Chicago School Bans Home Lunches

• O-Trap

  

  I Wear Pants;740471 wrote:Son?

  Someone is confused, and it isn't you or I.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  cruiser_96;740251 wrote:Your sins are forgiven you. Go in peace, my daughter!

  Fixed it for ya
• jhay78

  

  O-Trap;740078 wrote:One is "taking action" by not offering something.
  
  If my school had been offering matso, and they stopped offering it, but maintained the students' rights to bring it, then they haven't infringed on anything.
  
  This instance, however, is not only stupid, but DOES infringe on parents' rights to effectively be responsible for their child's dietary nutrition. Blatant violation of rights, and should be taken to court.
  

  
  Absolutely, although the 9th Circus Court of Appeals would disagree with us: Fields v. Palmdale School District (2005)
  
  http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7BF36BF540-C568-46FD-B0CA-AC76E4754112%7D
  

  Heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, submitted November 2, 2005.
  
  Synopsis:
  
  The Palmdale School District conducted a survey regarding &#8220sychological barriers to learning,” which included questions of a sexual nature, asked of elementary school children. When parents learned that their children had received this questionnaire, they sued the district for the right “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex.” Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that the parents had any such right.
  
  “In sum, we affirm that the Meyer-Pierce right [of parents to direct the upbringing of their children] does not exist beyond the threshold of the school door.”
  
  &#8220arents…have no constitutional right…to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines that it is appropriate to do so.”
  
  “[O]nce parents make the choice as to which school their children will attend, their fundamental right to control the education of their children is, at the least, substantially diminished.”
  
  “We conclude that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select” (emphasis added).
  

  It shouldn't surprise us that this crap is happening in Chicago and other places.
• I Wear Pants

  I do agree with that ruling though. "Oh no my kid is gonna learn about sex!".
• tk421

  

  I Wear Pants;740689 wrote:I do agree with that ruling though. "Oh no my kid is gonna learn about sex!".

  
  Yes, but it should be taught at home. Sad that parents would rather act like kids don't have sexual feelings. What is it about being a parent that makes them completely forget what they were like when they were teenagers?
• I Wear Pants

  Why should it be taught at home?
  
  "Here go learn about everything at school, except for sex. We can't have you learning about that there from qualified people with degrees. We're going to instead do a terrible job teaching you about it at home".
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;740722 wrote:Why should it be taught at home?
  
  "Here go learn about everything at school, except for sex. We can't have you learning about that there from qualified people with degrees. We're going to instead do a terrible job teaching you about it at home".

  
  Problem is sometimes those qualified people with degrees want to interject their own sexual moral values. Sex ed should be at the middle school level and consist of the basic biology surrounding sex and the possible physical and emotional consequences of engaging in it.
• I Wear Pants

  You mean like interjecting that sex is bad and that you should wait until you're married and that contraceptives are bad?
• BGFalcons82

  

  Pants - You're a villager wanting to edumacate the chilren, aren't you?
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;740794 wrote:You mean like interjecting that sex is bad and that you should wait until you're married and that contraceptives are bad?

  
  Among other things.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;740825 wrote:Pants - You're a villager wanting to edumacate the chilren, aren't you?

  I'm sorry, I couldn't understand your illiterate point.
• BGFalcons82

  

  I Wear Pants;740937 wrote:I'm sorry, I couldn't understand your illiterate point.

  
  You write like a Hillary foot-soldier and think raising children is the village's responsiblity, not the parents. Right? Sorry for the illiterate, Southern, hillbilly, redneck, teabaggin unedumacated lingo. I'll try to raise my game to compete
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;740689 wrote:I do agree with that ruling though. "Oh no my kid is gonna learn about sex!".

  
  You do realize these kids were elementary school age (7-10). Let them enjoy their innocence. That said I agree with the ruling as well. A few parents who are in the minority have no protections under the constitution to force a local school to conform to their will (see school prayer). If they held a majority viewpoint in the district then the school administrators would be run out of office on a rail. These parents posses the constitutional right to remove them from this school district and send them to another.
  
  Given this is the 9th circus court of appeals one has to wonder if their ruling would be the same if the school district were teaching elementary students to abstain from sex until married. Or homosexuality was unnatural. Or the best environment to raise a child was in a male/female marriage relationship. Something tells me they find a way to come to a different conclusion.
• I Wear Pants

  Yeah because knowing about sex destroys innocence.
• I Wear Pants

  BGFalcons82;740949 wrote:You write like a Hillary foot-soldier and think raising children is the village's responsiblity, not the parents. Right? Sorry for the illiterate, Southern, hillbilly, redneck, teabaggin unedumacated lingo. I'll try to raise my game to compete

  
  What?
  
  You think that educating children in schools isn't good and that only a parent can teach kids, right?
  
  See, two can play the "let's put insane sounding ideas in the other persons mouth" game.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;741005 wrote:Yeah because knowing about sex destroys innocence.

  
  To a 7yr old kid yes.
• bigkahuna

  majorspark;741029 wrote:To a 7yr old kid yes.

  
  This x1,000,000. I'm all for teaching students sex ed along with STDs, pregnancy, contraceptives.... I got the basics in 8th grade and the whole thing in 9th grade. That to me was perfect because kids are at the height and end of puberty at this time.
  
  As for the OP, (I'm being 100% serious here)-----Watch Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution to be in Chicago soon! If you haven't watched the show, try it out. It's actually pretty good.
• I Wear Pants

  The basics in 8th grade? Are you kidding me?
  
  We did "the movie" in 5th grade and guess what, it didn't traumatize or ruin any of us or corrupt us.
  

  majorspark;741029 wrote:To a 7yr old kid yes.

  7 is younger than I would start it, we agree on that. But I think 5th grade (what it was at my school is a perfectly acceptable age to start those types of discussions at least on a basic level of how things work, contraceptive use, etc can come in middle school and high school health classes).
• bigkahuna

  I Wear Pants;741074 wrote:The basics in 8th grade? Are you kidding me?
  
  We did "the movie" in 5th grade and guess what, it didn't traumatize or ruin any of us or corrupt us.
  

  I meant 7th grade. Maybe I should clarify the basics. The one thing I remember is someone asking "When a girl's cervix is ripped during sex, does that mean her cherry is popped?" I meant the basics of sex, STDs, contraceptives.... When we got into 9th grade school, I remember seeing the pictures and specifics of STDs.
  
  I'm just curious, what movie do you speak of? I think the big thing did in 5th grade was the "Your Body and You." thing...or maybe it was 6th.
• majorspark

  

  In my elementary school the 5th grade movie was only for the girls. Us boys got an extended recess. We thought we had it made. Extra recess was all we cared about. Pussy was the farthest thing from our minds.
  
  The 5th grade movie was to introduce the girls to their soon to be experienced menstrual cycle. Not Sex.
• I Wear Pants

  bigkahuna;741083 wrote:I meant 7th grade. Maybe I should clarify the basics. The one thing I remember is someone asking "When a girl's cervix is ripped during sex, does that mean her cherry is popped?" I meant the basics of sex, STDs, contraceptives.... When we got into 9th grade school, I remember seeing the pictures and specifics of STDs.
  
  I'm just curious, what movie do you speak of? I think the big thing did in 5th grade was the "Your Body and You." thing...or maybe it was 6th.

  That's basically what I meant, basics of "this is how shit works". Not basics of "here's how to have sex properly".
  
  I was confused as to what you meant by the "basics". I'm fine with the basics of STDs, contraceptives, etc being taught in middle school. Not that me being fine or not fine with something matters.
• Ty Webb

  

  I love how people are blaming President Obama for this
• cruiser_96

  

  CentrerBHSfan: My bad. Went with masculine out of nothing more than just because. I gotchoo now, tho.
  
  TyWebb: Is that on this site that people are blaming President Obama for this situation? (I may have missed it. I mean, after all, I did miss that CenterBHSfan isn't a man!!!)
• bigkahuna

  I really hope that whoever said something regarding Obama was being sarcastic. He really has nothing to do with what rules a principal or superintendent make unless it's something obviously illegal.
  
  Does anybody know if their high school still has open lunch? I remember mu high school did until this school year because they finally built a new 6-12 building, and it opened this school year. Once it opened, kids HAD to eat lunch in the cafeteria.
  
  If a school was doing that (which I know A LOT if not ALL schools in Ohio or at least Midwest Ohio) have gone to that, would there be this much hub bub about it?
  
  I'll go on record as to say that I DON'T agree with Closed Lunches OR this no packed lunches in Chicago Schools.
• O-Trap

  

  I'm neither here nor there when it concerns sex education.
  
  #1. I am actually supportive of introducing kids to it as a concept when they're that young, much in the same way we do alcohol. Teaching kids to wait until they are older to engage in sex for the purpose of their safety and well-being isn't really much different from teaching kids to wait until they're older before consuming alcohol (legality of it notwithstanding). There are boys and girls beginning to engage in it at very early ages (a girl at the local youth center just learned she was pregnant about a month ago -- she's 11 and just finishing 4th grade).
  
  #2. I do agree that sexual education, from the standpoint of being taught by the schools, should indeed be exclusively biological and scientific. Teach the physiology of it, and teach what contraceptives are available (and what is NOT safe as a contraceptive), and what they do. I would STRONGLY emphasize the FACT that no contraceptive is 100% effective, and I would also emphasize that it IS possible to get pregnant in any coital position and at any point in the woman's cycle. Those are all factual, and should be taught.
  
  Teaching the ethics and emotional element of sex, however, is the responsibility of the parent, and should not be within the scope of what the school has the authority to teach.