Posted on 01/11/2007 12:57:52 PM PST by goodnesswins
The social-service industry thinks otherwise. One of its principal lobbies, the Children's Alliance, paid a visit to The Seattle Times the other day to promote its proposals for the Legislature — a Legislature likely to be favorable. One of the group's proposals was that the state should pay for a free lunch to kids from families in the $26,000-to-$37,000 income bracket for a family of four. These kids have been offered a lunch that is reduced in price but not free.
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
We had outstanding lunches when I was in school because our mothers would volunteer to cook in the cafeteria. Of course, this made it difficult to eat what you wanted with your mother in control of the menu :(
Makes you wonder when congress will mandate free breakfast and lunch for minimum wage workers.
Food, wages, lifestyles are all replacing individual freedom as "rights."
ping
I make my kids lunches now, at least 4 out of the 5 days of the week. They weren't eating the school lunches, and this way I can control what they are eating, and the portions. Plus I can make special things they like (like chicken quesadillas) and I know they are eating it.
And my 11 y.o. can share the Oreos with the girl he eats lunch with, lol.
More
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563271/posts
Healthy People 2010
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1561077/posts
Animal Tagging and SCHOOL LUNCHES???
The leftist government would gladly take over all the responsibilities of parenting kids, and indoctrinate them against traditional values and in favor of the "values" loved by the left.
That is easy to say when the pupils are cherry-picked. But for the other 90% of the population things are not quite so rosy.
Maybe those folks need to work a little harder in the interest of their children.
AAAACHHHHHH......there are WAY TOO many people with WAY TOO MUCH TIME on their hands (and government funds!)
AAAACHHHHHH......there are WAY TOO many people with WAY TOO MUCH TIME on their hands (and government funds!)
Who said the home education is "rosy"?
The view that home schooling is the answer to much is rosy in the extreme.
That was a worthy double post! Truth with emphasis!
It might have helped that sentence.
It is also one more example of government helping families by relieving them of their jobs.
I do not need the government to do my job.
Sometimes my daughter has breakfast at home, sometimes at school. The same with lunch. At this time of the year I like that she can get a hot lunch at school, but somedays she just prefers bringing a sandwich and whatever kind of goodies she can convince me or daddy to put in her lunch box!!!!
I believe that the poster just meant that just as home cooked meals are better, home education is better. The 90% that you claim that is not true for ( assuming that figure is correct) is anecdotal.
People who homeschool choose to do so. I guess that is cherry picking to you, but not to those parents that make that choice. It can be an answer to those who wish to make that sacrifice. But that sacrifice is not "rosy". The outcome has a better chance for those who make it work.
It seems that, that choice is too rosy for you. So be it.
It may not be true for others.
Do you think that schools should be in the business of taking over the parenting of children by this policy of encroachment of parental duties? (i.e. school lunches?)
The sentence is quite clear. Even a publicly schooled child could understand it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.