Sunday, August 26, 2018



School District Under Fire From Parents After Banning Fast Food

Parents of children at a Missouri school are fighting back after the school district announced it was banning fast food from being eaten on campus during school hours.

A terse announcement on the Facebook page of Dear Elementary in the Richmond School District in Richmond, Missouri, stated that "(n)ew board policy states that no fast food is allowed at lunch or during school hours for students."

One would assume that there isn't a Carl's Jr. anywhere inside Dear Elementary or any of the other schools in Richmond. However, this means that parents can't even make choices regarding what their own children bring to school.

It didn't take long after the Aug. 15 announcement for the district to start receiving significant backlash.

"At the end of the day, we want to be able to decide on our own," Chris Swafford, who has five kids in the district and two at Dear Elementary, told WDAF-TV.

"I thought it was overstepping at its finest," he said. "It's up to parents what their children eat."

Swafford also contended that fast food was being made a popular scapegoat, claiming that there wasn't a whole lot of nutritional difference between some of the bagged lunches that parents give their children and the fast food lunches the school was banning.

"Just because I don't personally bring fast food to my children at school doesn't mean other parents shouldn't be able to do," Swafford said.

"Parents' lives are busy. They sometimes have things going on, and sometimes, grabbing a 10-piece nugget from McDonald's and taking it to their child shouldn't be an issue."

Richmond School District Superintendent Mike Aytes told WDAF that district personnel were too busy to comment on the issue. Parents on Facebook, however, weren't. School lunches, as those who remember Michelle Obama's tenure as first lady know, are a hot-button issue.

"I don't agree with this. At all," one parent wrote.

"I'm the parent. It is my job to parent my child and make those decisions. What she eats, how much she eats, what she wears, how she does her hair, if I keep her home because she is sick, those are MY decisions The schools sole responsibility is to provide a safe, positive learning environment for my children to get an education. They are not, and will not be making parenting decisions for my children."

"They don't get money from students that bring a lunch from home. Why can't they have a burger with family on special occasions?!" another wrote. "This is stupid as can be!"

One of the more common arguments for the policy wasn't health outcomes, however, but the fact that fast food represents privilege.

"My kids take their lunch," parent Karen Williams said. While she opposed the policy, she said she understood fast food might make other kids feel bad. "Kids have been getting their birthday lunch brought to them since they were in kindergarten. I think it's kind of silly, but I could see how other kids would feel sad if they didn't have anything ever."

"Oddly I support this," another Facebook commenter wrote, according to Fox News. "I would hope they are doing this for the right reasons though. That being it's simply not right for kids who do not ever get these things to watch the other classmates eat it in front of them. Some parents can't afford to bring child fast food."

"So what about all of the other kids that are going to be complaining that your kid got a happy meal and they didn't? What about the kids who parents can't afford to bring their children lunch or something like that? Are you really gonna let your kid eat their happy meal in front of all these other kids? They're avoiding those issues all together with this policy," another person defending the plan wrote.

Head, meet hand.

I can marginally understand the concept behind banning fast food in schools for health reasons, although I'd point out that school-provided or home-cooked lunches aren't necessarily any healthier. However, since when did fast food become a status symbol? Maybe it's just me, but I was under the impression it was the other way around.

Here's a novel idea: Let's go further in eliminating outward vestiges of privileges. Why stop at burgers and fries?

Let's put all these kids in school uniforms so nobody has to worry about being clothes-conscious. Students can't be bused to school, since those buses might stop in front of their houses and other students would see how rich their families are. All kids will be henceforth driven to class in school-issued 2003 Kia Rios so that nobody will seem any richer than anyone else. Trained dogs will be stationed at all entrances, sniffing out any students that may try to smuggle in a Whopper or a Frosty.

Busybody educators of the world, unite and take over!

Yes, this is wholly ridiculous - just as ridiculous as banning fast food from schools that happily serve pigswill, all in the name of health consciousness and privilege-checking.

SOURCE 






The snowflakes are safe: University bans snowball fights and water guns

The endless quest for ‘safe spaces’ on campus hits a ridiculous new low. Delaware State University has announced that it is banning snowball fights, water guns, super soakers, and most masks that cover the face out of concern that they could present “potential harm” to students.

According to Fox 6, which first reported the ban, violators could face punishment including “warnings, reprimands, community service, fines, or disciplinary probation.”

Now, the school is claiming that it has enacted the new rules in order to create a “safe space” for students. But I think a truly safe space is one where you are allowed to experience the joy that some of life’s simplest pleasures have to offer.

Let’s face it: Snowball fights are pretty much the only good thing about this particular form of precipitation. Snow, after all, is generally terrible. It’s basically just chunks of freezing cold death that fall from the sky, which eventually melt and turn everything they’ve touched into mud. You’re forced to walk around cold and wet — and then cold, wet, and muddy — when all you’re trying to do is get to class. Sure, there are some people who get excited for things like the first snow, but I personally am not one of them. In fact, the moment I see those formidable flakes falling from the sky, I immediately start praying to God to save me from what is assuredly going to be four to five months of pure, shivering hell.

If you can’t tell, I hate the winter. But even someone like me can appreciate a good snowball fight. In fact, other than possibly sledding, the one saving grace that we have as humans in the wintery months of misery might just be the pure, unadulterated joy of a snowball fight. You might have to worry about things like school or work or bills, but when you’re engaged in a snowball fight, all of those things melt away. When you’re engaged in a snowball fight, all you can think about is creaming your friend with a snowball, and dodging your friends’ fire as they aim to cream you. The same joy can be experienced during the summer using water guns. When you’re playing these sorts of games, you can feel like a kid again, and that’s not something that Delaware State should be taking away from its students.

Another thing to remember about snowball fights is that they are, indeed, consensual. If one student were to just randomly smash another student in the face with snow, that wouldn’t be a snowball fight. It would be assault, and I would completely condone the college punishing the perpetrator. Banning snowball and water-gun fights altogether, though, is absolutely ridiculous. After all, most students attending college are adults. By the time you’re an adult, you should be given the freedom to decide whether or not you’d like to participate in a snowball or water-gun fight on your own. You have the emotional capacity to make that decision on your own. What’s more, by the time you’ve reached adulthood, you generally know how to wield both snowballs and water guns in a responsible way. You know not to hit people in the face, and you know that people have to consent in order to be considered a participant in the fight.

College can be a stressful time — exams, papers, figuring out what you want to do with your life after you graduate. Taking away the relief of a snowball or water-gun fight is wrong and un-American — and Delaware State University should be ashamed of itself.

SOURCE 





Australia: Inner-Sydney primary school bans SOCCER BALLS - to make the playground 'safer'

Parents have been left outraged after their children's primary school banned soccer balls and limited students access to the oval.

Summer Hill Public School, in Sydney's inner-west, sent a letter to the parents of more than 800 students this week to announce the new rules.

Natalie Bamback said her active seven-year-old son Nash Cazilieris was devastated he could no longer play his favourite sport at lunch time. 'He loves playing with the ball... I suppose he will get used to the new rules, but he doesn't like it,' she told the Sydney Morning Herald.

Under the new rules, Summer Hill Public School students will not be allowed to bring anything bigger than a tennis ball in to school.

Parent Michelle Vasconcelos said the new rules were overzealous. 'I understand why they're doing it, because there's a lot of kids that are getting hit – and teachers – with the balls. But at the same time they are kids, they should be coming to school, playing, enjoying the playground,' she said.

The school, which has has two main play areas - a basketball court and an oval - also stipulated changes to children's play time on the oval. Under the new rules, each grade will be banned from the oval one day a week, to 'alleviate overcrowding'. The school said the rule would make the oval safer for all students.

Summer Hill said oval time would be staggered to prevent younger children being injured by older students as they played side-by-side.

Opposition education spokesman Jihad Dib said overcrowding was a huge issue in schools, but he said the problem should not be passed on to the children.

'What you don't want to have is a situation where it's becoming so overcrowded that kids have to sit down at playtime and not do anything,' he said.

Summer Hill Public School, while popular for its successful NAPLAN results, is about 96 per cent full, the publication reported. Anywhere between 80 and 100 per cent is efficient.

A spokesman for the Department of Education said the new rules were not prompted by a lack of space, instead introduced to prevent conflict between the children. 

SOURCE 

No comments: