|
6540. thoughtful - 7/12/2005 6:23:35 PM schools do play an important role but they're balancing limited budgets against what a battery of nutritionists say is healthy (didn't at one point the govt say that ketchup could be counted as a vegetable???) and most importantly what children will eat. The lunch line was always longest on Fridays at our schools as that's when they made pizza....lousy though it was.
I ended up bringing my lunch to school every day...cheaper and tastier. 6541. arkymalarky - 7/12/2005 8:27:10 PM Pre-kindergarten through 3rd or 4th grade is a good time to feed kids much healthier food and just create a school environment where they're not going to get deep-fried, high-fat, and sugary food. I've always had a problem with kid finickiness driving what they're fed, at home or at school. I've seen parents fix their kids entirely different meals from what was just cooked, and the kids are obviously using food to control the parents, which is unhealthy in all kinds of ways. And I say that as a finicky child and adult myself. Kids will eat when they're hungry, and if there aren't unhealthy options available they'll eat the healthy ones. I think schools, especially for small children, have an obligation to feed kids healthy food. 6542. thoughtful - 7/13/2005 2:20:59 PM Problem starts at home though. We haven't been in a fast-food joint in years and years (except to use the potties when we're traveling), but my mother tells me she's seen babies who can't even talk but have no problem grabbing a french fry, dipping it in ketchup and consuming it heartily.
As an adult, I know how powerful sugar cravings can be and children have a much higher tolerance for sweets than adults. (I used to eat candy corn and those orange peanut things like there's no tomorrow, not to mention things like scooter pies and marshmallow fluff. BLECCH!) So before they even get to school they're already trained to choose food that's extra sweet or extra salty rather than healthy.
Even the sippies things for young babies that are 'supposed to be healthy' because they have 'natural flavor' and vit c added are fundamentally sugar water.
Then try to get a kid to opt for broccoli instead? Fat chance. (no pun intended). 6543. arkymalarky - 7/13/2005 3:59:37 PM I realize the problem begins at home, but in poverty-stricken families you're not likely to get a lot of information to them, much less get them to change. However, when a child depends on the school system for at least two of his meals from the time he's 3 years old, and he receives them as part of the free lunch program, the school has a huge role to play in that child's nutrition, and there's absolutely zero excuse for feeding them crap. Parents beat their kids too, but it doesn't give the school reason to do it, as well. Deep-frying and opening cans is not cheaper, it's just a lot easier to deal with. In fact, lunchroom cooks used to prepare great stuff on very little money. At the virtually all-black rural school where I taught two years, they had beans instead of meat once a week, and the kids, especially the little ones, ate it. They didn't have any choice. 6544. arkymalarky - 7/13/2005 4:01:19 PM And I agree with all of what you posted, since I was the same way, except that it's any excuse for a public school to offer unhealthy choices to small children. My allowance was spent almost entirely on candy until I was old enough to care what I wore in public, which wasn't until I was in my late teens. 6545. arkymalarky - 7/13/2005 4:02:55 PM And...it's much better for young children to get at least some healthy meals while they're in school than to get none at all. When they're teens it's more problematic, but if schools are consistent it won't be an issue by then. 6546. arkymalarky - 7/13/2005 4:05:40 PM ...they had beans instead of meat once a week, and the kids, especially the little ones, ate it. They didn't have any choice.
Which, it occurs to me, would be another reason not to teach elementary school. I'd have hated to be a kindergarten teacher about 2:00pm on bean days. 6547. thoughtful - 7/13/2005 8:10:04 PM are school meals provided free of charge? or do they have to pay? 6548. judithathome - 7/14/2005 12:47:16 AM Even the sippies things for young babies that are 'supposed to be healthy' because they have 'natural flavor' and vit c added are fundamentally sugar water.
And now, they are putting Splenda in those drinks and most of the sweet snack foods and colas kids are having.
6549. arkymalarky - 7/14/2005 1:23:37 AM Thoughtful,
Kids who qualify get free meals, and some have reduced price meals. It's a federal program, and is a basis for measuring children in poverty in public schools. It also helps determine the amount of state aid to high poverty (70% or more on free and reduced meals, and in AR a number of schools have over 95% of their students living below the poverty line and on the F&R program) public schools in Arkansas--one of the good things that came out of education reform here in the last couple of years. AR also added a preschool program for three and four year olds, so now, in addition to the Head Start Program, children in poverty have the state option of preschool, where they can get free or reduced price meals, making it even more important that schools work on offering healthier food. 6550. arkymalarky - 7/14/2005 1:51:28 AM We went to visit a fairly low-income district as part of our promotion of fair reform for poor and rural schools a couple of years ago, and the kids were having hamburgers that day, which is common everywhere--but the buns were homemade, because it was cheaper for them to make buns than buy them. 6551. thoughtful - 7/14/2005 2:19:24 PM because it was cheaper for them to make buns than buy them.
That's amazing! I mean a production line churning out thousands of buns an hour vs homemade? Un-freakin'-believable! And for schools to have 95% below poverty is also unbelievable.
The coasts really are different from the middle and being a lifetime coaster, I guess I'm really really sheltered. 6552. arkymalarky - 7/14/2005 4:00:36 PM Some of those poorest districts can be the most rewarding to work in, too, if they're small enough that kids and teachers don't get lost in the system and buried in non-educational paperwork, and if their administrators are taking lower pay because they care about the kids and community rather than because they can't get jobs anywhere else. There's just so much community support and people appreciate the school and staff. Community people are also willing to work in lunchrooms and as janitors and will do more for less (like making homemade buns). In many rural communities the school is the biggest employer.
I've turned down several higher paying jobs over the years (and in fact, got a call at home just last week offering me a teaching job in a larger school--one time I got an offer while I was standing in line to get my car tags) because I am committed to where I am, and I was miserable trying to work in another--many would say better--teaching environment. In working with administrators over the last two years, I've been most impressed by the competence and accomplishments of those who are really committed to high-poverty rural schools (of course I am very biased in that regard).
(reining myself in--note to self: don't morph every discussion into rural education!) 6553. arkymalarky - 7/14/2005 4:18:05 PM And now for something completely different:
What, exactly, is the difference between an MD and a DO? 6554. thoughtful - 7/14/2005 4:53:45 PM Encyclopedia definition: osteopathy (ŏstēŏp'əthē) , practice of therapy based on manipulation of bones and muscles. This school of medicine, founded by A. T. Still in 1874, maintains that the normal body produces forces necessary to fight disease and that most ailments are due to “structural derangement” of the body. Frequent slight strains are held to be capable of causing misalignment of bones and various other conditions of the muscle tissue and cartilage, and treatment is directed toward correction of these conditions.
The first school of osteopathy was founded at Kirksville, Mo., in 1892. A growing number of other colleges in the United States are accredited by the American Osteopathic Association to give the required four-year course of training and to grant the degree of D.O. (Doctor of Osteopathy). These colleges give a complete course of instruction in conventional medicine as well as in osteopathic theory and practice. Osteopaths are licensed to practice medicine, including surgery and the prescription of drugs, throughout the United States. Many specialize in treating bone and muscle conditions, but about half are primary-care physicians in general medical practice.
6555. thoughtful - 7/14/2005 4:54:43 PM toys? 6556. arkymalarky - 7/14/2005 6:49:17 PM Oooohkaay. Thanks! Does anyone here have an opinion on them one way or the other? 6557. thoughtful - 7/14/2005 6:51:03 PM don't know...never been to one. 6558. arkymalarky - 7/14/2005 6:57:41 PM One was just hired in our doctor's office, and I expect mine is preparing to retire in the next year or two. There will also be an MD coming in next summer, so I'll probably go with her instead, unless someone gives me compelling reasons to try the DO. I was thinking we'd discussed them in here a long time ago, but I couldn't recall any details. 6559. PelleNilsson - 7/14/2005 8:06:18 PM Here in Sweden they are classified among others who practice "alternative medicine".
|
