Sometimes I am almost clueless when trying to figure out the reasoning behind some new government mandate. This past January, the Chicago Board of Education (CBE) decided to require that a free breakfast be served in all elementary schools in Chicago during the first 15 minutes of the morning. Not a bad idea until you learn that the breakfast will not be dished-up in the cafeteria, but on the students’ desk in the classroom and they are not lengthening the school day to make up for the time spent eating.
We will examine both problems separately.
SERVING FOOD IN THE CLASSROOM
When I was growing up, nobody had life-threatening allergies, but now many children can become violently ill from being exposed to such breakfast items as milks, eggs and peanut dust. The Tribune reported, that Dr. Kelly Newhall at the Chicago Family Asthma and Allergy medical practice said the classroom breakfasts are especially risky for young children "because egg, milk and wheat allergies are more common among younger children, and these are the same children who are most likely to put their hands in their mouths."
Currently, schools have designated segregated tables in the cafeterias to keep children with allergies separated, to lessen contact with foods that could harm them.
The CBE has also decided that students, not adults, will clean the classroom after breakfast. Not only are children not capable of cleaning anything to a level of sanitation in a food situation but the allergy exposure problem then becomes even more apt to occur.
What about children who have ALREADY eaten breakfast at home? Now they will be eating a SECOND meal, because no child ever turns down food! I don’t think Michelle Obama and her “fat people campaign” would approve of double breakfasts!
Since the meal served by Mother at home is probably fresher and more delicious than school food, does CBE want families to stop serving at home?
I understand that many children from low-income families do not get breakfast at home, so if a meal is mandated just serve it in the cafeteria!
TIME SPENT EATING
The CBE has mandated 15 minutes for eating breakfast. The Tribune figured that would result in about 45 hours of lost learning time a year. I don’t agree with that estimate because they did not calculate the time cleaning up after the meal! Add that task to the mix and it really ends up being about two weeks of school-time being spent on eating and cleaning—not learning!
Northwestern University education professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach said, "With one of the shortest instructional days in the nation, I don't want to see any school — especially those who might need class time the most — lose more."
KATHY SOLUTION
For students who want a school-supplied breakfast, they come 15 minutes early and eat in the cafeteria.
I think that is a lot smarter plan the clout-appointed members of the CBE have devised; and I don’t even have a Masters in Education. Sometimes common sense needs to prevail.
You would rather humiliate a child that comes from an impoverished home, lives in a shelter or worse is homeless by making sure that only those children get to school early(by the means of the family which already can't provide food let alone provide an earlier from of transportation) so that no one is inconvenienced?
ReplyDeleteThis is ridiculous. Many of the families who desperately need help feeding their children are struggling in ways you cannot imagine.
We wouldn’t want to put anyone out just to feed a hungry child would we?
Thank god the board understood that the benefit from feeding hungry children in a humane and decent way is the right thing to do!
Bob writes:
ReplyDelete"Good for you. And now let’s hope Rahm can force a longer instruction day down the throats of the CTU."
let's just give them all mcdonalds gift cards and they can buy whatever they want.
ReplyDeleteSharon writes:
ReplyDelete"When I was an elementary school principal, we served breakfast in the cafeteria BEFORE the instructional day began. The same was true when I was high school principal. I see no logical reason to change this. By the way, food stamps, or whatever they are called now days, are given to parents/guardians to BUY FOOD for their children's breakfast, lunch and dinner. Did everyone forget that?
The first law suit stemming from an allergic reaction is only days away!
I agree with your blog!"
Sue writes:
ReplyDelete"Common sense did it again!!! I think your solution is the only acceptable one!!"
Honestly, as a former teacher, I never cared if my students ate in class during class time... as long as they did their work, behaved, and cleaned up after themselves. (hey, you gotta pick your battles in the classroom, food wasn't one of mine...) And no, I never had a kid fall over in allergic seizures because of peanut dust, etc... Truthfully, it made for a calmer learning atmosphere. I see no problem with it, as long as it's kept under control...
ReplyDeleteMost people who are on food stamps and WHATEVER still don’t have enough money to feed their kids.
ReplyDeleteWhy help when we already give??? BECAUSE KIDS ARE STARVING!
When feeding a child in a humane and respectful way becomes an issue of debate we have reached a new low. The people who give the “they get money anyway” response have no heart or compassion. The kids are coming to school hungry.
YOUR blog is WRONG. MORALLY WRONG. WRONG. You are siding with people who don’t give a shit whether a kid gets fed or not. You are siding with people who don’t feel responsible for the well being of all children.
Longer days are not financially possible. The answer is to give kids breakfast in their class. It is a solution to a problem that has to be solved. The kids need to be fed. PERIOD.
If the kids are hungry because of bad parenting, low income, homelessness or neglect is not the issue. IT DOES NOT MATTER! We must feed them.
If the schools don’t have the money to extend the day. IT DOES NOT MATTER! We must feed them.
If there are people who object. IT DOES NOT MATTER! We must feed them.
We are talking about feeding hungry kids.
Upon relflection I might have been wrong and not taken into consideration the feelings of the children if they are segragtaed to eat apart from those more fortunate. I would never want to cause humiliation to a child.
ReplyDelete