so Oling_roachinen, you have strong feeling on this topic.
So do you feel that the state (government of the day) has an equal right and responsibility to raise the child as the parents have?
If not, why in this case should the government be able to dictate to the parents how their child should be raised and indoctrinated, but not in others?
for this case, I think you get better results with guidance and education, instead of forcing "correct" views on someone, or someone's child.
and there should be exceptions. instead of teaching an autistic child and the family a lesson in nutrition, maybe the teacher could have shown some understanding and compassion in front of the students towards those that have different challenges. giving them a more important lesson.
the lesson the teacher ended up giving to the students here isn't a positive one for society.
Wow, I really feel for you parents. I would not cope well dealing with schools and politics and ridiculous things like this. I will add this to my list of, "Things I'm Glad I Don't Have to Deal With."
Good luck out there.
The Following User Says Thank You to ASP#26525 For This Useful Post:
so Oling_roachinen, you have strong feeling on this topic.
So do you feel that the state (government of the day) has an equal right and responsibility to raise the child as the parents have?
If not, why in this case should the government be able to dictate to the parents how their child should be raised and indoctrinated, but not in others?
As nice as it's phrased, it's a pretty stupid question. You're acting like the government(via school) isn't already having a huge role in how the children and being raised and indoctrinated.
Does the school dictate what to teach the kids through the syllabus? Yes.
Does the school force kids to exercise by having mandatory gym classes? Yes.
Would providing a healthy lunch, dictating what can be ate during school hours really be overstepping a bound? It's ridiculous, a concept that has opposition because it's not the norm. A ton of schools around the world prepare all the food children eat throughout the world. Making it healthy has only shown to improve obesity and overweight rates...
I don't think the government necessary has a right or responsibility to raise the child. But I do think a school has a purpose of shaping young people into contributing members of society. They should do all that they can so the children can be healthy mentally, socially and physically, especially making an effort in areas that need to be improved and aren't being done at home. I think parents should have the possibility of homeschooling if they don't agree with the school's teaching, policies or actions. I just don't see an argument against a healthy nutritional program at this point given the actual research and results.
so Oling_roachinen, you have strong feeling on this topic.
So do you feel that the state (government of the day) has an equal right and responsibility to raise the child as the parents have?
If not, why in this case should the government be able to dictate to the parents how their child should be raised and indoctrinated, but not in others?
I think it's unfair to imply that Oling is suggesting the state's right and responsibility to raise a child is equal to the right of the child's parents. That would imply something about state interference in parenting outside of school. This is a pretty clear straw-man.
It's worth recognising though, the foundational purpose of public education in Canada is to produce citizens that will be positive for Canadian society. That's what schools are there for, and it is not the individual parent that determines what is best for their child in that regard. The educational system is entrusted with making those decisions and enacting them through schooling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GordonBlue
for this case, I think you get better results with guidance and education, instead of forcing "correct" views on someone, or someone's child.
and there should be exceptions. instead of teaching an autistic child and the family a lesson in nutrition, maybe the teacher could have shown some understanding and compassion in front of the students towards those that have different challenges. giving them a more important lesson.
the lesson the teacher ended up giving to the students here isn't a positive one for society.
I think you are jumping to conclusions without adequate info. The info in the article simply does not give enough information about the context of the decisions made in this case to pass any worthwhile judgment.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
But I do think a school has a purpose of shaping young people into contributing members of society
You don't even get how ironic that statement is do you? They took a kid out of "society" and sat him in the hallway by himself. That's not creating a contributing member. That's doing the opposite.
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
As nice as it's phrased, it's a pretty stupid question. You're acting like the government(via school) isn't already having a huge role in how the children and being raised and indoctrinated.
Does the school dictate what to teach the kids through the syllabus? Yes. Does the school force kids to exercise by having mandatory gym classes? Yes.
Would providing a healthy lunch, dictating what can be ate during school hours really be overstepping a bound? It's ridiculous, a concept that has opposition because it's not the norm. A ton of schools around the world prepare all the food children eat throughout the world. Making it healthy has only shown to improve obesity and overweight rates...
I don't think the government necessary has a right or responsibility to raise the child. But I do think a school has a purpose of shaping young people into contributing members of society. They should do all that they can so the children can be healthy mentally, socially and physically, especially making an effort in areas that need to be improved and aren't being done at home. I think parents should have the possibility of homeschooling if they don't agree with the school's teaching, policies or actions. I just don't see an argument against a healthy nutritional program at this point given the actual research and results.
F. Scott Fitzgerald, the author of the Great American Novel "The Great Gatsby" also had a habit of using the slang bastardization of the contraction 've.
"‘he’d of got me" shows up in The Great Gatsby for example.
It's a first-person narrative, though. The voice is Carraway's; not Fitzgerald's. I don't know if you're right or wrong on your point, but The Great Gatsby doesn't support your position.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
Wow, 38 children in a classroom...and it is functioning exceedingly well.
Wow, the teacher supervises lunch in their classroom...and seems happy to do so.
Wow, the children clean the floors, desks, etc
Wow, the children collect their dirty dishes and stack them neatly.
Wow, the children not only recycle but they was their recyclables first.
Yup, that is mind boggling compared to North America.
Yeah, people aren't disgusting overweight savages there.
Walk around Tokyo and you'll see that there are literally no garbage cans anywhere. Nothing in malls or on the street. And yet everything is clean and tidy. People pick up after themselves. Hell, even their McDonald's (or any restaurant) has had the plastic, paper, and liquid drink splits for at least a decade now.
The Following User Says Thank You to chemgear For This Useful Post:
Yeah, people aren't disgusting overweight savages there.
Walk around Tokyo and you'll see that there are literally no garbage cans anywhere. Nothing in malls or on the street. And yet everything is clean and tidy. People pick up after themselves. Hell, even their McDonald's (or any restaurant) has had the plastic, paper, and liquid drink splits for at least a decade now.
My comment was more along the line of...
We’re often told teachers have too many tasks to juggle in today’s complex classrooms. Apparently, the teacher involved in this incident has time to pass judgment on students’ snacks on top of all the other demands placed on educators.
I would also like to know why this teacher was not aware of this child's needs. If you have an autistic child in your classroom, high functioning or not, it should be part of your duty to know about autism and the food challenges that go along with it.
And to actually send other food home as an example of better food choices is appalling. What if the child had allergies? Results could be devastating if the child ate food they were allergic to.
As a parent, I always checked if there were dietary restrictions of other children if they were in my house or under my care. I would expect nothing less from a teacher.
I think it's unfair to imply that Oling is suggesting the state's right and responsibility to raise a child is equal to the right of the child's parents. That would imply something about state interference in parenting outside of school. This is a pretty clear straw-man.
It's worth recognising though, the foundational purpose of public education in Canada is to produce citizens that will be positive for Canadian society. That's what schools are there for, and it is not the individual parent that determines what is best for their child in that regard. The educational system is entrusted with making those decisions and enacting them through schooling.
I think you are jumping to conclusions without adequate info. The info in the article simply does not give enough information about the context of the decisions made in this case to pass any worthwhile judgment.
I didn't imply anything. I politely asked a question, so Oling could respond. even he acknowledged that.
and I'm not jumping to conclusions any more than anyone else did.
my opinion is that the teacher acted quite poorly in this situation and instead of being guided in healthy eating, the students were shown how to ostracize a classmate.
the discussion of healthy eating in this case is secondary to how the teacher acted.
Oling, I understand much of where you are coming from given your problems with weight in your childhood, but I respectfully say that you don't have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to feeding special needs kids.
Yes, we have an obesity problem in this country.
Yes, nutrition based snacks are best.
Yes, schools encouraging parents and kids to learn and make good choices is fantastic.
No, educators have absolutely no right to take food away from a hungry child, or force them into isolation for having an irresponsibly judged "unhealthy" food.
Healthy foods are best BUT all this goes out the window when you have a child with an eating disorder. You said you were a "picky eater" when you were a kid and that's why you got fat. These kids aren't "picky eaters", they have eating disorders. You put some foods in front of these kids and if they are on their internal "unsafe food" list, they will not eat. No matter what you try to do to get them to eat these foods, they will starve themselves instead. Sometimes even the sight of these foods is enough to cause anxiety (yes even an apple can cause these kids stress). Putting a child with special needs in the hallway for a food he considers safe is disgusting and makes me positively furious.
Just because many other kids have problem with fat, doesn't mean all kids do. They are not all carbon copies of each other and each has their own needs. Many children NEED extra calories and banana bread can be a great way to get those calories (there's many ways to make homemade, healthy banana bread with limited sugar). A hungry kid is a disaster in a classroom. A hungry special needs kid will likely be even worse. No one can learn when they are hungry so waiting until lunchtime isn't always an option for problem eaters.
I am the mother of a child who has struggled with food since infancy. He has never been okay with pretty much any food short of a very small list of "safe" foods. He will literally starve himself rather than eat or even be near foods he deems "unsafe". He has been close to feeding tubes many times but thankfully we've been able to avoid that. He is 5 years old and in the 5% on the growth chart. He has been diagnosed with an eating disorder called "Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID). It used to be called " Infantile Anorexia". His doctors, nutritionists, dietitians and psychologists have all told us clearly, "feed him whatever he will eat no matter what it is".
If banana bread was one of the things my boy would eat, I would send it to school. If ANYONE at school did anything close to what this teacher did I would be in that school raising holy hell. Most of these people have no idea what they are doing when it comes to kids with eating disorders. We had to educate our son's kindergarten teacher at the start of the year. She had no idea what ARFID was, nor how to deal with a kid who has it. Thankfully the school my son goes to is extremely receptive to learning about it.
Long story short, you can't force every kid to eat the same way. You can't expect a kid with an eating disorder to eat foods they don't trust. You have to feed the child, sometimes with less than perfect food. Not every child will be fat.
I would encourage you to read a book that would likely open your eyes to the world of childhood eating disorders. It's called "Helping Your Child With Extreme Picky Eating", by Katya Rothwell. It might give you some perspective on what it's like having a child like this and understand that there's not really any "bad" food.
__________________ RED 'TILL I'M DEAD BABY!
The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Flamesoholic For This Useful Post:
I remember in elemtary I had most of my lunch for a day field trip over an hour out of town confiscated because it was "too big". ####### dug through my bag infront of class, took my Oreos and a couple other things
We’re often told teachers have too many tasks to juggle in today’s complex classrooms. Apparently, the teacher involved in this incident has time to pass judgment on students’ snacks on top of all the other demands placed on educators.
I would also like to know why this teacher was not aware of this child's needs. If you have an autistic child in your classroom, high functioning or not, it should be part of your duty to know about autism and the food challenges that go along with it.
And to actually send other food home as an example of better food choices is appalling. What if the child had allergies? Results could be devastating if the child ate food they were allergic to.
As a parent, I always checked if there were dietary restrictions of other children if they were in my house or under my care. I would expect nothing less from a teacher.
You raise a reasonable point that many gloss over: teachers are often tasked with handling a high needs child with next to zero formal training to do so, which can easily result in an unfair situation for the child. While I agree teachers should have a base understanding of the spectrum, my time working with youth in that community opened my eyes to how much there is to learn.
One big takeaway was that the "higher-functioning" kids looked more typical to strangers and teachers, which can make it very easy to ignore that they still have struggles. Based on the information made available, I don't agree with the teacher here, but I can see how something like this can happen. I think a lot of people (certainly teachers) look at a list of things to expect with an autistic youth and see "food aversion" and think of them as picky. More realistically, it can be a much more serious situation as Flamesoholic points out.
This is a crappy situation, but hopefully it can turn into a great learning opportunity for schools to find a more appropriate solution.
I've been thinking about this for the last couple of days. If schools want to closely control the nutrition of kids in their classes, I'm all for it. I'll stop making lunches and stressing about what I can and can't send, and the schools can provide all snacks and lunches for the kids. Done and done.
The Following User Says Thank You to tete For This Useful Post:
Breakfast, dinner and weekends I control what the kids eat.
At school I just want them to eat. If it's not completely healthy I'm not concerned as long as food is in their stomachs so they can learn. In the end because I control those other meals and make sure they are eating correctly it isn't that hard to have them eat correctly at lunch as well but if they want some more snacks that day etc I don't get concerned.
And teachers shouldn't be getting involved unless the student doesn't have food to eat. Sure then provide the student with food. Replacing provided food should not happen.
Last edited by ernie; 04-12-2017 at 11:47 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to ernie For This Useful Post:
I think there's two very distinct arguments being made that are being muddled together. One is whether this situation was handled correctly with respects to the autistic boy.
The other, more broader discussion which I have been on for awhile, is whether a school should be having a healthy nutritional program policy at all and how much say they should have in the "normal" child's eating habits throughout school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ernie
And teachers shouldn't be getting involved unless the student doesn't have food to eat.
Okay, so why not? Where's the actual argument against this? I've provided enough research to show that there's a very clear problem with the overweight and obesity in youths, and adults, and we've got data showing that schools that do get involved in student's food have incredibly drastic results. 72% differences in some categories. So why shouldn't the school implement a full on nutritional program, eat what they tell you to eat and be done with it (for the non-special dietary or mental needs students)? Better health, better academics, and we're against this because?
It's the same argument that was made against sex-education, despite the incredible benefits it has. Parents don't want to subject their children to it "because they know best."
It's funny how nearly every one in this thread believes the children are on the healthy path just based on what's going on at home and the school doesn't need to interfere, but where are the 70% of parents that will see their children become overweight in the future? I'd like to hear their thoughts on a nutritional program if they understood it meant their child would not grow up to be overweight and unhealthy.
Healthy foods are best BUT all this goes out the window when you have a child with an eating disorder. You said you were a "picky eater" when you were a kid and that's why you got fat. These kids aren't "picky eaters", they have eating disorders. You put some foods in front of these kids and if they are on their internal "unsafe food" list, they will not eat. No matter what you try to do to get them to eat these foods, they will starve themselves instead. Sometimes even the sight of these foods is enough to cause anxiety (yes even an apple can cause these kids stress). Putting a child with special needs in the hallway for a food he considers safe is disgusting and makes me positively furious.
The mother herself has said she had given her child fruits to eat on other days. This appeared to be the child preferring to eat banana bread or at least the mother preferring to supply him with it, but little indication that he would go hungry and starve without it. Special snowflake mother who believes the rule shouldn't apply to her and the student takes the punishment.
