I’m kind of two minds on the story about the school in Chicago banning sack lunches. On the one hand, it really does get to the heart of the nanny mentality out there. A parent has the right to feed a child however they deem appropriate for their economic and health needs. Sure. Absolutely. Personal freedom. I’m for it.
On the other hand . . .
Some parents pack caffeine and sugar loaded lunches that are in colors not found in nature and jacked to the rafters with preservatives and additives. And then expect teachers to handle a kid spinning like the Tasmanian Devil in the middle of class by 1:30. Given the information that’s coming out about kids with ADHD and food allergies, and the latest about the FDA re-opening the case on food coloring and behavioral problems, it’s not surprising that educators want to be on the leading edge of the diet and behavior issue. I mean, it’s one thing to feed your kid something that could send them over the edge when they’re at home. It’s a whole other thing to feed them the food equivalent of crack and send them on their merry way when you aren’t going to be there to deal with the fallout. Teachers have enough to handle. Pumping them up on Fruity Tooties and Jitter Bits and then saying “here you deal with them” is just dirty pool.
But this is just one of those instances of neither side being willing to bend. The school should have tried a little bit more of leadership and education (hmmm, education . . .), and the parents should have not reacted with “You’re not the boss of me!!” The school could have said, “This is what we’re dealing with. We think these things would help. Pack a nutritious lunch. If you can’t pack a nutritious lunch, we will guarantee you that you child can have one at school. And we hope that this will lead to a better environment for learning.” And then, if things didn’t improve, then maybe drop the hammer. But, really. It’s called compromise. It usually works really, really well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment