Last night, my Home Owners Association (HOA) announced on their (closed group) Facebook page that there was a meeting at the local high school about a proposed affordable housing project. The announcement was framed clearly: "For those who oppose this project...".
Not surprisingly, there is a group of neighbors who have formed an organization to protest this (and other) low-income housing developments in our area.
The Executive Director of the local St. Vincent de Paul, -- one of the partners in this project -- wrote this editorial in the local paper as an attempt to allay people's fears about a relatively large low-income housing development in their area.
Before I lose myself in a discussion of thinly disguised classism, racism and unfounded fears, let me say that I *do* agree the proposed development is rather large (perhaps TOO large) and that it does appear to violate several of the City's Housing Dispersal Policy objectives and goals (one being that no low-income development should have more than 60 units; this proposed one has 101 and there are other projects proposed to go in next to it, meaning that, in the end, the developers could end up locating a majority of the city's poor all in one place).
The Housing Dispersal Policy was written in 1996 and, well, lots of things have changed since then. It is particularly notable that the policy was based on *1980* Census data -- we're 32 years past that!
While I'm twitchy about a really large low-income housing development *anywhere* in the city -- and particularly since there is more than one planned for the same area -- I fully realize that the demand and need for subsidized housing far outstrips the availability.
I know this not just from statistics like the ones cited in the above editorial, but also from my own friends who struggle to make ends meet. I recently tried to help a friend find a one-bedroom apartment, with utilities, in a safe neighborhood, for less than what she is paying now. We searched and searched and couldn't find one. She makes "too much" to qualify for any government program -- meaning she likely wouldn't be able to live in this proposed development -- yet she is spending far more than 50% of her income on her rent.
It shouldn't be that way, folks. She works. (Like lots of other struggling people!) She attempts to play by the rules (like lots of other struggling people!). And she cannot make it without help; when she cannot find it through agencies (which is common, given her "high" income), she has to either earn money under the table or ask friends for help (like us).
There is no doubt in my mind that Eugene needs more affordable housing, that Eugene (like cities everywhere) largely lacks a living wage, and that this vacant lot near where I live is one of the rare ones in the city. Our neighborhood has the *space* to build this development, whereas most areas of the city do not.
It's also true that there are also other low-income housing developments already on our side of town, so it's not (as some comments on articles have erroneously claimed) that "all" the people over "there" (here) are "elitist snobs" or "against poor people". There is, in fact, quite a range of incomes and housing types and options in our neck of the woods -- mansions and large houses next to or near ranch-style homes, small one-story homes, older two-story homes, condos, apartments and rented houses and affordable housing developments.
Not everyone who opposes the development opposes low-income housing per se. Many people who oppose this project oppose it on several valid claims: that it violates the City's (perhaps outdated and still unexplained) no-more-than-60-units rule; it consolidates the poor in one location (ironically far away from where services are located); it potentially adds a LOT more traffic to the area; it potentially adds many students to our already overcrowded schools. In other words, these concerned citizens might get behind a smaller (60-unit) project, one which puts less stress on already stressed systems (particularly schools).
Others contend that adding students to our schools might be a good thing -- more students bring more money to the schools and *may* make classes *smaller* because, if enough students enroll, schools have to hire more teachers. This is a theoretical claim that has yet to be proven. With parents and students and teachers reeling from the effects of our last round of budget cuts (which included closing several schools), few think that the potential addition of hundreds of kids to our neighborhood would uniformly result in many more teachers being hired. At the very least, it seems likely that class sizes *would* increase, particularly for older students. But class sizes are already too large -- 39-42 in middle school classes and, depending on the subject, 40-50 per high school class. As a parent of two kids still in public schools, I share this concern that our local schools -- like schools throughout the city -- are already stressed beyond capacity.
The questions that I have about the development have not been answered anywhere (at least not in articles I've found).
1) How many people in Eugene currently qualify for low-income housing *and cannot find it in Eugene*? In other words, are ALL low-income housing units in Eugene currently occupied? Or do we have some vacant ones? What *exactly* is the need?
2) If the need is, indeed, 101 or more units, can we build several smaller housing projects throughout the city, rather than all 101 (or more) in one place?
Simply building more low-income housing *which residents have to pay for* may not solve enough of their problems if *they actually can't find a job to begin with* or cannot afford childcare so they can work in order to afford their housing. If they don't work, they have no income. If they have no income, they cannot pay for the housing... If they have no childcare, they cannot work.
It's all connected, people.
Many years ago, when I was working at Harvard Family Research Project (HFRP), I did research on programs for at-risk families. In a nutshell, HFRP consistently finds that the best programs -- the ones with the best outcomes for kids and their parents -- co-locate services at one place.
I strongly believe that this housing development should really be far more than just a housing development if we are at all committed to doing something to help people. But I would argue that it should be on the smaller side (in part because, if successful, one would want to replicate it elsewhere). This development shouldn't be about making money for the *developer* but about serving people.
A doctor, a dentist, and an eye doctor (who accept the Oregon Health Plan, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) should have office space on site. There should be on-site, affordable childcare center (for residents only). A preschool (perhaps Head Start) should be there, too. Buses should be plentiful (this, ironically, may be the easiest thing to do -- get a few more LTD buses to the area).
While we're at it, the neighborhood as a whole has been complaining for YEARS that it doesn't have a grocery store. There's been talk of building a Market of Choice nearby -- but that market, as local and lovely as it is, does NOT serve the needs of the poor. What grocery store -- not gigantic, but decent-sized -- can we bring to the neighborhood, that could be within walking distance of the development?
We live in a community -- with problems like all communities. But the NOT IN MY BACKYARD APPROACH doesn't build communities; it erodes them. At the same time, lack of careful consideration of the complex problems that ALL families have (but which affect poor families more) could easily result in a project that nobody likes -- including those who would qualify to live there.
Bottom line: I'm not against building affordable housing in my community, but if we do so, we have to be committed to establishing the services (including grocery stores, child care, and schools) that would be required to make this housing development a successful community.
Housing, in and of itself, doesn't do that.
I'll be at the next meeting, proposing something far more ambitious than just housing. YIMBY -- Yes, in my back yard!
About Me
- Elaine
- My interests include veganism and vegetarianism, health, ethics, politics and culture, media, and the environment. I have three kids; I teach college part-time, study piano and attempt to garden. I knit. I blog on just about anything, but many posts are related to my somewhat pathetic quest to eat better, be more mindful of the environment, and be a more responsible news consumer. Sometimes I write about parenting, but, like so many Mommy bloggers, my kids have recently told me not to. :) Thanks for reading.
Showing posts with label schools. Show all posts
Showing posts with label schools. Show all posts
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Friday, October 9, 2009
Points of View
This past week, I lectured on social science paradigms. (Don't worry, I'm not gonna do that here.) Paradigms are basically points of view -- and the point of telling you the obvious is that we are, as a college English teacher was fond of saying, "constrained by our biography."
That is, it isn't always easy to be aware of what we assume, or what other people assume about us, until we (often mistakenly) say or do something that really pisses somebody off. THEN we're REALLY aware of how we are coming from different places, or, in social science speak, operating from different paradigms.
What I did this week was (unintentionally) run my paradigm smack-dab into a friend's paradigm, unwittingly making her really furious. See, I'm a parent (of three kids, two school-age) and she's a teacher (of fourth graders). She isn't a parent, though if she were, she might still have a different opinion of what I was so incensed about, due to her professional point of view. That's normal.
Here's the deal: many of us parents (particularly parents who work outside the home) are increasingly irritated (the polite word) at the number of half-days, no-school days, and in-service days in our kids' school schedules. We already rely on a carefully-planned arrangement of aftercare and coordinated "it's-your-turn-to-get-the-kids-today" schedules as it is. The family schedule is in a precarious balance, but most days it works pretty well, as long as the schedule isn't changed.
But, when schools throw us these odd days (no matter how much in advance), it leaves us scrambling to arrange care that is often hard to find. Few people want to commit to taking care of your kids when the number of days is so few and so random that it isn't financially fruitful -- or logistically possible -- for them to do so. And, for reasons I absolutely do not understand, a frighteningly large number of parents are comfortable leaving their middle school-age kids alone at home all day. I'm not in that camp.
To be perfectly honest, not only do I wish schools had a more consistent schedule (like kids in school 8:30-3, M-F, most weeks except for a week in Dec and a week in the spring), I'm all for shorter summer breaks and fewer holidays too. Schools still run as if there is an available family member in the home, able to care for the kiddos when school is not in session. They also seem to assume we're all farmers, too. Why else do our kids have these ridiculously long summer breaks?!
There are an awful lot of us without nearby relatives(or nearby relatives who also do not work). We have no family within 100 miles, for example. And the two family members we have (the ones who live 100 miles away) are a) ill and b) work full time and have their own three kids. It's hard enough (and expensive enough) to pay for all that summer camp and regular aftercare, let alone these additional days. And I can't rely on family for help.
So, I mentioned on Facebook how irritated I was at this predicament. This month, for instance, I have a kid home EVERY Friday (the middle schools here have different no-school days than the elementary schools). To top it off, my district has early release Wednesdays EVERY Wednesday -- something I find annoying as hell and wish so they would get rid of. It means EVERY Wednesday I interrupt my class to make sure that my middle schooler got in the house, locked the door behind her, and is OK. If she were actually in school like a "regular" day, I'd be able to get home before her and wouldn't have to interrupt my class. Aggravation!
In addition to those October changes to the regular schedule, my other child's aftercare program has an inservice day on a Monday this month -- so no aftercare that day (his Dad will have to take the afternoon off, because I teach Monday afternoons). All in all, SIX of my work days this month involve trying to find alternative care and/or not work (theoretically, I work M, W, F). I think I have more than enough justification for being irritated at the public schools. It's doubly ironic, since schools (and aftercare programs) are largely staffed by working women.
But my venting my frustration made my friend mad. True, in hindsight, I wish I had been a bit more diplomatic in my wording. In my defense, we are talking about a Facebook status line here...a place well-known for inflammatory wording intended to get people to respond (and that it did).
Anywho...she felt that I was venting at her expense, that I was not supporting public schools. She said I should either send my kids to private schools or not complain. She went on to mention several things that, indeed, many parents are not sufficiently aware of: her lunch break is all of 30 minutes; she deals constantly with kids with pretty terrible problems; she spends her "free time" calling DYFS or helping kids with homework; she annually spends more than $1000 of her personal income for school supplies that are not provided by the district; she works 10-12 hour days. She DESERVES these (often unpaid) days without the kids, so that she can get caught up on the latest changes to the curriculum. Indeed, if we parents think the constant changing of curriculum and testing is nuts, think of trying to change your teaching style or lesson plans every year or so. Indeed, teachers are "on" more than most of us are, and they are confronted with a bucketful of problems (everything from social work to curriculum changes to credentialing) all while having to maintain a professional demeanor in front of our unruly children. Yep, it's job I wouldn't want. But I'm so glad other people love the work (as my friend does) and that they do it well.
But my concerns (needing the schools to be in session for more days, and longer days at that) are not hers (needing more breaks, more support from parents, fewer additions to her teaching expectations, fewer hoops to jump through, fewer kids with problems). Her assumption about my problem ("your child care problems are not the school's concern") and the proposed solution ("go find out what is available in the community, or get together with other parents and establish it yourself, either be part of the problem or part of the solution") belie her simplistic interpretation of what is involved (and an assumption that I haven't already been looking for options). Sure, I'd love to part of the solution, but, frankly, this is a large-scale STRUCTURAL problem with our public schools, and it's gonna take a lot more than an occasional backyard camp or jumbo craft session with my kids and their friends to solve it. Similarly, my "Parents work! for God's sake! Why not teachers!" was just stupid, but also indicative of how deeply in my own world (my "paradigm") I was at the moment I wrote that.
But the interaction gave me a great opportunity to think of how ironic it is that the interests of parents and teachers are often NOT in sync. How unfortunate, because the ultimate goal -- raising the competent, confident leaders of tomorrow -- is. Time to get us all at the same table and find a paradigm and a structural solution that can benefit us all. Wanna come to the meeting? I make great coffee. But you gotta find the childcare. :)
That is, it isn't always easy to be aware of what we assume, or what other people assume about us, until we (often mistakenly) say or do something that really pisses somebody off. THEN we're REALLY aware of how we are coming from different places, or, in social science speak, operating from different paradigms.
What I did this week was (unintentionally) run my paradigm smack-dab into a friend's paradigm, unwittingly making her really furious. See, I'm a parent (of three kids, two school-age) and she's a teacher (of fourth graders). She isn't a parent, though if she were, she might still have a different opinion of what I was so incensed about, due to her professional point of view. That's normal.
Here's the deal: many of us parents (particularly parents who work outside the home) are increasingly irritated (the polite word) at the number of half-days, no-school days, and in-service days in our kids' school schedules. We already rely on a carefully-planned arrangement of aftercare and coordinated "it's-your-turn-to-get-the-kids-today" schedules as it is. The family schedule is in a precarious balance, but most days it works pretty well, as long as the schedule isn't changed.
But, when schools throw us these odd days (no matter how much in advance), it leaves us scrambling to arrange care that is often hard to find. Few people want to commit to taking care of your kids when the number of days is so few and so random that it isn't financially fruitful -- or logistically possible -- for them to do so. And, for reasons I absolutely do not understand, a frighteningly large number of parents are comfortable leaving their middle school-age kids alone at home all day. I'm not in that camp.
To be perfectly honest, not only do I wish schools had a more consistent schedule (like kids in school 8:30-3, M-F, most weeks except for a week in Dec and a week in the spring), I'm all for shorter summer breaks and fewer holidays too. Schools still run as if there is an available family member in the home, able to care for the kiddos when school is not in session. They also seem to assume we're all farmers, too. Why else do our kids have these ridiculously long summer breaks?!
There are an awful lot of us without nearby relatives(or nearby relatives who also do not work). We have no family within 100 miles, for example. And the two family members we have (the ones who live 100 miles away) are a) ill and b) work full time and have their own three kids. It's hard enough (and expensive enough) to pay for all that summer camp and regular aftercare, let alone these additional days. And I can't rely on family for help.
So, I mentioned on Facebook how irritated I was at this predicament. This month, for instance, I have a kid home EVERY Friday (the middle schools here have different no-school days than the elementary schools). To top it off, my district has early release Wednesdays EVERY Wednesday -- something I find annoying as hell and wish so they would get rid of. It means EVERY Wednesday I interrupt my class to make sure that my middle schooler got in the house, locked the door behind her, and is OK. If she were actually in school like a "regular" day, I'd be able to get home before her and wouldn't have to interrupt my class. Aggravation!
In addition to those October changes to the regular schedule, my other child's aftercare program has an inservice day on a Monday this month -- so no aftercare that day (his Dad will have to take the afternoon off, because I teach Monday afternoons). All in all, SIX of my work days this month involve trying to find alternative care and/or not work (theoretically, I work M, W, F). I think I have more than enough justification for being irritated at the public schools. It's doubly ironic, since schools (and aftercare programs) are largely staffed by working women.
But my venting my frustration made my friend mad. True, in hindsight, I wish I had been a bit more diplomatic in my wording. In my defense, we are talking about a Facebook status line here...a place well-known for inflammatory wording intended to get people to respond (and that it did).
Anywho...she felt that I was venting at her expense, that I was not supporting public schools. She said I should either send my kids to private schools or not complain. She went on to mention several things that, indeed, many parents are not sufficiently aware of: her lunch break is all of 30 minutes; she deals constantly with kids with pretty terrible problems; she spends her "free time" calling DYFS or helping kids with homework; she annually spends more than $1000 of her personal income for school supplies that are not provided by the district; she works 10-12 hour days. She DESERVES these (often unpaid) days without the kids, so that she can get caught up on the latest changes to the curriculum. Indeed, if we parents think the constant changing of curriculum and testing is nuts, think of trying to change your teaching style or lesson plans every year or so. Indeed, teachers are "on" more than most of us are, and they are confronted with a bucketful of problems (everything from social work to curriculum changes to credentialing) all while having to maintain a professional demeanor in front of our unruly children. Yep, it's job I wouldn't want. But I'm so glad other people love the work (as my friend does) and that they do it well.
But my concerns (needing the schools to be in session for more days, and longer days at that) are not hers (needing more breaks, more support from parents, fewer additions to her teaching expectations, fewer hoops to jump through, fewer kids with problems). Her assumption about my problem ("your child care problems are not the school's concern") and the proposed solution ("go find out what is available in the community, or get together with other parents and establish it yourself, either be part of the problem or part of the solution") belie her simplistic interpretation of what is involved (and an assumption that I haven't already been looking for options). Sure, I'd love to part of the solution, but, frankly, this is a large-scale STRUCTURAL problem with our public schools, and it's gonna take a lot more than an occasional backyard camp or jumbo craft session with my kids and their friends to solve it. Similarly, my "Parents work! for God's sake! Why not teachers!" was just stupid, but also indicative of how deeply in my own world (my "paradigm") I was at the moment I wrote that.
But the interaction gave me a great opportunity to think of how ironic it is that the interests of parents and teachers are often NOT in sync. How unfortunate, because the ultimate goal -- raising the competent, confident leaders of tomorrow -- is. Time to get us all at the same table and find a paradigm and a structural solution that can benefit us all. Wanna come to the meeting? I make great coffee. But you gotta find the childcare. :)
Monday, September 28, 2009
Do you want to go back to middle school?
September always brings cooler days (thanks), kids back in school (super thanks), and homework battles (thank you, I'd rather not). Last week, each of my older kids had what we used to call "Back-to-School Night". Here, it's called "Curriculum Night," and, at least at the middle school, parents are given their kids' schedules and go from class to class (10 minute versions), listening to teachers describe what is expected and what they accomplish during the year. The whole thing is even complete with actual bells to remind us if we're tardy. (I was, to one class. Shouldn't room 603 be next to room 604?)
If I ever doubted that I'm glad I'm no longer in middle school, going to curriculum night solidified that belief. You'd better not have to go to the bathroom between classes (you'll be tardy and your parents will receive an email AND a telephone call about your attendance habits, and the teacher will think you are up to no good). You'd better not have trouble with your locker for the same reason. You'd better not forget your book, or have to sharpen your pencil during class. And please, don't have the audacity to misfile that assignment in your school notebook because the teacher wants it NOW and you should already know exactly where it is (which means, you should have put it WHERE IT SHOULD BE).
I'm all for organization and discipline; I strive for both with my kids on a very consistent basis. And I am fully aware that my progeny did not come with innate talents for organization. Still, the preciseness with which my child is expected to comport herself during a school day is -- well -- eerily similar to the military (which I have absolutely no affinity for, even if I recognize it's a necessary evil for a country).
But my kid is not a country, she's a kid. With rather creative ideas, a funny sense of humor, an appreciation of literature, a ton of energy, a love of messy projects, and a pretty good knack for writing. Yet, there is little room in her day for creativity -- or even humor, it seems. A few of her teachers seem like fine folk but a few of them seem...like dorks. Yes, I am using middle school lingo to describe middle school teachers. It must take enormous amounts of self-control for an entire roomful of 12 year-olds not to burst out laughing at some of their teachers. No wonder, when my kid comes home and I ask her how her day was, she simply says, "fine." Reality? Formal school is B-O-R-I-N-G and frustrating and the emphasis on organization zaps kids of energy and enthusiasm for learning.
Her favorite class is art (no surprise there). She does very well in it, and she likes the teacher and the teacher likes her. Her least favorite class is social studies -- not because she doesn't like history (she actually does, quite a bit) -- but because the teacher somehow doesn't click with her, and she's gotten in trouble for being late (locker trouble) and for not turning in her assignment quickly enough (it was misfiled in that folder). I met the teacher, who told me she's terribly worried about my "super-depressed" daughter, describing her as sitting slump-shouldered and "hiding behind her bangs" and not talking to the other kids. I was very alarmed when I heard this and asked other teachers if they perceived my child to be in need of therapy. One teacher laughed at my question and said, "If I made a list of kids who I thought needed therapy, your daughter wouldn't even be in the top 20." Another teacher said to me, "Girls this age act like that all the time; but she doesn't actually do that in my class." Seems she only acts depressed in the class she truly HATES and in all the others, she is simply "quiet" (except for art, where she is TOO HAPPY). In all classes, she is doing A-level work.
So, I had a little chat with the girl, telling her she should consider ACTING a little more upbeat, even in classes she despises. Think of it as an acting challenge, I told her. Do your best Emmy work. Wow the teacher with your enthusiasm. Smile while you learn trivia about the middle ages. Cheerfully complete that map of Europe! Do that crossword puzzle about the plague!! She rolled her eyes at me, sighed and said, "OK."
Good lord. I am SO glad that I'm not in middle school. I'd be sitting slump-shouldered and hiding behind my bangs too.
If I ever doubted that I'm glad I'm no longer in middle school, going to curriculum night solidified that belief. You'd better not have to go to the bathroom between classes (you'll be tardy and your parents will receive an email AND a telephone call about your attendance habits, and the teacher will think you are up to no good). You'd better not have trouble with your locker for the same reason. You'd better not forget your book, or have to sharpen your pencil during class. And please, don't have the audacity to misfile that assignment in your school notebook because the teacher wants it NOW and you should already know exactly where it is (which means, you should have put it WHERE IT SHOULD BE).
I'm all for organization and discipline; I strive for both with my kids on a very consistent basis. And I am fully aware that my progeny did not come with innate talents for organization. Still, the preciseness with which my child is expected to comport herself during a school day is -- well -- eerily similar to the military (which I have absolutely no affinity for, even if I recognize it's a necessary evil for a country).
But my kid is not a country, she's a kid. With rather creative ideas, a funny sense of humor, an appreciation of literature, a ton of energy, a love of messy projects, and a pretty good knack for writing. Yet, there is little room in her day for creativity -- or even humor, it seems. A few of her teachers seem like fine folk but a few of them seem...like dorks. Yes, I am using middle school lingo to describe middle school teachers. It must take enormous amounts of self-control for an entire roomful of 12 year-olds not to burst out laughing at some of their teachers. No wonder, when my kid comes home and I ask her how her day was, she simply says, "fine." Reality? Formal school is B-O-R-I-N-G and frustrating and the emphasis on organization zaps kids of energy and enthusiasm for learning.
Her favorite class is art (no surprise there). She does very well in it, and she likes the teacher and the teacher likes her. Her least favorite class is social studies -- not because she doesn't like history (she actually does, quite a bit) -- but because the teacher somehow doesn't click with her, and she's gotten in trouble for being late (locker trouble) and for not turning in her assignment quickly enough (it was misfiled in that folder). I met the teacher, who told me she's terribly worried about my "super-depressed" daughter, describing her as sitting slump-shouldered and "hiding behind her bangs" and not talking to the other kids. I was very alarmed when I heard this and asked other teachers if they perceived my child to be in need of therapy. One teacher laughed at my question and said, "If I made a list of kids who I thought needed therapy, your daughter wouldn't even be in the top 20." Another teacher said to me, "Girls this age act like that all the time; but she doesn't actually do that in my class." Seems she only acts depressed in the class she truly HATES and in all the others, she is simply "quiet" (except for art, where she is TOO HAPPY). In all classes, she is doing A-level work.
So, I had a little chat with the girl, telling her she should consider ACTING a little more upbeat, even in classes she despises. Think of it as an acting challenge, I told her. Do your best Emmy work. Wow the teacher with your enthusiasm. Smile while you learn trivia about the middle ages. Cheerfully complete that map of Europe! Do that crossword puzzle about the plague!! She rolled her eyes at me, sighed and said, "OK."
Good lord. I am SO glad that I'm not in middle school. I'd be sitting slump-shouldered and hiding behind my bangs too.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Camp Food
I'm well aware of what an uphill battle I have to get my family to eat better, particularly the kick I've got going with no-meat, WAY-less-dairy, and WAY-less sugar. It's a trifecta of challenges that few parents want to take on, simply because the whining is so bothersome. It's easier to hand the kid the hot dog, the string cheese, and the fudgsicle than it is to make (and get him to eat) the spinach-brown rice casserole, the side of Brussels sprouts, the homemade applesauce, and the (also homemade) carob cake sweetened with agave or stevia or honey or molasses instead of sugar. And, unfortunately, many (perhaps most?) parents choose the easy road, because our society has made it SO easy and SO cheap and SO "normal" that parents don't think much about it, saying to themselves that "all kids eat like that" and that they "don't have time" to feed their kids (and themselves) better. Also, as more and more children are fat, more and more parents tend to see their chunky kids as "normal," rather than unhealthy.
It's NOT true that ALL kids eat poorly, though a shocking number do. It's also NOT true that all healthy meals take a long time to prepare, though learning to shop for and cook new foods does take a little effort, particularly if you've gotten into the rut of Monday-it's-chicken, Tuesday-it's-beef-tacos, Wednesday-it's-spaghetti-with-meatballs, etc. I'm up to the challenge and think more people could do the same, were they not making 100 excuses for themselves about why they cannot.
Yet, what my husband and I do is only part of the solution to improving our kids' diets. The part we can't control is getting others on board with how to feed kids -- particularly schools and day camps and other facilities that cater to (our) children. This hit home (again) tonight, when I found my son asleep, clutching a "Day Camp Cafe' Order Sheet" in his hand, which I had not seen.
I knew that part of the camp "experience" was purchasing snack food daily at the Camp Cafe. I gave him $10 in his account for the week, figuring $2 per day was pretty darn generous. I don't want him to be the kid whose Mom won't cough up a little money for some fun food.
However, I (NAIVELY) thought the Cafe would have things like icepops and Sunchips -- junk food that is, as far as junk food goes, not too bad. Imagine my surprise when, today, I read the following list?
DAY CAMP CAFE ORDER SHEET
FULL NAME:
LIMIT 2 ITEMS PER DAY
Soda Pop: Pepsi, Mt. Dew, Root Beer, Dr. Pepper, Diet Pepsi
Italian Sodas (thirteen different flavors listed)
Whipped Cream (Y/N)
Ice Cream Cone or Cup: Chocolate, Vanilla, Swirl
Ice Cream Sundae: Chocolate, Vanilla, Swirl, Chocolate Sauce, Caramel Sauce, Whipped Cream
Snow Cone (several flavors listed)
Floats: Root Beer, Mt. Dew, Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Dr. Pepper
Other: (I'm assuming this is where he writes in that he wants Skittles or Twix or similar -- things I also discovered today he has eaten at camp.)
GOOD LORD! There are NO healthy choices here at all, and an alarming number involve caffeine. What the hell? Am I the only parent who would prefer her kid NOT be offered a caffeinated beverage?
I'm thinking of writing the camp a letter, kindly suggesting that they offer other snacks and perhaps only let a camper choose ONE of the really bad-for-you choices per day. However, I can already anticipate the responses: 1)Parents, not counselors, are responsible for telling their children what they prefer them not to eat; 2) The camp cannot be responsible for children purchasing items that their parents would prefer they not consume; 3) the camp has too many children to be able to monitor which kid has already purchased a "really junky" food.
I can also anticipate why the camp offers these items: They are, in bulk, WAY cheaper than healthier items. And they store well. (Imagine enough oranges purchased for a day camp, and how many would go to waste because the kids wouldn't purchase them.)
I can also anticipate what other parents might think of me if I were to write such a letter: "Oh, for God's sake! It's just a little junk food! Let the kids have fun!" If I write the letter, I'll come across as a real curmudgeon, a scrooge, a party-pooper. Mind you, I could live with the kids being allowed ONE really junky food per day, but TWO? Come on! I don't need this kind of challenge to my parenting from a camp that I pay for!!
Sigh.
It's NOT true that ALL kids eat poorly, though a shocking number do. It's also NOT true that all healthy meals take a long time to prepare, though learning to shop for and cook new foods does take a little effort, particularly if you've gotten into the rut of Monday-it's-chicken, Tuesday-it's-beef-tacos, Wednesday-it's-spaghetti-with-meatballs, etc. I'm up to the challenge and think more people could do the same, were they not making 100 excuses for themselves about why they cannot.
Yet, what my husband and I do is only part of the solution to improving our kids' diets. The part we can't control is getting others on board with how to feed kids -- particularly schools and day camps and other facilities that cater to (our) children. This hit home (again) tonight, when I found my son asleep, clutching a "Day Camp Cafe' Order Sheet" in his hand, which I had not seen.
I knew that part of the camp "experience" was purchasing snack food daily at the Camp Cafe. I gave him $10 in his account for the week, figuring $2 per day was pretty darn generous. I don't want him to be the kid whose Mom won't cough up a little money for some fun food.
However, I (NAIVELY) thought the Cafe would have things like icepops and Sunchips -- junk food that is, as far as junk food goes, not too bad. Imagine my surprise when, today, I read the following list?
DAY CAMP CAFE ORDER SHEET
FULL NAME:
LIMIT 2 ITEMS PER DAY
Soda Pop: Pepsi, Mt. Dew, Root Beer, Dr. Pepper, Diet Pepsi
Italian Sodas (thirteen different flavors listed)
Whipped Cream (Y/N)
Ice Cream Cone or Cup: Chocolate, Vanilla, Swirl
Ice Cream Sundae: Chocolate, Vanilla, Swirl, Chocolate Sauce, Caramel Sauce, Whipped Cream
Snow Cone (several flavors listed)
Floats: Root Beer, Mt. Dew, Pepsi, Diet Pepsi, Dr. Pepper
Other: (I'm assuming this is where he writes in that he wants Skittles or Twix or similar -- things I also discovered today he has eaten at camp.)
GOOD LORD! There are NO healthy choices here at all, and an alarming number involve caffeine. What the hell? Am I the only parent who would prefer her kid NOT be offered a caffeinated beverage?
I'm thinking of writing the camp a letter, kindly suggesting that they offer other snacks and perhaps only let a camper choose ONE of the really bad-for-you choices per day. However, I can already anticipate the responses: 1)Parents, not counselors, are responsible for telling their children what they prefer them not to eat; 2) The camp cannot be responsible for children purchasing items that their parents would prefer they not consume; 3) the camp has too many children to be able to monitor which kid has already purchased a "really junky" food.
I can also anticipate why the camp offers these items: They are, in bulk, WAY cheaper than healthier items. And they store well. (Imagine enough oranges purchased for a day camp, and how many would go to waste because the kids wouldn't purchase them.)
I can also anticipate what other parents might think of me if I were to write such a letter: "Oh, for God's sake! It's just a little junk food! Let the kids have fun!" If I write the letter, I'll come across as a real curmudgeon, a scrooge, a party-pooper. Mind you, I could live with the kids being allowed ONE really junky food per day, but TWO? Come on! I don't need this kind of challenge to my parenting from a camp that I pay for!!
Sigh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)