BLU
Active topics
  2. In regards to the post I made about public schools having food health standards, its understandable why they want this law. They (the gov't) want kids to make healthy choices. Instead of banning foods, why not educate children (and parents too) instead. Open discussions in the classroom should be permitted (looking at you, teacher who refused to let a student question Obama's presidency). Also, if people really want educators to take on partial parental roles (especially with this law), perhaps they should be paid as much as a babysitter?

    Also - Banning sales of sweets during school hours (as well as school events, mind you) negatively affect school programs. Whoever came up with the idea didn't take into consideration how small programs are funded. Unless they thought those programs would be carried by the taxpayers, but hey, they call it Taxachusetts for a reason.
  3. Originally posted by stj0691:In regards to the post I made about public schools having food health standards, its understandable why they want this law. They (the gov't) want kids to make healthy choices. Instead of banning foods, why not educate children (and parents too) instead. Open discussions in the classroom should be permitted (looking at you, teacher who refused to let a student question Obama's presidency). Also, if people really want educators to take on partial parental roles (especially with this law), perhaps they should be paid as much as a babysitter?

    This is pretty much what I said. Glad you agree

  4. To an extent. I don't think it should be mandatory, however.

    I did some research and the state offers health education, but the students are offered to take the subject.

    Taken from Health Education in Secondary Schools:

    In 2006, over four in five Massachusetts secondary schools (86%) required some health
    education for students, and 81% required students to take at least one health education
    course.


    What I do understand is the state wants to curb obesity and overweight percentages.

    Also - if a kid has a birthday and they want to bring in cupcakes for everyone in the class, they can't. Even if they were gluten-free, peanut free, etc.

    If someone does not want their child to adhere to state standards and regulations, is homeschooling exempt from this new law? Same for private institutions. Someone correct me here, I'm only guessing.

    I do understand how people do not want the state to have substantial influence on what their child eats, but remember, public schools are a part of the state. It's your choice where you want to send them.
  5. I'd imagine most of those 19% not taking it are the ones who really need it.

  6. Well, that's very limited. There are several situations where I see the course not taken.

  7. "Most", not all. Of course there can be other reasons too.

  8. I don't see hard evidence supporting your thesis, though. So no, not most. Glad to see you recognize that there are reasons for not being able to take the course, though.
  9. I'd say it's something that could easily be included in some basic biology or something though.
  10. Hearing the insane amounts of money that is to be spent on advertisement in the US election is a bit sickening. Anyone who could possibly think of better ways to spend billions?
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.
Make sure to not miss out on any U2 news and updates: follow us on Twitter, Instagram and like us on Facebook.