FAAN recommendations for Valentines Day School Parties <roll eyes>

[CMdeux]

A hard time reading??


Is she seriously thinking that you're going to SWALLOW this explanation?? 



Good for you, btw, pursuing food free.  Geeeeeeez, you'd really think that some people were being offered a root canal without anesthesia the way they treat the idea of modifying food plans, wouldn't you?   

[lakeswimr]

Good luck! 

[Arkadia]

A hard time reading??


Is she seriously thinking that you're going to SWALLOW this explanation?? 

oh it felt more like attempted entry from the other end.

[eragon]

its very odd from a uk point of view to hear so much school involvement in valentines day. NOTHING happens in uk schools. Certainly no parties or food. cards may be exchanged, but not everyone takes part .

why is this considered a a suitable activity in a school day? what educational value does this have? (love for each other is not just one day a year!) 

it sounds like such madness and i cant see any positive aspect to it!

i thought valentine was for adult lovers, not kids!
this is all apart from the allergy side of things, and heaps more stress on families with food allergies, for little reason i can see.

[ajasfolks2]

eragon --

Part of the problem in the US is the overcommercialization and our unchecked consumerism -- the candy manufacturers have gone "whole hog" on the children in this country -- and Halloween, Valentines, and Easter PLUS the obvious Christmas are BIG for them in terms of dollars.

Once upon a time in the US, Valentines was about cards and small, sweet thing (nice deed or small token, not necessarily candy) for one's sweetheart.

Our nation is over-the-top with everything anymore.

It will be the death of us.

Actually, it already is.

[CMdeux]

Eragon, I think that you have hit the crux of the matter RIGHT here:

why is this considered a a suitable activity in a school day? what educational value does this have?

Well, American educators would mumble something about cultural literacy and traditions, etc.  But the truth is that much of what is wrong with this nation's K through 12 educational system is over-the-top non-educational uses of the school day.

Truly, "instructional" activities and time in school are not as plentiful as they used to be.  They've gotten squeezed out by the bloated, gobbling PIG of 'fun-fun-fun' that revolves around, you guessed it--

food-food-food and with that, as Ajas noted, $$, $$, $$.

It's rampant conspicuous consumption, in reality.   

Of course, the upshot is that kids are now expected to make up the instructional difference on their own (and their parents') time-- as in, homework loads of 2+ hours even for elementary students... and what CLASSROOM instructional time remains is reserved for teaching them how to successfully read and take standardized tests. 

 

[eragon]

I did think that, but really , that doesnt sound good.   If the uk schools had this as a topic included in planning, EVERY area would be linked, and proven to fullfill  the national curriculum!

[CMdeux]

OH, but it is.

LOL.

Of course, some of those explanations of goals and outcomes and assessment methods stretch the bounds of credibility so far that I have trouble believing that anyone could possibly say them aloud with a straight face...



but they are fulfilling some curriculum objective somewhere, I assure you.     Because, see, there isn't any way to stop educators from basically lying through their teeth about it-- and they DO.  Regularly.


"Eating M&M's art in class will give children greater familiarity with color identification and the use of novel media in art.  The lesson objectives include:  1) improved color awareness, b) improving sensory awareness in the areas of tasting and seeing, and c) mastery of the imaginative process needed to create individual artwork intended only for the artist.  These objectives will be measured by informal teacher assessment during the lesson, and by self-reflective activies for the children (they will be creating edible art)."

(and no, I just made that one up, but HONESTLY, I have seen this done so many times that I could do one of these in my sleep and so could most other educators.)
It's delusional. 

[YouKnowWho]

OH, but it is.

LOL.

Of course, some of those explanations of goals and outcomes and assessment methods stretch the bounds of credibility so far that I have trouble believing that anyone could possibly say them aloud with a straight face...



but they are fulfilling some curriculum objective somewhere, I assure you.     Because, see, there isn't any way to stop educators from basically lying through their teeth about it-- and they DO.  Regularly.


"Eating M&M's art in class will give children greater familiarity with color identification and the use of novel media in art.  The lesson objectives include:  1) improved color awareness, b) improving sensory awareness in the areas of tasting and seeing, and c) mastery of the imaginative process needed to create individual artwork intended only for the artist.  These objectives will be measured by informal teacher assessment during the lesson, and by self-reflective activies for the children (they will be creating edible art)."

(and no, I just made that one up, but HONESTLY, I have seen this done so many times that I could do one of these in my sleep and so could most other educators.)
It's delusional.

You may have made it up, this is the exact mantra that my school keeps trying to shove down my throat every time I dare mention removing food from the classroom.

[YouKnowWho]

The bigger question here is why are lay-people discussing another child's personal medical information.  This is not a dig against Arkadia. 

Why are room mom's in charge of food?  Why are they okay with leaving kids out? 

Why does there have to be food at every single event? 

I have been to numerous food holiday parties.  It's not the food that excites the kids - it's the crafts and the games.  Maybe I am just dense.

[lakeswimr]

I agree Youknowhow, and wish someone would write all that into an article that would be able to help convince others see it this way, too.  I also do not get why it is seen as OK to leave FA kids out by people I know would NEVER be OK with it if roles were reversed.  I don't understand the thought process.  I told someone I thought it was that they valued the food more than our children's lives and that person told me it isn't that--it is that they value their idea of what they want for their child over what I want for my child.  I don't know.

[DrummersMom]

I'm room mom this year and for us, it's the teacher who is food crazy. Teacher requests no peanut products but doesn't seem to think other allergens (milk, eggs, tree nuts) are as dangerous. DS will not be attending Valentine's Day party because food activity is not safe for him. Not a battle I can fight right now and other school staff do not think it's a big deal that allergens are to be served. They want a note from doc stating it is unsafe for him to be in room during this type of activity/food function.

I asked DS if he would write something about why food activities with food allergens are dangerous and how it makes him feel. He's going to do a Power Point and he's only 10. Of course he'll get some helpful info from links provided by mom.

[CMdeux]

I agree Youknowhow, and wish someone would write all that into an article that would be able to help convince others see it this way, too.  I also do not get why it is seen as OK to leave FA kids out by people I know would NEVER be OK with it if roles were reversed.  I don't understand the thought process.  I told someone I thought it was that they valued the food more than our children's lives and that person told me it isn't that--it is that they value their idea of what they want for their child over what I want for my child.   I don't know.

Uhhh... okay, I understand that isn't an entirely "rational" statement intended to be picked apart logically...
(and I've heard similar things over the years, too, fwiw... so I suspet this is quite a common rationale)

BUT--

What THEY want for their child = FUN!  Birthday indulgence!  Feeling special-special-special in front of all his/her classmates... warm happy glow of... happiness, let's say (being generous, since I strongly suspect that in at least some cases, it might well be "smug" or "superior" instead, but how ugly is THAT?)


versus what FA moms want, which would be...

I "want" for my child = for my child to not be made:

a) dead,
b) permanently brain-damaged
c) terrified for his/her life while his/her peers and trusted authority figure(s) laugh and have fun by isolating him/her
d) made the butt of jokes or insensitive commentary by everyone in his/her surroundings


I mean, that is the comparison that we are talking about here.  It really is.   They simply don't even understand that a and b on my list are real, or that those might be "needs" rather than WANTS.

That's why I still view that statement as patently callous and selfish.  Sorry, but one person's desire to IMPROVE already good feelings/self-esteem at the price of another child's terror (or actual harm) = 'inhumane and more than a wee bit sociopathic.'

That is truly akin to the kind of thinking that serial killers use about their victims; a disengagement from them as "human" with the same fears, needs, and relevance as the killer's.  I think that other parents (cupcake queens, mind) DEHUMANIZE us and our children so that they don't have to feel guilty about what they choose to do anyway.

   

[Arkadia]

I posted elsewhere how the party turned out (pretty uneventful), and will try to find the post and transcribe it here. I will say I noted moms reading labels to determine if the Hershey Syrup was okay for a milk allergy. Not sure if that was okay with his parents, no one told me one way or another. Anyways....before I knew it they were squirting Hershey Syrup in his bowl for him to dip his lemon bar in. (He apparently asked for it). The moms started making some comments, faces, and before you knew it the kids at his table (not my daughter) were taunting him with things like "ewwwwwwwwwwww, that's gross", that trickled over to other tables.  I put on my stern face and told them NOT it's never nice to make fun of ANYTHING about another student.  I got some "oh, were not making fun" and I told them "oh, you are". I told them then, it wasn't being a Bucket Filler. It wasn't "Kind", or "Responsible", or "Respectful". That put an instant stop to it. But really, if it weren't for comments of adults, I don't think it would have started.

Parents pretty much run these room parties, and there is a need to know as far as personal information or plans are.....but if there weren't parties, there wouldn't be a need...

[lakeswimr]

CM--I agree.  Another person's *feelings* are not more important than a FA child's *life*.  The fact that the feelings are often put higher than safety and inclusion of the FA child is mind boggling.

I agree Youknowhow, and wish someone would write all that into an article that would be able to help convince others see it this way, too.  I also do not get why it is seen as OK to leave FA kids out by people I know would NEVER be OK with it if roles were reversed.  I don't understand the thought process.  I told someone I thought it was that they valued the food more than our children's lives and that person told me it isn't that--it is that they value their idea of what they want for their child over what I want for my child.   I don't know.

Uhhh... okay, I understand that isn't an entirely "rational" statement intended to be picked apart logically...
(and I've heard similar things over the years, too, fwiw... so I suspet this is quite a common rationale)

BUT--

What THEY want for their child = FUN!  Birthday indulgence!  Feeling special-special-special in front of all his/her classmates... warm happy glow of... happiness, let's say (being generous, since I strongly suspect that in at least some cases, it might well be "smug" or "superior" instead, but how ugly is THAT?)


versus what FA moms want, which would be...

I "want" for my child = for my child to not be made:

a) dead,
b) permanently brain-damaged
c) terrified for his/her life while his/her peers and trusted authority figure(s) laugh and have fun by isolating him/her
d) made the butt of jokes or insensitive commentary by everyone in his/her surroundings


I mean, that is the comparison that we are talking about here.  It really is.   They simply don't even understand that a and b on my list are real, or that those might be "needs" rather than WANTS.

That's why I still view that statement as patently callous and selfish.  Sorry, but one person's desire to IMPROVE already good feelings/self-esteem at the price of another child's terror (or actual harm) = 'inhumane and more than a wee bit sociopathic.'

That is truly akin to the kind of thinking that serial killers use about their victims; a disengagement from them as "human" with the same fears, needs, and relevance as the killer's.  I think that other parents (cupcake queens, mind) DEHUMANIZE us and our children so that they don't have to feel guilty about what they choose to do anyway.