Regulations On Salt?

What schools are teaching religion? Seems that they shouldn't be teaching any religion, including christianity.

What schools aren't? History classes across the country are indoctrinating our kids with the teaching of the history of Islam and such. Whatever happened to having parents have a say in the kind of history their children are taught?

No worries though, Texas has started the ball rolling in getting these curriculum under control and other states are sure to follow.

Why stop there. Just push them off a bridge. Are you serious Firstdown?

Why they walk the blank on their own.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/4797/20081011barackishopetb0.jpg


im just kidding....

That poster was actuall a misprent.

http://www-static.weddingbee.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/13/huh.gif

Kind of an interesting show and presents some real facts about the quality of our food and our kid's food.

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution - ABC.com (http://abc.go.com/shows/jamie-olivers-food-revolution)

I just have a hard time watching because the Jamie Oliver guy is just so damn annoying and I agree with him but still find him to be annoying. He always just drops his name waiting for everyone to be like "oh wow" but instead everyone is like "who?"

FD is right...that attitude does exist. Schools teach the kids a lot of things that SHOULD be taught by the parents...without the parents' knowledge: sex education, morals, different religions OTHER THAN Christianity, politics in history class, etc.

The schools are actively trying to mold the kids' views along with and sometimes instead of teaching the fundamentals like math and English. They do have an elitist attitude while circumventing the parents, even those who are concerned, attentive parents...but I think in this case, it's not their main push here, dollars are.

I take issue with a lot of your generalities but am not going to spend half my day disputing/clarifying/refuting them. Suffice it to say, I agree in part that aspects of your statments contain truths but that to damn the entire system to the worst faults of some is inappropriate.

When it comes to teaching things that "should be taught by parents" and "actively trying to mold kids views", I would suggest that it is impossible to teach anything but the hard sciences w/out having subjective input from the District, School Administration and Teacher. I think it obvious that no guideline developed to teach children about history (including the what's whys and wherefores of various religions and their role in history), civics, art or philosophy (or, in your words "morality") that will be satisfactory to all parents. Further, I would suggest that there are certain school districts whose agendas are distinctly right of center - you know, those districts where they attempt to ban the teaching of evolution. []Page not found | Common Dreams (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0212-05.htm). Regardless of the inherent subjective nature of these subjects, I think it equally ludicrous to assert they should not be taught in our schools whether it be public or private.

Educating the millions of young people in our nation is no easy task given the broad spectrum of philosophies/ideas/concepts involved. Regardless of your beliefs, the only way to insure that your children are being taught appropriately is to take an active role in their education by engaging your children's teacher, reviewing what is being taught and spending the time to provide your children the tools (at whatever age they may be) to critically analyze what is being taught to them.

You, and no one but you, is your child's advocate and their are means to fight "the system" but they are time consuming. If your child's school is teaching children things "without the parents' knowledge", that is on the parents. Is the teacher and/or adminstration lying to parents about what is being taught ["Are you teaching evolution to my child?" "Uhhh, nope. No sirree. No way Bob"]. Is their a school wide cover-up? ["Okay kids, we are going to discuss what a condom is and how to properly use it. Whatever you do don't tell your parents!!!!"]. Sure it takes work and sure their are difficulties, institutional biases and prejudices, uncooperative or lazy teachers & administrators, BUT - who is ultimately responsible for your child's welfare and education? You want to bitch about the system - then work to change it. It is one of the few things in life where you can actually and effectively make a difference. (rant over)

^ Nice post Joe but you are wasting your time trying to talk sense to Buster he is closed door.

http://www-static.weddingbee.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/13/huh.gif


this my new favorite "Huh?" one.
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSL0zL603GA9xbfeu6rE_cV6OWqo1MOZ eRbhFtGcFG8e-3pqgRUrg

lol good one ^

Schools get more Federal funding based on the number of students enrolled in the National School Lunch Program. I work with these numbers firsthand.

They're just trying to boost their numbers with this move.

Some city schools have 70,80, even 90+% enrollment in "free lunches". I know urban areas typically have poverty issues, but you can not tell me that only 1 out of 10 kids live in a home where parents can afford to make them a PB&J sandwich. I think more kids gets enrolled because the schools are pushing it, and the parents are too lazy to take care of their kids. There are actually school districts where you have to opt out instead of sign up, because they don't want anyone to "feel bad about asking for assistance". :doh:

First, it is apparent from my reading of the article that, despite the headline, there is no policy to ban home made lunches. In fact, probably due to parent response, if the policy existed at one school, it no longer does so.

As to Title I grants, you're right - schools get more per pupil funding if a certain number of children are eligible for the federal free lunch program. I am sure that money is a motivator to some extent. Given the cash strapped nature of urban schools, I find that completely understandable. Further, from my experience with various adminstrators, I would be loathe to imply some evil intent behind their attempts to receive more funding. Rather, most administrators I have dealt with are searching for ways to provide better books, materials and human resources for all their students and particularly for their more socially disadvantaged students. Sure, there are lazy incompetents out there just looking to justify their positions, but that is true in any corporate environment (yes - even in the vaunted private sector).

As to the enabling aspects, I agree they exist and agree that they are idiotic - attempting to protect someone's "feelings" so that they don't have to face reality is ultimately crippling and leads to a feeling of entitlement and a disassociation from the civic society (i.e.- I am not taking this money from other people, I am taking it from "the Government")(As another example of this, in Baltimore those on public assistance receive "Independence" cards to be used like ATM Debit cards. I always think how Orwellian this is - they should be called "Dependence" cards, but that would make people feel bad. Sickening).

Some school officials I've heard on a local talk radio show claimed that a lot of city school students wake up before their parents, whose career is collecting welfare, not actually working. The kids have to get themselves up, try to find breakfast or eat it at school...and get lunch provided. Sad.

We all know Chicago is one of the biggest welfare places there is. This move just motivates parents even LESS to take care of their kids. :doh:

Your right. Clearly these children who motivate themselves to attend school should be punished instead of rewarded. We should absolutely damn the children for the failings of their parents.

As with most of these types of issues, I suggest the answer is not so black and white as you choose to make it. Yes, I agree, free breakfest and lunch creates a disincentive for the parents. However, using your example, these parents are already failing to provide for something I would consider to be a basic parental duty (feeding your child). So we should further punish the children of crappy parents by failing to provide them food? Don't we want these kids in school? Isn't some education better than none? By providing an incentive for the children to attend schools (good food), aren't we teaching them that responsible personal behavior (attending school) provides larger benefits? Isn't teaching personal responsibility a goal which we should be striving to teach these children? Particularly in light of the evident lack of such teaching in the home?

You know what? this is one of those cases where I believe we, as a society, ere on the side of promoting healthy children, even at the risk of disincentivizing parents, in order to provide children educational opportunities and, hopefully, to assist them in becoming productive members of society. In my mind, it is one government's fundamental duties to protect and care for the weakest most disadvantaged members of the society. It is one of the basic reasons we form a government - to provide mutual assistance and protection i.e. "to provide for the general welfare".