googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
A North Carolina Non-Troversy?
by Mark Thompson on February 15, 2012
[UPDATED 2/16; see end of post for update]
Making the rounds the last day or two has been this story from the “Carolina Journal,” the monthly newspaper of the John Locke Foundation, which bears the headline: “Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria ‘Nuggets’; State agent inspects sack lunches, forces preschoolers to purchase cafeteria food instead.” (The story was eventually supplemented by significantly better reporting from another outlet here, which still fails to make the case being pushed by the narrative).
The headline sounds horrible, and the body of the story only makes it seems worse, conjuring images of government agents rifling through four year old children’s lunches to enforce USDA standards on healthy lunches, prohibiting children from eating food deemed insufficiently healthy (including turkey sandwiches!), and forcing them to instead eat government provided and mandated food (to wit: oh-so-healthy chicken nuggets). The original story also claims that the relevant regulations here apply to all pre-K programs, including home daycare programs, with the obvious implication that “this could happen to you!” This hits all sorts of libertarian buttons: invasion of privacy by the government, nanny statism of the highest order, government incompetence, not to mention forced-feeding of children. It even has the initial appearance of a well-sourced story, with quotes from the parent, the head of the state agency, and the school principal, not to mention the tie-in to Michelle Obama’s healthy school lunch platform.
Not surprisingly, this story has been picked up in large swathes of the libertarian and conservative blogospheres, including by Jacob Sullum, who is himself usually a pretty decent journalist, and entitled his post on the subject “North Carolina Food Inspector Rejects Little Girl’s Home-Packed Lunch in Favor of Chicken Nuggets.” The story even reached the pinnacle of attention within the right-of-center ideological media with a Rush Limbaugh segment (in which the “state agent” morphed into a “federal agent” charged with inspecting all lunch boxes). Predictably, the most outraged headline came from one of the folks at LewRockwell.com, “The Lunch Nazis are coming! No, They’re Here!”
One problem: the story is a load of bunk at worst, a non-story at best, standing for little more than the proposition that low-income children in NC’s low-income pre-K program whose parents don’t send them to school with enough healthy food will be provided with additional food to supplement what their parents send them to school with.
For starters, the context in which all of this occurred was a public school pre-K program run by the state popularly known as “More at Four,” but now called the generic name “NC Pre-K.” In order to have a child enrolled in this program, which has a limited number of slots, the parents must actively choose to enroll, with priority going to “at-risk” children, to wit: special needs children and (importantly) low-income children. Indeed, to even be eligible for the program, the child must either fit in one of those two categories or have a parent on (or about to be called on) active military duty. Enrollment as an “at-risk” child means that the child’s enrollment is fully subsidized by the state, regardless of whether the day care is private or public.
These facts are critical because the “state agent” in this story turns out to be nothing more than a researcher from a program that grades the performance of pre-schools and operates out of the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It also does not appear that this institute has any actual authority other than to provide assessments, which the state then uses in making licensing decisions and in setting the fees it will pay the day care provider for subsidized care.
Notably, as the second-linked story above suggests, the mother’s main gripe here does not even appear to be with this “state agent,” but instead with the school’s teachers, who continue to give the girl milk and vegetables despite letters from the mother asking them not to. Indeed, the notion that this “state agent” was going around inspecting every single lunch box brought to the school does not appear to have much basis, as the agent apparently ordered full school lunches for every single child in this program and (see update) was evaluating the school’s compliance with standards, not individual parents’ compliance. Even if he was doing such an inspection, there’s a pretty obvious context-specific reason for it: this is an opt-in program for parents who largely can’t afford to provide fully balanced meals.
Her other major gripe appears to be that she is worried about being charged for the additional food being placed in front of her daughter based on a letter from the school purportedly saying that kids who did not bring a healthy lunch would be offered supplements and that parents “may” be charged for the supplemented portions. However, as the second-linked story makes clear, no such charges have been issued nor apparently was there any actual chance that such charges would be issued.
The original story’s claim that the relevant regulation applies to all pre-schools is also false – to the contrary, it applies only to pre-schools choosing to participate in (and eligible for) the subsidized program.
The original story further obscures that in no circumstance was this child – or any child, for that matter – being forced to eat the school-provided lunch, nor was this child -or any other child – deprived of her boxed lunch. Instead, as the second linked story acknowledges, the child was just provided with additional food and given the option to consume that in addition to her boxed lunch. In other words, the claim that the school “replaced” this girl’s turkey sandwich, banana, apple, potato chips, and juice with chicken nuggets is totally bogus.
By and large, what this story boils down to is that a low-income child whose tuition is fully subsidized by the state under a program her mother opted into was offered some additional food to supplement the boxed lunch she brought from home. This option was provided not because of some overarching, generally applicable law or regulation, but because the program in which her mother and school voluntarily participate requires such an option be available. The mother apparently objects to this option being provided to her daughter, not because of any health concerns or the like, but because she incorrectly believes that she will be charged additional money for her child being provided this option. Since she won’t in fact be charged for this and there is no evidence she was ever going to be charged for it, there is absolutely no harm actually being done to her or her child.
Since this is also an opt-in program, there is no chance of this becoming some sort of generally applicable concern even to the extent there is some sort of nanny state concern here. If the mother has some sort of ethical problem with her child being provided with the option of drinking milk or eating vegetables at school, then she is surely free to send her child to an unsubsidized day care program.
At most, the only actual concern here, hinted at by the second-linked article, is the expense to the taxpayer of providing the extra food free of charge. Then again, since we are definitionally dealing with children whose parents will often lack the resources to provide a consistently balanced lunch, and since the whole point of the program is to provide those children with a pre-K experience that their parents’ income would otherwise prevent, this would not seem to be a tremendously important concern.
[UPDATE: The North Carolina Division of Child Development and Early Education has released a statement confirming much of what I wrote above, but also adding some additional clarification. According to the statement, the division has:
“determined that no employee of DHHS, nor the Division of Child Development and Early Education (DCDEE) or its contractors, instructed any child to replace or remove any meal items. Furthermore, it is not DHHS’ policy to inspect, go through or question any child about food items brought from home. The facts we have gathered confirm that no DHHS employee or contractor did this.”
Additionally, citing the above-linked statement, a local TV news outlet which had jumped on the bandwagon claims that “the agency says it gave the little girl milk to offset a missing dairy item.” However, this claim does not appear to be in the cited statement.
The TV station’s update further quotes the school district’s superintendent as saying that the child was simply instructed (it is unclear by whom, and it is unclear whether the child was first asked whether she wanted milk) to go through the lunch line to get some milk, and that the superintendent thinks “that the child became confused about what she had to do. I think the child, instead of going over and picking up the milk, I think the child, for whatever reason, thought she had to go through the line and get a school meal which, that’s not our policy.”
This version of events seems vastly more likely. In effect, it means that someone at the school, whether a teacher, cafeteria worker, or a state program advisor (it’s still unclear which, though the first two seem much more likely if you’ve ever seen lunch time at a day care center) observed that the child lacked milk and suggested she go through the line to get some if she wanted it. The child then mistakenly believed that going through the line meant she had to get an entirely new lunch.
This version also refutes the statement in the second-linked article from the top of this post that the alleged “state agent” ordered full cafeteria meals for every child in the program that day even as it confirms that no “state agent” was running around inspecting lunch boxes.
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
I guess it " didn't start here " .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20192
|
|
Cheese is a dairy product and the statement that the child in question wasn't sent to school with a healthy lunch but one that needed supplementing is laughable at best.
As someone who's had a son in a similar program, I find the generalization that the family is low income inaccurate. They may be, but even your blog acknowledges that those are not the only criteria for admission.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Cheese is a dairy product and the statement that the child in question wasn't sent to school with a healthy lunch but one that needed supplementing is laughable at best.
>>>>>>>>>> Yup , laughable that they require MILK for children .
As someone who's had a son in a similar program, I find the generalization that the family is low income inaccurate. They may be, but even your blog acknowledges that those are not the only criteria for admission.
>>>>>>>>>>> Simple alternative , pay for daycare , it's a FREE program .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20192
|
|
">>>>>>>>>> Yup , laughable that they require MILK for children ."
I agree, it is laughable to require a dairy product when the child already had one in her lunch.
">>>>>>>>>>> Simple alternative , pay for daycare , it's a FREE program . "
Nothing is "free", someone is paying for it. Let me assure you that the money spent on the early intervention my son received through the program has been recovered several times over by money the school district has saved because the issue was addressed early on.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
I agree, it is laughable to require a dairy product when the child already had one in her lunch.
>>>>>>> A slice of cheese is a DAIRY PRODUCT ? What's the USDA say on that ? So what kind of " cheese " was it ? Maybe it was nondairy .
Nothing is "free", someone is paying for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> In this instance the MOTHER is paying NOTHING .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20192
|
|
">>>>>>> A slice of cheese is a DAIRY PRODUCT ? What's the USDA say on that ? So what kind of " cheese " was it ? Maybe it was nondairy ."
choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/dairy.html.
">>>>>>>>>>>> In this instance the MOTHER is paying NOTHING ."
Unless you count the taxes she pays that support the program.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/dairy.html.
>>>>>>>>> Even if it was nondairy ? I suppose it was , of course , equal to a cup of milk , that is 2oz of cheese , funny , my Borden slices are only 1.25oz .
Unless you count the taxes she pays that support the program.
>>>>>>>>>>> She pays taxes ? How do you know she doesn't get freebies like the child tax credit and EITC ? Maybe she gets SNAP .
Poor woman , a free VOLUNTARY program .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30378
|
|
Ah, so when the fact that 50% of the population pays no taxes is brought up, you respond with "EVERYONE pays taxes, nothing is free..." yet when you want to make YOUR point, then this program is FREE and the mother pays nothing.
Great to see that you are consistent.
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
I'm using your own reasoning AGAINST you .
Who said poor people don't pay taxes ?
Who rails against government programs ?
That wouldn't be me .
If the nice lady doesn't want her daughter to be given food at preK , she can take her somewhere ELSE .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30378
|
|
"Who said poor people don't pay taxes ?"
You said that the mother was NOT being charged for this, yes, she IS, by paying taxes.
"If the nice lady doesn't want her daughter to be given food at preK , she can take her somewhere ELSE ."
Why should she have to find another program, and not use THIS program, which she PAYS for with her taxes, all because she wishes to have REASONABLE control over what her child EATS?
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20192
|
|
">>>>>>>>> Even if it was nondairy ? I suppose it was , of course , equal to a cup of milk , that is 2oz of cheese , funny , my Borden slices are only 1.25oz ."
Maybe it was nondairy, maybe the kid is lactose intolerant... I mean while we're guessing... the daily commendation for that age group is 2.5 cups of dairy, maybe mom should submit all her meal choices to the school before they can accurately determine if the child meets the daily recommended guidelines...
">>>>>>>>>>> She pays taxes ? How do you know she doesn't get freebies like the child tax credit and EITC ? Maybe she gets SNAP . "
According to you... everyone does, why would you except her? Or were you wrong before...
"Poor woman , a free VOLUNTARY program ."
So... that makes it okay? At what point does a parent have the right to make food choices for their children? And if this is indeed acceptable... when will we start regulating SNAP purchases? We don't know who provided this meal, whether the money came from the mother's job or taxpayers like you suggested... but we know where SNAP money comes from, let's start regulating those available choices.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
You said that the mother was NOT being charged for this, yes, she IS, by paying taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just how do you know that ? Aren't you the one that only counts INCOME TAXES as a TAX ?
Does she still pay taxes if she gets the child tax credit , EITC or any other GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE ?
Why should she have to find another program, and not use THIS program, which she PAYS for with her taxes, all because she wishes to have REASONABLE control over what her child EATS?
>>>>>>>> Because that's the guidleines which she should have BEEN AWARE OF before enrollment . Too bad , so sad .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30378
|
|
">>>>>>>>>>>> Just how do you know that ? Aren't you the one that only counts INCOME TAXES as a TAX ?
Does she still pay taxes if she gets the child tax credit , EITC or any other GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE ?"
Because YOU said she does. Oops, my bad, you're a Democrat, so you can switch sides on a topic when you need to, I forgot.
">>>>>>>> Because that's the guidleines which she should have BEEN AWARE OF before enrollment . Too bad , so sad ."
So the GUILDELINES were followed...but the article was false? So which is it? You are showing your true colors {and now comes the name calling, I predict}
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Maybe it was nondairy, maybe the kid is lactose intolerant... I mean while we're guessing... the daily commendation for that age group is 2.5 cups of dairy, maybe mom should submit all her meal choices to the school before they can accurately determine if the child meets the daily recommended guidelines...
>>>>>>>>>> maybe mom should know the SCHOOL'S GUIDELINES before opening her big , fat mouth .
So... that makes it okay?
>>>>>>>>>>> Yup
At what point does a parent have the right to make food choices for their children?
>>>>>>>>>> they do , at home but not in FREE DAYCARE .
And if this is indeed acceptable... when will we start regulating SNAP purchases?
>>>>>>>>>>> they already do
There's guidelines , why ? Cuz there WOULD BE some scumbag out there who'd save a few bucks by feeding kids GRUEL everyday if they could .
Don't like it ? Look elsewhere .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
gr8Dad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/07/04
Posts: 30378
|
|
">>>>>>>>>> they do , at home but not in FREE DAYCARE ."
So the FACT that we have a REPRESENTATIVE government, and that a parent DOES have direct say in the raising of their child means nothing?
Just move along SHEEP, the herd is being sent to the slaughterhouse...
--------------------
Why give a "senior" discount, they have had plenty of time to raise the money...
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Because YOU said she does. Oops, my bad, you're a Democrat, so you can switch sides on a topic when you need to, I forgot.
>>>>>>>>>> I get it , she's a lucky ducky deadbeat until you have a point to make .
Personally , I could care less if she makes a million or lives on public assistance . Anybody who complains about what they're getting FOR FREE is an AS SHOLE .
So the GUILDELINES were followed...but the article was false? So which is it? You are showing your true colors {and now comes the name calling, I predict}
>>>>>>>>>> Hahahahahahahahahahaahhahaha .
THIS article was correct . Not the fuauxnews nonsense you posted .
So was the mother too stupid to know what she was signing up for ? My youngest was in a preK program , the paperwork was SPECIFIC .
She didn't know ? Take your kid elsewhere .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
So the FACT that we have a REPRESENTATIVE government, and that a parent DOES have direct say in the raising of their child means nothing?
>>>>>>>>>>> Quite an encroachment , giving a child MILK in daycare .Don't like it ? MOVE ALONG . TRY ELSEWHERE .
Just move along SHEEP, the herd is being sent to the slaughterhouse...
>>>>>>>>>> Paranoid much ?
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20192
|
|
">>>>>>>>>> they do , at home but not in FREE DAYCARE ."
It's not a free daycare, it is a program to improve school readiness for at-risk children.
"And if this is indeed acceptable... when will we start regulating SNAP purchases?
>>>>>>>>>>> they already do"
SNAP purchases are not restricted to only foods that meet the daily recommended guidelines.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
It's not a free daycare, it is a program to improve school readiness for at-risk children.
>>>>>>>>> If they're " at risk " a little nutrition won't hurt em . BTW , it's still FREE .
I'm sure mom didn't get ANY paperwork from the school SPELLING OUT their guidelines .
I gotta laugh .
SNAP purchases are not restricted to only foods that meet the daily recommended guidelines.
>>>>>>>>>>> Good thing THE GOVERNMENT didn't regulate this little girls lunch EITHER .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Just like some use the money they save by not having to buy food on the above items, they can also use it on sugar-sweetened drinks. No one is saying that those on food stamps are not allowed to buy these things, only that the government will not provide them. I don't see a problem with that.
>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm , no problem with the government saying someone can't buy something with a benefit but a problem with the government guideline on what SHOULD be served .
Righties make my head hurt .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20192
|
|
">>>>>>>>> If they're " at risk " a little nutrition won't hurt em . BTW , it's still FREE ."
What was wrong with the meal the mother provided? And someone is still paying for it...
"SNAP purchases are not restricted to only foods that meet the daily recommended guidelines.
>>>>>>>>>>> Good thing THE GOVERNMENT didn't regulate this little girls lunch EITHER . "
Glad we agree that SNAP purchases are not regulated after all. But if the government didn't regulate the lunch... then who did?
|
Sherron
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 11/25/06
Posts: 20192
|
|
">>>>>>>>>>> Hmm , no problem with the government saying someone can't buy something with a benefit but a problem with the government guideline on what SHOULD be served ."
Yup, now you're getting it.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
What was wrong with the meal the mother provided?
>>>>>>>>>> Nothing except someone thought the little girl should have some MILK .
And someone is still paying for it...
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously not the mother .
Glad we agree that SNAP purchases are not regulated after all.
>>>>>>>>>> Except for not being able to purchase alcohol , tobacco , nonfood items or prepared food . Nope , not regulated at all .
But if the government didn't regulate the lunch... then who did?
>>>>>>>>>>> Since nobody from the " gubmint " was there , obviously one of the staff .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
googledad
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 12/31/05
Posts: 10207
|
|
Yup, now you're getting it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yup , you're as clear as mud .
Hopefully the mother doesn't receive foodstamps that you'd like to get rid of cuz there's no chance the little girl would starve .
--------------------
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
