Posted on 01/31/2014 9:31:51 AM PST by NormsRevenge
School officials in the US state of Utah have apologised after an employee confiscated and discarded the lunches of about 30 children whose parents were said to be in arrears on meal payments.
Outraged parents in Salt Lake City said the students at Uintah Elementary primary school had been humiliated.
The school system has launched an inquiry into the Tuesday incident, blamed on a sole "nutrition manager".
The children whose meals were put in the rubbish were given fruit and milk.
"This was a mistake. This was handled wrong,'' Jason Olsen, a spokesman for the Salt Lake City school system said on Thursday.
According to Salt Lake City school officials, on Monday a nutrition manager arrived at Uintah Elementary to investigate what it described as a high number of negative balances on the accounts students use to pay for lunches prepared and served by the school.
The nutrition manager and another school employee began calling parents with negative balances in an effort to recoup payment, the school system said.
Then, on Tuesday, students who had queued up and were served lunch only to arrive at the tills and show negative balances were told to give back the lunches.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
I don’t go to Salt Lake. It’s become like Eugene or Austin. The cafeteria manager and supervisor have been put on paid leave while the district ponders excuses:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57477909-78/district-lunches-leave-iframe.html.csp
Here’s a fairly good article on how Utah districts deal with the lunch money arrears issue:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57472249-78/district-lunch-lunches-students.html.csp
I kinda got that feeling when one of my cousins daughter went Salt Lake TO ACT, AS IN ACTRESS. She was a real cute young Woman, never heard what happened to her.
Our school always notifies parents when that occurs.
Yep! Seen that!
Sorta related: How are all the overweight nurses going to receive their lifestyle consultations under Obamacare?
who cares if they were so called “humiliated” ???
more importantly food was taken off them and they were left hungry...
stupid liberal mentality...
What am I missing here?
The parents didn't pay for the lunches [probably thought that everything should be free now] and the kids didn't get lunches.
Are you saying that's wrong?
And you think that's fine and good? Why bother charging for lunch if you get one anyway? This thread is really starting to annoy me.
Or are parents just unnecessary now? The state can raise the little beggars.
Right. Sounds like communism and that you're fine with that.
I'm fine with kids under 8 yrs old being fed if some adult(S) screwed up.
Call it what you like!
Once it was given to them it became their property. And despite what many may think, grabbing something from my child, using force and fear, is an assault, it is robbery, and deserving of swift on the spot justice.
I did not say the school should have grabbed the lunches. I said the parents could have avoided any trouble by paying up.
I'm sure that you are fine with that. Nonetheless, the school lunch program is designed around the parents paying for it [or, more probably, a portion of it]. If they don't, someone else has to pay for it.
Waaaaaay back in 1959, my parents coughed up $1.10 a week so cute, little BfloGuy could eat in the cafeteria. Some parents [thriftier than mine] didn't. They sent lunch along, usually in a paper sack. Still others, who lived close to the school, went home for lunch.
It worked very well and no one ever thought to question it. It was, after all, a matter of responsibility. But, hey, throw it all away. See my tag-line; it apparently refers to you.
Definitely true today and for the past 30 years. Back when I attended public school in New Jersey no less, we began each day with a reading from the old testiment by one of the students. If they chose not to do so they could opt out but that was done rarely. We also pledged to the flag each day in home room. We learned real American History and the school was nationally recognized as one of the best in the US in educational achievement sending 90% onto college when there were few if any “preferences”. While most of the faculty were dems, they were of the conservative variety long since expelled from the party, most of the men were veterans of WW2 or Korea. I don’t know how this all changed on our watch but it did and it did so for the worse.
How it all changed was by the collectivists slithering and quietly weaseling in to the school system starting at the top and then working their way down.
You hit the nail on the head there. My dad was a copper in that town. After I had graduated, he pointed out to me the new superintendent of education was an elitist based on some personal dealings he had with him. My dad was a good judge of people as he added, this is not going to end well. He was right. That once prominent district is now in the dumps partly due to the school leadership IMO. For instance, under the superintendent's concepts, the students became more involved in school processes including discipline, dress and involvment in social issues. Some of these changes occurred around the Vietnam era and partly paroted national trends to the detriment of education IMO.
They sent lunch along, usually in a paper sack. Still others, who lived close to the school, went home for lunch.
Bingo on both counts for me.
I think it's funny how you think you are informed when you are clueless.
I'm sure you agree with the article that the food should be taken away and thrown out if the kid doesn't have $$ to pay.
I also think it's a hoot that somebody from NY is lecturing a Texan on socialism!
If a kid can’t afford the standard lunch and they don’t qualify for the “free” lunch the cafeteria gives them bread, a small serving of Peanut Butter, and a small serving of jelly.
Nobody let’s anyone “starve.”
The kids who take the “free” lunch have to take all of the lunch items. A lot of food ends up in the garbage (they dump it on the way to their seat). I’ve helped a few kids who don’t qualify for the “free” lunch but I also advise them that I can’t write them off on my taxes. I suggest they make friends with a few of the “free” lunch kids. This solution often works out great.
Heh. I've been to Austin and, even way out here in the country, I read about Houston's mayor, and the abortion-princess running for Governor. There's no shortage of socialists in Texas. That I should refrain from debating socialism with someone simply because he or she is from Texas is a ludicrous.
I still can't understand your position that the government should forgive non-payment of school lunches (or anything).
Isn't that exactly what causes eventual dependence on it? I mean, I realize you're just thinking of the children, but why can't you see the broader implications? Or is this just a grudge match now?
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.