Preschooler's homemade lunch replaced with nuggets

[chanel]

Oh my. It doesn't look like an isolated incident after all. Inspectors come in "every so often" and other children and parents have been humiliated as well. North Carolina Mother Diane Zambrano Says Her Daughter‘s Homemade School Lunch Wasn’t Healthy Enough | West Hoke Elementary | TheBlaze.com

Not only does this stink of waste and embarrassment based on JUNK SCIENCE, it also may be a violation of search and seizure laws. Schools may not search the handbags and bookbags of students without probable cause. Why are lunchboxes any different?

Perhaps it's just a benign design to create government jobs. Our stimulus dollars at work.

Oh and bones - apology accepted.

 

[Bfgrn]

Chanel, your story is fabricated. It is not the truth.

• The 'agent' was not from the state or the feds. The 'agent' was a researcher from FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina.
  
  
• The researcher did not inspect ANY homemade lunches. The researcher ordered full school lunches for every single child in this program and was evaluating the school’s compliance with standards, not individual parents’ compliance.
  
  
• And when you look into Sara Burrows, the reporter of the story, The Carolina Journal 'sounds' like some little hometown community newspaper. It's not.
  
  Carolina Journal is the John Locke Foundation’s flagship media program.
  
  John Locke Staff, Fellows, & Scholars | John Locke Foundation
  
  WHO is the John Locke Foundation?
  
  The John Locke Foundation (JLF) is a right-wing, free-market think tank in North Carolina.

So what you are outraged about is propaganda you are being fed. It is not truth, it is a LIE.

The FACTS:

For starters, the context in which all of this occurred was a public school pre-K program run by the state popularly known as “More at Four,” but now called the generic name “NC Pre-K.” In order to have a child enrolled in this program, which has a limited number of slots, the parents must actively choose to enroll, with priority going to “at-risk” children, to wit: special needs children and (importantly) low-income children. Indeed, to even be eligible for the program, the child must either fit in one of those two categories or have a parent on (or about to be called on) active military duty. Enrollment as an “at-risk” child means that the child’s enrollment is fully subsidized by the state, regardless of whether the day care is private or public.

These facts are critical because the “state agent” in this story turns out to be nothing more than a researcher from a program that grades the performance of pre-schools and operates out of the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It also does not appear that this institute has any actual authority other than to provide assessments, which the state then uses in making licensing decisions and in setting the fees it will pay the day care provider for subsidized care.

Notably, as the second-linked story above suggests, the mother’s main gripe here does not even appear to be with this “state agent,” but instead with the school’s teachers, who continue to give the girl milk and vegetables despite letters from the mother asking them not to. Indeed, the notion that this “state agent” was going around inspecting every single lunch box brought to the school does not appear to have much basis, as the agent apparently ordered full school lunches for every single child in this program and was evaluating the school’s compliance with standards, not individual parents’ compliance. Even if he was doing such an inspection, there’s a pretty obvious context-specific reason for it: this is an opt-in program for parents who largely can’t afford to provide fully balanced meals.

Her other major gripe appears to be that she is worried about being charged for the additional food being placed in front of her daughter based on a letter from the school purportedly saying that kids who did not bring a healthy lunch would be offered supplements and that parents “may” be charged for the supplemented portions. However, as the second-linked story makes clear, no such charges have been issued nor apparently was there any actual chance that such charges would be issued.

The original story’s claim that the relevant regulation applies to all pre-schools is also false – to the contrary, it applies only to pre-schools choosing to participate in (and eligible for) the subsidized program.

The original story further obscures that in no circumstance was this child – or any child, for that matter – being forced to eat the school-provided lunch, nor was this child -or any other child – deprived of her boxed lunch. Instead, as the second linked story acknowledges, the child was just provided with additional food and given the option to consume that in addition to her boxed lunch. In other words, the claim that the school “replaced” this girl’s turkey sandwich, banana, apple, potato chips, and juice with chicken nuggets is totally bogus.

 

[chanel]

Thank you for that information, however if you check out the link I provided, the letter by the principal does not say that. Whether the "agent" was a state employee or a "researcher" hired by the state is splitting hairs. Encouraging parents to provide healthy lunches and inspecting their lunch boxes are two different issues. If those parents want their kids to eat govt approved nuggets, fine. But bagged lunches should be off-limits.

 

[daveman]

 

[Bfgrn]

Thank you for that information, however if you check out the link I provided, the letter by the principal does not say that. Whether the "agent" was a state employee or a "researcher" hired by the state is splitting hairs. Encouraging parents to provide healthy lunches and inspecting their lunch boxes are two different issues. If those parents want their kids to eat govt approved nuggets, fine. But bagged lunches should be off-limits.

You need to read it again...

Indeed, the notion that this “state agent” was going around inspecting every single lunch box brought to the school does not appear to have much basis, as the agent apparently ordered full school lunches for every single child in this program and was evaluating the school’s compliance with standards, not individual parents’ compliance. Even if he was doing such an inspection, there’s a pretty obvious context-specific reason for it: this is an opt-in program for parents who largely can’t afford to provide fully balanced meals.

The original story’s claim that the relevant regulation applies to all pre-schools is also false – to the contrary, it applies only to pre-schools choosing to participate in (and eligible for) the subsidized program.

The original story further obscures that in no circumstance was this child – or any child, for that matter – being forced to eat the school-provided lunch, nor was this child -or any other child – deprived of her boxed lunch. Instead, as the second linked story acknowledges, the child was just provided with additional food and given the option to consume that in addition to her boxed lunch. In other words, the claim that the school “replaced” this girl’s turkey sandwich, banana, apple, potato chips, and juice with chicken nuggets is totally bogus.

 

[chanel]

Read the principal's letter. They were cited for infractions on the bagged lunches. This would require an INSPECTION.

One small school in a poor area does not matter? These parents have rights too.

People should be applauding those "blogs" who brought this "non story" to light. Regs like this often go under the radar until it's too late.

 

[Bfgrn]

Read the principal's letter. They were cited for infractions on the bagged lunches. This would require an INSPECTION.

One small school in a poor area does not matter? These parents have rights too.

People should be applauding those "blogs" who brought this "non story" to light. Regs like this often go under the radar until it's too late.

Link?

 

[chanel]

Same link I provided. There is some discrepancy about the date, whether it was sent before or after this mother complained, but that really does not matter.

Bfgrn - even if the school is "supplementing" and not "replacing" wouldn't that require an inspection?

It just seems to me that you and Sarah and bones, etc. Honestly believe that 1. I lied
2. Fox news lied
3. The mothers lied
4. The children lied
4. The teacher lied
And/or the principal did. Seriously?

 

[Bfgrn]

Same link I provided. There is some discrepancy about the date, whether it was sent before or after this mother complained, but that really does not matter.

Bfgrn - even if the school is "supplementing" and not "replacing" wouldn't that require an inspection?

It just seems to me that you and Sarah and bones, etc. Honestly believe that 1. I lied
2. Fox news lied
3. The mothers lied
4. The children lied
4. The teacher lied
And/or the principal did. Seriously?

I will explain it to you as clearly and bluntly as I can. And you won't believe it, because you already have preconceived beliefs.

The incident did not happen the way Sara Burrows reported. It was deliberately misreported . It was contrived and vilified as government meddling. It is a continuing effort by extremely well funded right wing think tanks to dismantle public institutions and privatize everything in this country. It is not about protecting children, parents or citizens. It is about implementing an agenda.

 

[chanel]

Oh ok. So at least we agree that "if" this happened, it would be wrong.

Guess what? This isn't the only school. I posted a story a while back about bagged lunches being BANNED at a Chicago school. I'm on my bb so I can't look for it right now, but you can look if you're so inclined. Parents being PREVENTED from feeding their kids as they choose is the ultimate in nannyism. It's not a "non story".

 

[chanel]

I looked to the NC website and found this. It provides:
CHILD CARE RULE .0901
Food From Home
When children bring their own food for meals or snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the nutritional requirements outlined in the Meal Patterns for Children in Child Care, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements

That would require a lunchbox inspection, no?

 

[chanel]

I looked to the NC website and found this. It provides:
CHILD CARE RULE .0901
Food From Home
When children bring their own food for meals or snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the nutritional requirements outlined in the Meal Patterns for Children in Child Care, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements

That would require a lunchbox inspection, no?

 

[chanel]

http://ncchildcare.dhhs.state.nc.us/pdf_forms/center_chp9.pdf

 

[Bfgrn]

http://ncchildcare.dhhs.state.nc.us/pdf_forms/center_chp9.pdf

http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/docs/20120215231055.pdf

 

[chanel]

Thanks for that update. I guess the principal will now be thrown under the bus, with the teacher, and the "researchers"...

 

[Bfgrn]

Thanks for that update. I guess the principal will now be thrown under the bus, with the teacher, and the "researchers"...

No one needs to be thrown under any bus. It is overblown and laced with misinformation.

It is not a story, it is an AGENDA. It is misinformation and propaganda that is always funded by the same sources and always spread like a disease by the right wing echo chamber.

And the people behind it just love you right wingers who believe the only thing in this world we need to fear is government.

 

[daveman]

Thanks for that update. I guess the principal will now be thrown under the bus, with the teacher, and the "researchers"...

No one needs to be thrown under any bus. It is overblown and laced with misinformation.

It is not a story, it is an AGENDA. It is misinformation and propaganda that is always funded by the same sources and always spread like a disease by the right wing echo chamber.

And the people behind it just love you right wingers who believe the only thing in this world we need to fear is government.

That's right, because they only thing we need to fear is conservative Christian veteran gun owners.

I've been told by this Administration that those people are dangerous.

 

[chanel]

The sad thing is that we will probably never learn the principal or the teacher's side of the story because they will be forbidden from talking to the press. And if the teacher talks about it on facebook, she could lose her job.

I guess we'll just have to wait for the next story to come out - from NJ or CA or VT, etc.(which it will). Of course those parents won't be invited on the morning talk shows, so we'll have to hear it from the "right wing echo chamber". Stay tuned.

 

[Douger]

Designed especially for murkins.

 

[Bfgrn]

Thanks for that update. I guess the principal will now be thrown under the bus, with the teacher, and the "researchers"...

No one needs to be thrown under any bus. It is overblown and laced with misinformation.

It is not a story, it is an AGENDA. It is misinformation and propaganda that is always funded by the same sources and always spread like a disease by the right wing echo chamber.

And the people behind it just love you right wingers who believe the only thing in this world we need to fear is government.

That's right, because they only thing we need to fear is conservative Christian veteran gun owners.

I've been told by this Administration that those people are dangerous.

Link up...