If they are talking about high school kids, and I think they are, this is just awful. What is next, ankle bracelets and fulltime video monitoring?

The kids whose parents don't go along with this nonsense will make a killing in the "after market" for junk food.

Peter:

In loco parentis means something.

Vic's right, and on the positive side, this should be a wonderful educational tool for Houston Independent School District students in the wonders of the free market economy, along with the effect of supply and demand on price elasticity.

I agree with Vic on this one. Heck, the odds are pretty good the school never removed the pop and candy machines when they instituted this policy - or if they didn't have them, are thinking real hard about bringing them in.

Idiot parents get the school system they deserve.

There is nothing wrong with sweets in moderation. If the parents deny it at lunch in such a petty manner like this, then at the mall later that is all the kid will eat. Do they really think that this kid will actually eat the green beans?

Ah, conservatives, they support good parenting and local control of schools until it happens...

Orrin:

That's it. I'm starting a collection to send you to a retreat where a dozen learned scholarly monks will instruct you for a week on the difference between sin and vice.

Parents should definitely be watching their kids carefully over sex, curfews, drinking, driving, smoking, etc. But brownies?

you seen how fat some of these kids are? It's sinful. But as a parent I try to control my children's sins and vices.

What's wrong with these people? Of course, parents should be able to control what food their kids stuff in their mouths. That's why we buy the food in the first place instead of giving the kids 100 bucks to go buy the groceries. I would LOVE to be able to ensure that my kids aren't spending their lunch money on candy & cokes instead of real food. Right now, the only way to do that is to pack the lunch myself.

Hold on. Let's not use "children". "pupils" or "kids" to hide the fact that we are talking about high school, not tubby grade three's.

I suppose under your regime, twenty-one year olds would go out with their buddies on their birthdays to gorge on Snickers and Twinkies as a rite of passage.

Tell young fatty to lose weight or else there will be consequences, but don't put him under surveillance.

Failure to surveil a child out to be punishable, not a value.

OJ: It's not good parenting, it's paranoid, lazy and stupid parenting. If the kid is fat, it is what happens at home that is more important than a brownie at lunch. The poor lunch lady gets to tell the kids no since the parents hide behind a computer program.

Bob:

So it's your position that though you tell your child, no, at home, the school, acting in the parents stead, must say, yes? With all due respect, that's absurd.

Presumably you oppose parents having a say in what's taught likewise?

i see it as a service, as i am the one configurring my child's account. no doubt fatty parents won't set any restrictions on their fatty kids so no one is put out.

So it's your position that though you tell your child, no, at home, the school, acting in the parents stead, must say, yes? With all due respect, that's absurd.

That point is nearly incontestable but this still seems Orwellian and creepy. Maybe I'm just not far enough removed from my teenage years.

OJ: I am not blaming the school. (Well, a little, this method is creepy). I am saying that the parents who would do this are just fooling themselves and are hoplessly naive. It won't make the kids eat better, it is just an illusion of control. Most won't eat the green beans and will resent their controlling parents. Rightfully in my view.

Bob:

Will the school be feeding the kids brownies on the parents' dime, the way it was?

Matt:

Parents are even more authoritarian than mere Brothers to their children--good ones are anyway.

Back when I was a school youth, I ate what they gave me and I liked it.

'Course, the set-up back then was more "prison", and less "cafe".

Claiming that denying a teenager a brownie is akin to abuse strikes me as less of a reasoned argument, and more of a personal problem.
(Repressed memories surfacing) ?

I guess I am a glutton* but here goes.

It's not abuse, Noam. It is creepy. It is not effective. It is useless feel good parenting.

OJ: Brownies on the parents dime? I think schools do much more offensive things than that with my tax money.

I think it is counterproductive to deny kids a moderate amounts of sweets. However, if the stupid parents can convince the school district to not carry anything or do this creepy thing, fine. Won't work though. See Vic and the 2 Johns comments above.

*for punishment

Bob:

Of course they do, but having conceded that you've no right to intervene between the school and your child on the food front what is the basis for your objection on the food for thought front?

OJ: I certainly think a parent has the right to intervene on food issues. Parents have the right to control their children's behavior, no matter how petty I think they are acting. Did I say differently here? (I believe my comments had to do with the wisdom of the parents, not their rights).

I just think this method is an offensive way to do it. Not my idea of a good parent. Obsessive and harsh parent, yes. Nothing works like embarrassing a kid for no benefit, yes sir.

When my daughter went off to college, she reported that at her very first meal as she went to select her food, she could actually hear my voice reminding her to eat her vegetables.

If you're good, you don't need resort to electronic surveillance.

Bob:

Why is it idiotic for parents to monitoir their children and the school?

Well done, erp, but even if she had over-indulged in fries while keeping good marks and making you otherwise proud, would you have seen yourself a failure? I doubt it.

Orrin, they grow up and they challenge us, as they should. It's a dance/game and we hold all the cards. We have to make some conciliatory pacts based upon trust. Choose your battles, and in doing so make sure you mark the difference between conviction and opinion because they are playing by different rules. Electronic surveillance over brownies is a surrender to all the neurotic dieticians, counsellors, educational gurus, ritalin-prescribing shrinks, etc, etc. Better to save your wrath for drinking, smoking and cheap gas.

Peter:

When they challenge you escalate.

Actually I am inordinately pleased with the way my kids turned out although they're not perfect. However, the next generation, my grandchildren, is another matter. They are perfection.

Seriously, my point is, if your kids understand what's good for them, it'll sink in.

OJ: Monitor important things, not a brownie.

Read ERP's comments, she is making sense.

Bob:

What your kids eat in school is as important as what they learn in school.

What your kids eat in school is as important as what they learn in school.

Great. My kid is flunking math and English, but his nutrition is top of the class. What, me worry?

Peter:

If he's that stupid he's more likely one of the ones shoveling brownies into his gaping maw.