Today's Chicago Tribune reported that one Chicago school has outlawed lunches brought from home.
According to the article:
"At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria."
The idea here is that the school cafeteria lunches are more nutritious and healthier than lunches packed at home. Does anyone remember school cafeteria food?
The article further states:
"Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.
"At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad."
If you read the first sentence of the above quote, your mind begins to wander to such things as campaign contributions and kickbacks, but that's just idle thought--even in Chicago. Hmmm.
It's cheaper to send a child to school with a ham (I'm not sure peanut butter is allowed in school anymore) sandwich, a juice box, and a bag of chips than it is to buy a lunch for $2.25. I think this is an unnecessary intrusion into role of the parents and it also represents a significant expense--more than $10 a week for children's lunches. I can understand not allowing soda to be brought into school for lunch, but I think the idea of banning homemade lunches is really over the top.
Leave a comment