left hungry. The less time they have to eat, the less they do eat, and hungry kids (and adults) are definitely no fun to be around. So these preschoolers, how much time do they really get to eat? I know B takes his sweet time to eat and I don't see it getting any better. Or what about the kids who are so used to grazing throughout the day and suddenly they have a set eating schedule? Are they getting enough to eat, or are they refusing food because at that point in time they're not hungry? Or do those who know better never took this into consideration?
So, with the choice of bag or buy no longer yours (unless you go through the hassle of getting a doctor's note, and to be honest, I'd probably beg our pediatrician to sign off on something even though B doesn't have food sensitivities or allergies), it also throws out the choice of what your child gets to eat. To be quite honest, after seeing what the government allows people to get on food stamps, I'm not going to exactly be thrilled with what they're going to serve in the cafeteria most days. I posted a while back what Rambling Mom said her preschooler was given for lunch but in case you missed it, it was a piece of fried mozzarella, a couple of carrots and a few pieces of broccoli. So not only do I feel that the kids are clearly not getting enough to eat with this "lunch" but the quality sucks too. I really don't care if the mozzarella is baked and not truly fried, it's just something that I'd prefer my kid not to eat. I mean I'm sure the turkey & gravy that we all loved on Thursdays growing up wasn't premium turkey, it probably was a lot better than a freakin' mozzarella stick! It makes me wonder how many parents are like, seriously, this is the crap you feed my kid?
Finally, let's talk about the real push here. With Ocrapcare looming and being forced upon the masses to further establish that you need government to survive, this only starts kids off early thinking that the government shall always provide for you. I'm not naïve enough to think that growing up in our cushy middle class neighborhood some of my classmates qualified for free lunch. While I totally understand providing for those who absolutely and truly need it, we never actually knew who those kids were so there wasn't a stigma surrounding it. No one starved, and I'm sure that if a kid had truly needed a lunch a teacher or someone would have come through and made sure that kid ate. The kindness of those who aren't being forced to provide always seems to be much greater than when forced and mandated. But having government money provide free meals to all preschoolers just seems like an agenda push to me -- if a family can afford to pay for their kid's lunch, or would just rather pack their kid's lunch then so be it. Like I said, that money could easily be distributed to other areas that need it more than this program. Sadly, cynical me thinks that most parents would be stoked for their kid to receive this "free" lunch and just let it slide -- and let it progress into the upper grades and further engrain the theory of "government will always provide" even if the government can't afford to provide.
No comments:
Post a Comment