Why does the Missoulian hate children?

May 10, 2006 in Media

What’s going on over at the Missoulian? Has anyone read their editorials recently? I’ve watched and held my breath as inane declaration followed ridiculous proposal followed meaningless banter.

The editorial page is beginning to resemble nothing so much as a middling blog of a cranky old guy.

Shouldn’t we expect more from a community paper? Like, say, some discussion about real issues that affect the state?

Today’s editorial is on the school soft drink ban. They basically come out against it.

It's just that if everyone were as concerned about what kids learn as what they eat and weigh, perhaps we'd see real progress in education. Having effectively countered the dreaded menace of soda pop, parents, educators and social activists should have little stopping them from attending to other educational priorities – such as education.

You can see where this one is going, can’t you? After a rambling dissertation on how kids aren’t really influenced by soda machines at school and probably don’t drink much there anyway, the editorial concludes:

In any event, we have trouble worrying as much about what goes into kids' bellies as we do about what goes into their heads. Schools exist for one reason, and it isn't for eating. If healthier beverages were a factor in academic achievement, we'd be cheering about the new agreement with the pop industry. The ruckus over soda pop, nutritional standards of school lunches and obesity can be lumped in with a vast array of school-based social work – from AIDS awareness to anti-drug campaigns to matters of procreation – that has only the most tangential connection with education yet increasingly fills the short school day and short school year.

Of course the author of the editorial doesn’t offer any evidence to support the claims that soft drinks at schools aren’t harmful to kids – ignoring completely the concerns of parents who don’t have soda in their home fridges only to be thwarted by the tacit encouragement for soda-swilling by the existence of pop machines at schools.

The editorial also fails to mention that many school districts, starving for funds, readily exchanged soda machines for cash. Some schools even used “educational materials” – thinly disguised advertisements – sent by soda manufacturers in the classroom in exchange for money. And why would a for-profit corporation pay to have soda machines in schools if they weren't making money at it?

The paper apparently isn’t aware that the nation’s poorest children are almost exclusively dependent on school food for their meals. So forget that these kids, who are already handicapped by the innumerable dangers and deadweights of poverty, must often eat the high carb, high starch, high sugar fare served in school cafeterias for their sole nutrition. Screw these kids! They’re “tangential,” right?

I’m certain schools would love to educate – and often do – but don’t have the money to reduce class size or attract better teachers with higher salaries or keep books up to date, etc & co. (Ask your local teacher how much of her personal funds are spent on classroom materials. You may be surprised.) And the “No Child Left Behind” Act will soon begin to take its toll by shedding “underperforming” schools from federal assistance. Inevitably most schools will fail to meet the criteria of the act, which calls for perpetual improvement on standardized tests. One sub-par class and see ya! No more funds for you! So things will only get worse.

So thanks for the dodge, Missoulian. Thanks for pretending that sex ed and nutrition are at the core of what’s wrong with education, not lack of interest and funds and the constant ideological tinkering by politicians and newspaper editors.

Update: D*mn it! Pogie already wrote about this! Plus he's a teacher and has more interesting things to say about the issue. Go give him a read if you're interested in the topic.