Turns out the chicken nugget controversy is sound and fury.
Mark Thompson uncovers the truth behind the story about the little girl “forced” by “state agents” to eat chicken nuggets instead of her packed lunch:
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 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.
So before we all go crazy talking about how awful the nanny state is to make this poor little girl eat chicken nuggets instead of her sack lunch, let’s all take a deep breath and, I dunno, spend some time researching the facts. I love a good knee-jerk reaction as much as the next guy, but when something sounds too awful to be true, chances are it is. With the very real problems in, say, our criminal justice system – no-knock raids, innocent people on death row, overfilled prisons, and so on and so forth, spending any time at all on this non-troversy is a waste of precious digital ink.
Sad thing is little crap like this distracts from the actual overreach that’s all over the place. I wonder how many people when a true story comes up later will think back to this and dismiss it as hype…
You hit my hot button with this one.
So the state agent ordered full meals for every child? Why? Sounds like more than just “assessing.” Clearly this one child at least had a perfectly acceptable lunch and her mother wanted her to eat it. Since she is sending the lunches with her daughter, she apparently feels she can afford it and that it is important. The simple fact that the program is subsidized by the government doesn’t mean the government gets to overrule the parent in these matters. When you send your children to school you aren’t signing away your rights to oversee the care of your child.
Do you have a 4 year-old? Do you really expect a 4-year-old child to have the maturity to stand up to the adult in charge of her and say, “My mother would prefer I eat this instead of that?” My eldest son’s first grade teacher (years ago) had him afraid to eat red M&M’s and ham, among other things. I tried to teach my kids to respect their teachers and got repaid by a teacher causing my child to doubt my judgement. Parents can get really upset by this sort of treatment. Do so-called “special needs” children’s parents have fewer rights?
Apparently the mother thought the program would benefit her child. I looked at the incomes in the document you linked and 75% of median is not necessarily a poor income. I looked at the requirements for the children. Just because a child fits the government’s definition of “at risk” doesn’t mean the child IS at risk. A child could be in that program because her parents speak Spanish, because she has asthma or allergies, etc. and yet have a very good home environment.
As I recall, the story I read said the mother “could” be charged, not “would” be charged. I’m pretty sure the mother was less upset over $1.25 than over the principle of the thing, i.e. we can substitute a different food and charge you for it if we wish. She cited a note that had been sent home.
I don’t think this is a “small” story. We lose our freedoms most commonly because the loss occurs incrementally. I think this is the point the conservative press and organizations picked up on quite quickly and with justification.
A government program primarily for low-income families that the parents have to actively enroll to participate in, and it’s cause for alarm that it holds as procedure things that contradict what some parents would do on their own…
Seriously, when I saw the original version of the story on Facebook I joined the rage-van like everyone else. But now it looks more like “if she could handle it herself then why’d she join?” is a more reasonable reaction. Besides, a government program overriding people is kinda inherent to what makes it a government program, eh?
It just illustrates CLEARLY how once big government gets you dependent upon it in ANY way or form, it will then proceed to dictate to you how you live and what you do or don’t do from THEN ON.
It really helps when you read the post prior to commenting.
You mean, it really helps when you read the leftie spin?
Exactly!!!
This is just another example of government over-reach of government’s power over all of us…and it clearly shows how government would act if they had the power, instead of just illegally grabbing that power.
And the fact that this story went viral and out of control throughout the internet “should” show the left just how their nanny-state policies are going to go over in this November’s election.
“Should” being the optimal word here…lol.
Wow. Just… wow.
Yeah, pretty much…
THE NARRATIVE MUST BE MAINTAINED AT ALL COSTS
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-refuses-to-read-headline-beyond-words-4year,27379/
While this one particular incident involving chicken nuggets may or may not be true, the fact is that lunches ARE being searched and checked. A father in NC called in to a radio program and stated that in the registration packet he received from the daycare he was enrolling his child in, it stated the “nutrition” requirements for each child. So many ounces of milk, so many ounces of this and that. He told her that his child has an allergy and doesn’t consume dairy and he was told he’d have to include it anyway, and they would just throw it out at the daycare. He was also told if he couldn’t comply then the child would not be allowed in that daycare. The government is in our children’s school lunches why?
Was it a “government daycare” because, last I checked anyways, the government wasn’t in the business of daycare at all…
Uh….last I checked, the government wasn’t in the healthcare or insurance business EITHER…yet there government IS…dictating to all of us what we must purchase, or face the consequences of the IRS gestapo (estimated 17000 new agents hired for enforcement).
So yeah, under Obama, government is getting involved in LOTS of areas where government has no business being.
I’m not a fan of Obama either. But what does he have to do with North Carolina’s idiotic day care rules?
Obama IS the federal government and has been since his inauguration. Most of the legislation in place now re: these inspections has to do with his (and Michelle’s) policies regarding regulation of all things American, including what food is served to kids in schools.
I”The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, a $4.5 billion measure, provides more free school meals to the pool, and gives the government more power to decide what foods can offered in those meals, as well as in school vending machines and fundraisers during school hours.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/12/obama-signs-law-requiring-healthier-school-meals/1“
Yeah, you wouldn’t think…..
Well, this is the father’s words exactly.
CALLER: About eight months ago my wife and I decided to enroll our son in daycare here in North Carolina, and I got this huge packet of sheets that I had to fill out, and they, you know, field trip permission slip, take your photo permission slip, and one of them was, “By signing this you agree that you’ll meet the state’s requirements for a preschool lunch,” even though I’m packing it. And it says I have to have six ounces of milk or a milk substitute, four ounces of meat or a meat substitute, three ounces of grain, three ounces of vegetable, three ounces of fruit, and goes on and on and on. And I did not sign it and I fought about it with them and they pointed me to the state official that I could talk to, and they told me that, “If your son doesn’t like milk just pack it anyway and we’ll dump it out for you and then you can pack something else.” And I said, “Do you know how much a gallon of milk costs?” And they said, “Well, that’s the rules and you have to follow ‘em if you want to be in daycare.” So now I’ve got the government telling me that I’m not smart enough to feed my own child.
That’s in NC.
Yeah my scatterbrain had a few things incorrect, so I looked up the link.
So it’s ok that they took away a little girl’s lunch and gave her state approved MacDonald’s nuggets because (1) it was some state funded academic twit and not a federal agent in some Michelle Obama trial balloon program and (2) the little girl was poor (and I see where you edited out “and a nappy headed pickaninney”) and therefore her drooling cow of a mother’s choice of turkey and cheese and apple juice we obviously inferior to the lunch provided by the lunch lady government union employee.
It remains the case that so called liberals are the most heinous racists, objectively, in the country, profiteers on the slave trade, whose primary source of funding their candidates (after bailed out Wall Street cronies) are the educrat cartels, who give Democrats campaign donations in exchange for rounding up poor brown and black children and delivering them to the educrats’ illiteracy centers.
The guillotine is really too good for you.
The guillotine? Seriously?
What bothers me more than threats of violence is the fact that you obviously didn’t bother to read any of this – since, you know, nobody took away the girl’s lunch…
I think it was more a collective “you,” referring to “liberals,” everyone who might have the viewpoints he ascribes to them, and possibly the people beaming thoughts into his head.
Oh well then, nevermind. Carry on!
He has a very large guillotine.
The girl’s mother says otherwise. Are you calling the girls’s mother a liar then?
Oh does she? Or are you still referring to the old, obviously mistaken, report? Because if you simply refuse to change your opinion based on new evidence, that speaks very poorly of your ability to use reason.
Mistaken report? Are you actually trying to say that a large number of the outraged people of the state of NC, r-wing talk radio AND tv shows (including Bill O’Reilly), and RW bloggers and news sites are all going merely on a “mistaken report”?
So ALL of those people are wrong and you are right? Is that what you’re saying? Just trying to clarify here.
taylor – until you read the post (you know, the post above all these comments) it makes no sense to talk to you. Take a deep breath, read the post in question, follow the link back to the original. Read that post also. See Mark’s update. Get informed. And then, maybe, you can have an honest discussion.
Oh my!
One question. Does the state require all children in the program to eat the lunch provided and according to the USDA Standards?
Few things will undermine a righteous storm of fury like trying to be factual at the same time.
What do you have against America!?
ERIK KAIN IS A SUPPORTER OF THE ANCIEN REGIME AND COUNTER-REVOLUTIONARY! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!
Here’s my concern:
What if the federal cafeteria agent forces me to drink Coke, and I’m a Pespi man?
That’s regulatory capture…universities are captured by cola companies! Some have exclusively coke machines, others have exclusively pepsi machines! END THE TAKEOVER OF OUR SOFTDRINKS BY THE GOVERNMENT!
Oh dear.
Maybe we could all pitch in and buy Nob a new CapsLock key…
Nob is very much in jest I assure you…
I understand. So was I.
Ok, good. Just making sure…
Looks like the story has been somewhat retracted, on Mark’s own site. I thought the full story was bunk too, but then seeing this, it’s pretty damning.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/exclusive-2nd-n-c-mother-says-daughters-school-lunch-replaced-for-not-being-healthy-enough/
[UPDATE II: 2/17 - Please see this piece of reporting from Glenn Beck's site The Blaze. Beck's reporter, Madeleine Morgenstern, has done what the original stories did not, and put together a reasonably well-sourced story that sheds a lot of actual light on what happened here. The story is not anonymously sourced, contains an actual copy of the letter at issue here, and fills a lot of the holes that the original story had. I admit, after reading Morgenstern's piece, this story looks really bad, though I have to emphasize that it very much appears to be a function of the particular program at issue here, which is indeed an opt-in program. Nonetheless, consider the below retracted to the extent that it is inconsistent with Morgenstern's article.]
Yeah, Mark told me about this.
Pingback: Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » That story about government agents forcing a kid to eat chicken nuggets instead of the lunch her mom packed for her? Yeah, that’s bogus