Banning Packed Lunches - Research Paper Example

Banning Packed Lunches Serving children with proper nutrition is an important role that parents must do. Regardless of their work or other preoccupations in life, parents should always ensure that their kids are receiving the nutrition they need. However, many parents fail in their responsibility to provide proper diet to their children because most of them work more than 12 hours a day. The failure of parents to satisfy the nutritional needs of their children has become a concern among school officials. According to the article on the website of Mother Nature Network (MNN) which first appeared on April 12 this year, the principal of Little Village Academy in Chicago has made a move to ban packed lunches after seeing kids drinking soda and eating junk foods for their lunch. Considering different factors, this initiative by Carmona may be applauded by other school officials who in turn could implement the same policy. Carmona’s observation of children carrying unhealthy foods and beverages is true. It happens in every school, regardless of the children’s economic status. In fact, it is even true at homes. Many parents nowadays allow their kids to eat whatever they like, without thinking of nutritional value simply because they are not home to see what their children are eating, and they themselves have become engrossed with the fastfood nation. The practice of eating processed foods has become a tradition. Many families rely on cooking processed meat in order to save time and energy. However, this practice should be stopped right away in order to ensure the health and safety of our young children. At home, parents should monitor what the kids are eating and teach them to take in only those foods which promote good health. Being the second home, schools should take the initiative to care for children and implement the rule made by Carmona. The moment the parents send their kids to school, they are already delegating the responsibility of taking care of their child to school authorities. This means giving full trust to the principal and teachers to decide for the good of the child. Ensuring that children receive the proper daily nutrition they need is one very important aspect of taking care of children. Such role should be ensured in order to secure children’s future. Considering this, Carmona’s move should be implemented in all schools, hence it is high time for school authorities to consider reviewing the said rule. Carmona’s regulation is nothing new. In fact, it is just a response to the state-wide call for health and nutrition. Many nutrition plans have been made beforehand but they still seem to be inadequate especially when it comes to implementation. For instance, according to the website of the Department of Agriculture, the office, with its program called National School Lunch Program, reimburses students’ meals with nutritious after-school meals such as whole wheat bread, meat, milk, and so on. However, this intervention is not preventive of obesity or eating unhealthy foods. According to the Troiano and Flegal (82), the rate of obesity cases among adolescents progressively rises because of eating junk foods. On this note, parents should be alarmed and do their best to teach their kids how to eat healthy foods. However, instead of promoting healthy eating, parents are the ones who tolerate and teach their kids to eat unhealthy foods by preparing fancy lunches such as nachos, desserts, packed with soda or other energy drinks. Recognizing the current problem, Principal Carmona is doing a good job, imposing the banning of packed lunches. If parents cannot satisfy the nutritional needs of their children, this is their chance to give nutritious food without too much effort. With a small amount, kids can take advantage of healthy snacks and lunches composed of fresh fruit, drinks, and potatoes. Served at the school canteen, parents can also be assured that the foods are prepared carefully. Nutrition is also ensured as school officials themselves monitor what the school canteen serves. Aside from nutrition, imposing the rule of buying school canteen lunches also provides a way for additional school profit. Doing this would then raise the school funds and allow the school to save some budget for extra-curricular activities. There are times when schools find it difficult to obtain budget from the state. However, if such schools can earn their own money to buy the resources they need, it will be a lot easier and impressive. Taking into consideration the negative response of many parents to Carmona’s rule, schools may also consider other options to overcome the current health problem. For instance, as the article author (MNN) suggests, schools may impose buying school lunch only for those who do not have their lunch. Likewise, they may allow time for bringing packed lunches. For instance, instead of requiring the kids to buy canteen lunches everyday, the school may impose buying lunch only from Tuesdays through Thursday, when most parents are busy with their work. Doing so may help parents save time and money, and allow them to have time for their children. Instead of preparing lunches, parents may do better to teach their children at home, play with them, or watch TV programs together. Such bonding activities are usually needed in order to guide students well. Likewise, they help parents cut back on resources. The suggestion above does not entirely tolerate lousy parents. Rather, it assigns parents to cook for their children and see to it that the children are eating nutritious foods. Moreover, the idea of assigning packed lunch days will allow parents to express their love for their children despite their busy schedule. Children, especially young ones, appreciate bringing something that their parents have prepared. On this note, parents can be sure of proper nutrition, food variety, and preservation of culture when it comes to eating at school. Banning packed lunches is also a way to promote making good choices. As students get exposed to buying their own, they will soon develop making good choices even at an early age. Furthermore, students will learn how to prepare healthy food based on what they eat at schools. As such, banning packed lunches will not only promote good nutrition but also cooking or preparing one’s own food. Getting used to eating healthy, children will soon develop the habit of eating and preparing healthy foods. Thus, Carmona’s rule will hopefully change the current situation in the so called fastfood nation. The rule may present a potential remedy to the problem of eating out at fastfoods and restaurants. In time when these children transform to adulthood, they will teach their own children to eat healthy foods, thus creating a health-conscious culture. Such culture will eventually eradicate food establishments that do not serve fresh foods. The rule imposed by Principal Carmona clearly attempts to transform the present society. First, it helps the school raise funds by selling food to the students. Second, it changes the way children and parents view eating and preparing food. Particularly, as children get used to eating vegetables and other healthy foods, they make it a habit to eat only those foods that are good for the body. Third, the policy challenges fastfood restaurants to offer healthy food s in order to maintain their businesses. If such restaurants continue to serve what they have been serving for years now, they will soon lose in the competition. Fourth, the policy will serve as an eye opener to other schools that let their students eat junk foods. Hopefully, upon reading the article, educational administrators such as Principal Carmona will be reminded of their duty to promote the health and well-being of their students. Works Cited National School Lunch Program. 2011. United States Department of Agriculture. 5 December 2011. Web. Troiano, R. P., and Flegal, K. M. “Overweight Children and Adolescents: Description, Epidemiology, and Demographics.” Pediatrics, Vol.101 No., 1998.; pp.497–504. Name Professor Course Date Dealing with Packed Lunches Parents usually want the best for their children. They want to provide the best education, shelter, clothes, and food. In order to ensure giving their children the best, many parents do extra efforts in sending their children to school. For instance, some parents take time to prepare packed lunches because they want to ensure their kids are eating nutritious food to help them grow healthy. However, this important role of parents could now change as school officials take over the responsibility of deciding on children’s lunches. Surprisingly, the principal in one private school in Chicago, the Chicago Little Village Academy, has taken the lead on this initiative. News has it that starting April this year, the principal of the school does not allow students to bring their own lunches unless they have food allergies. The news report which appears on the is very surprising. It imposes a strong challenge to school officials and parents alike. Nevertheless, it can be expected that many parties will respond mostly with criticism. Expectedly, the move has provoked a number of MNN bloggers to criticize the idea. This kind of school policy gives the impression that parents nowadays are irresponsible and that the school is the best decision making body in determining what is good for the children. The reason for the initiative of Principal Carmona is valid. She only wants the best for the children. Giving children, especially kids, the right nutrition as early as pre-school will teach the kids the right way to eat and live. When interviewed, the principal, Elsa Carmona, claimed that she felt disappointed to see children bringing soda and other non-nutritious food to school. Because of this, she decided to impose the lunch policy. She believes that limiting kids to lunches served at school would be the answer to the nutrition gap problem. However, banning packed lunches has its drawbacks, which can be more frustrating. First, banning packed lunches tolerates irresponsible parents. It exempts them from their role of providing good nutrition. Many parents who are working do not have time to prepare their children’s lunch, thus they resort to giving money to their kids in order to buy lunch at the school canteen. This practice eases the burden of parents but also lessens the bond they have with their kids. School lunches are usually economical; however, preparing packed lunch is a way for parents to express love for their children. Thus, as long as kids are little, I believe it is only proper to make packed lunches for them. Second, and more seriously, banning packed lunches teaches students about communism. The thought of centralizing food source for a given population is basically a communist idea. On the economic perspective, as the school controls the food source, it also controls where the people’s money goes. The policy could serve as a way of centralizing people’s money. In time, if more and more schools make up such kind of policy, the money of the people will be centralized in schools and academic institutions will act as central commercial establishments, thus defeating their main function in society. If more and more schools ban packed lunches, food stores and franchises will soon tie up with schools in order to make it big in the business. In this event, schools will have better profit than other food establishments throughout the school year, which defeats the purpose of educating children. Third, banning packed lunches is a communist idea because it limits the rights of the children to decide on what they should eat. With the said school policy, the children will have less chance to choose what to eat. Doing this means curtailing their freedom in choosing food, which is similar to depriving them of the ability to go for what is best for them and make good choices out of varied options. Being a social institution, every school should promote making choices, deciding for oneself, and valuing decisions. However, as it appears, banning school lunches does not conform to the values mentioned. Prescribing lunches and limiting choices is a way of suppressing children of their rights. Moreover, prohibiting children from bringing food to school suggests bureaucracy. If this rule will be followed continuously, in time, the school will exercise its power not only in prescribing lunches but also in other aspects such as deciding what courses students should take or what professions they should practice in the future. Fourth, banning packed lunches could destroy family culture. Eating is part of every culture, and different cultures have different delicacies and eating practices. For instance, Americans have potatoes as their main source of carbohydrates. Chinese have noodles, whereas other Asian countries have rice. Similarly, some cultural groups such as Mexican, African, Thai, and Indian prefer to eat spicy food, whereas others prefer non-spicy dishes. Considering these, limiting children to a set of prescribed menu served in school canteens is delimiting culture and even forcing it to change. Doing such means suppression not only of individual rights but of cultural identity. Fourth, the rule on packed lunches could likewise cause greater problems in nutrition. Carmona claims that the foods they serve children are much more nutritious than what parents prepare. On one hand, the food in school canteens could truly be nutritious; on the other hand, there could be problems in terms of quality control and preparation. Authorities should always be on guard to ensure that school canteens are true to their claim that what they are offering are really nutritious foods. Additionally, they should ensure cleanliness and quality control. If schools intend to adopt the rule, strict guidelines should be implemented in preparing and handling food. For instance, left-over food should be discarded and never be served again for economy. Children deserve the best nutrition regardless of easy affordability. Foods served in school canteens should always be of best quality. To ensure this, schools should be made to comply with stricter standards on health procedures. Banning packed lunches in schools could bring about a number of issues. First, it presents a threat to people’s thinking, culture, and attitudes. Banning packed lunches may seem to be a simple issue in school, but it can radically change the society as a whole. As discussed, limiting children to school canteen meals can affect their ways of thinking. It exposes them to communist ideas because such practices would suppress the right of children to choose what to eat. Moreover, the idea would expose them to a bureaucratic system, which schools practiced in the 1900s and even earlier (Wise 98). In particular, this system totally contradicts the latest trends in school systems. The latest trends in education promote a totally different line of thinking. To date, our school system has gone through a lot of changes, which promote multiculturalism. From the bureaucratic system that discriminates non-white students, the school system nowadays has become more accommodating of different cultures. From the multicultural theories of Banks and other academic experts, this transformation in the way schools treat students signify a great change. Students nowadays can choose to enrol in any school they want, schools encourage cultural diversity, and the general atmosphere in campuses is a lot friendlier these days. Therefore, going back to the times when schools practiced bureaucracy is a backward step in the field of education. In particular, banning packed lunches is a backward step from the present conditions that students are enjoying. It basically negates Banks’ (20) idea of multicultural education. According to him, schools should have a culture and structure that empowers diverse cultures. In this regard, this initiative will make us go back to the time when schools ruled and controlled everything. Furthermore, banning packed lunches could change societal systems. Particularly, changing the way people behave could signify a change in society. Likewise, requiring students to buy lunch in school could affect businesses. Food canteens will make better profit but leave behind many food suppliers. In view of this, many food establishments will consider investing in school canteens, thus resulting in a shift in trend in the food business. This change may be minimal in the market perspective but it will affect the way schools operate. As mentioned previously, such system in the way food businesses operate could change the image of schools. Instead of promoting literacy and learning, the new system could make schools look like money-making institutions. As such, school officials should rethink their decision regarding banning packed lunches. Finally, banning school lunches can result in drawbacks relating to people’s culture and traditions. If Carmona’s rule will be implemented in all schools, it will not take long until different cultures lose their real identity. School officials should note that there are differences in the way people eat and every child originates from a family and a culture that distinguish them from other children. Therefore, making students eat the same food is contrary to promoting cultural diversity, which schools are still trying to achieve at the moment. Works Cited Banks, James. Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives. NY: John Wiley and Sons, 2009. Wise, Arthur. Legislated Learning: The Bureaucratization of the American Classroom. CA: University of California Press, 1982. Read More