You can call it what you want but this is NOT about what's healthier for children because people who have been in the army and prison will say the worst food they ever ate was from school cafeterias, I don't think this is a case of anything more than just a money motive:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/education/ct-met-school-lunch-restrictions-041120110410,0,4567867.story?page=1


So they KNOW the kids are NOT eating the school lunches, are just chucking them into the garbage but they're forced to have those anyway because parents can't be trusted to send anything good to school for their kids. Gee, they're ONLY the parents, ONLY the people raising these kids, WHY would anybody think they knew one damn thing about what's good for their kids instead of the buy-whatever's-in-bulk-and-cheap hairnet squad?

Exactly. Now if I were a person like John Munch from Law and Order, I'd probably say that there must be a conspiracy here because they KNOW the kids aren't going to eat, and everybody knows when kids are hungry, they don't pay as much attention in school and their overall performance is considerably worse...and it would make sense if they were deliberately trying to get all the kids to do poorly enough in school that they all had to be held back and then they'd get an extra year's worth of money off of renting the books and all the charges that come with a year of school, on TOP of the $2.25 per kid per lunch per day that they're making by issuing this Nazi-ish rule to the kids of 'buy your lunches here or else'.

Shale wrote:

There used to be parental rights over what their kids did or ate. I think I carried a brown bag lunch in high school and had snack money to spend on Cheetos or Hershey on the walk home. (The difference I walked miles when I was a teen - so I could get away with eating that crap)

I think the principal is overstepping here and just wait for some parent to contact a lawyer to put an end to this (shool boards don't like lawsuits and will set policy restricting principals autocratic control) BTW, altho vegetarians and Jews are a minority I suppose they did make accommodations for them.

Ooh, kids on a hunger strike - how healthy is that?

Exactly! What if the child just doesn't like what is being served for today's lunch? Do they starve or allow the student to bring in a brown sac lunch to be able to eat lunch. This prinipal is overstepping society's civil rights.

This is just more proof of my entire disdain for the entire school system. It's not about what's healthier for the kids; it's about control.

It's a well intentioned bad idea. As one person in the article said, it's a one size fits all solution, and they don't work. The article also said the policy started 6 years ago. I guess the parents don't think it's too terrible or else they're a bunch of sheep. If these kids don't eat lunch, how are they doing in class with their stomachs growling?

This principal is way over the line.

Parent's should be the one in control over what their kids eat. It's great they are trying to promote healthy eating, but this I don't approve of. Then they are also forced to buy lunch instead, which has me wondering if that's a significant motivation in all this. I don't know how much those lunches cost versus a bagged lunch. But my main concern is it's up to the parents what their kids eat.

A principal shouldn't be allowed to make this type of decision for a school.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

This is just more proof of my entire disdain for the entire school system. It's not about what's healthier for the kids; it's about control.

I agree.

That is crazy, what if the child and parents of the child do not have enough money to pay for the school lunches every day. More government control.

Chris wrote:

I don't know how much those lunches cost versus a bagged lunch.

It's $2.25 per student per lunch per day, with one student alone this is over $400 during the school year, take that times how many kids are in the school that don't have food allergies.