8 years 1 month ago - 8 years 1 month ago#80960by AnnaM
I agree totally with latcatin, which is why our kids went to Catholic school for the most part. Oldest son went to public school from grades 1-7 because we enrolled him in the gifted program, but in retrospect I think he would have done better staying in Catholic school.
Unfortunately, the lunches in Catholic school were pretty much the same as lunches in public schools, but I recall getting that same food for lunch when I was a kid (on the rare days Mom sprung for hot lunch) and obesity in kids was rare. I think it has more to do with portion control and activity. We actually had an HOUR for lunch, so we spent a half hour outside playing, in ADDITION to gym class. Recess has pretty much been eliminated from schools, especially in the upper grades (5-, which is a huge mistake. I'd be willing to bet it has more to do with teachers not wanting to supervise the playground and school systems not wanting the liability for injuries than any lack of time in the schedule for it.
And what is the deal with snacks in the classroom? Our kids were in SECOND GRADE before someone decided they could make it through two hours without eating. I don't remember even getting snacks in kindergarten when I was a kid.
Our child's lunch hour is also ~25 minutes...but this includes the time walking to/from the cafeteria as well as getting their milk or hot lunch, finding a seat and unpacking the meal. If the class of wiggly little first graders isn't quiet enough to suit the lunchroom para who is walking the kids to lunch (teachers don't do that now) then they will make the class stand and wait. At times, I have found the waiting to be excessive in relation to the noise or antsy movements of the kids.
Have parents complained? Yes. Have parents complained about the dwindling recess time? Yes. This is even worse in the winter when we have a large number of days where it is too cold for the children to go outside. We don't have a designated 'indoor recess' plan that is anything except letting the child sit in the classroom and have a movie. FYI ... in my son's first grade classroom this also involved an extra snack treat from the teacher.
Is parent code for "mom"? No. But we are moms here discussing this. Should both parents be responsible for 50% of parenting? In an ideal world, yes. We all know that as much as we desire that (and push for it) that this often isn't the case. I feel like my husband is a 50% dad now, but that is because I have delegated the jobs to him that he can do. Our tasks really don't overlap in parenting. He takes them to the dentist, is responsible for bath time, and does part of the driving (for example). He isn't the emotional caretaker of the teenagers needs because he doesn't have that skill set. He IS more organized than I am though, so that is why he arranges the dental visits, etc. We do a good job of balancing each other out. I don't expect him to be able to be like me and do what I can, and he knows my limitations too. Part of the problem with the mom=parent argument I think is that we want our spouses to be US sometimes and they aren't.
In the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer.
Allergies, yes. Every daycare room my kids have hit has sent home a nasty note for something in the kids lunches. No nuts of any kind, one other child has some fruit allergy (not strawberries, but I can't remember which, so I only send apples and bananas, which I remember are okay). Nothing can be brought in for treats. In the elementary school we literally got a one page note on what is allowed, and ingredients included in common products that cannot be in anything we send. Additionally a note was included from a parent with their child's picture detailing what has happened when they come in contact with items they are allergic to.
I refuse to be the parent that causes a full blown attack- but sometimes I do wonder how much of this is a true allergy vs. parent preference/child not liking certain items. Evil, I know- I would never send the peanut butter sandwich as an experiment, but one has to wonder.
My kids also have 25 minutes, travel time to/from the lunch room (which is the gym) included.
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy - MLKJ
My daughter attends the best public school system in the nation where she's taking courses like Chinese and Engineering design, so I'll obviously strongly disagree with the statement about "ALL" public schools being the enemy. She also once attended tennis camp with kids from one of the best private schools in metro DC and it was a complete nightmare! Bullying, clicks, girls kissing in the locker room. Personally, I've found kids on BOTH ends of the financial spectrum to be, how shall we say.......EQUALLY challenging. So from that point on, we never, ever considered private school again even though we both attended them growing up (I stopped at middle school).
As it relates to health, I'd say the enemy to good health for many is laziness. How can a parent encourage a child to eat right and exercise when they don't? This is why I do NOT believe in universal health care without the stipulation that outside of some serious medical issue(s), normal BMI's must be maintained. And that as the BMI goes up, so should the cost for health insurance. Tough line sure, but we all know that being overweight, eventually leads to a plethora of medically expensive, yet sometimes highly preventable medical conditions.
Finally, I believe the majority of the time, if you want to know how a kid is going to "turn out" whether we're talking about education or weight, look at the parents. And to asunshine's point, unfortunately parents = Mom. My Mom runs 10 miles/week and literally has legs like Beyonce'. I won't pretend to be able "to hang" with that, but I do hold my own at almost 45. My kid plays tennis. We're ALL actively involved in eating right and exercising.