I am disturbed by retired educator John Metallo's commentary ("Denying kids junk food isn't the answer," Feb. 8) on limiting junk food in schools, which deteriorated into a rant about uninvolved parents.
I am particularly shocked he expresses these sentiments after his career at Albany High School, a school that stands to benefit more from the whole-child approach than other, more affluent schools. This approach acknowledges every parent may not have the will or the way to provide essential services for their child, so the school partners with other existing social services to make sure all students' needs are met. It has been implemented with success, most famously in the Oyler district of Cincinnati, a program so successful National Public Radio has done a series about it.
Students who attend a school that looks at their needs holistically have a better chance of becoming successful, healthy adults — adults who, when they become parents, will have the education, financial stability and self-esteem to care for their own children holistically, without assistance from the school.
Yes, teaching healthy eating choices, making breakfast, finding a dentist, and teaching life-skills should be the purview of parents. I don't think anyone would dispute that. But some children do not live in a situation that provides for all these needs. Is it more important to punish children for their parents' mistakes, or to care for their needs, perhaps breaking a generations-long cycle of poverty?
Unfortunately, Mr. Metallo can be counted among the many decision- and opinion-makers who want to see policies crafted for the world we all want to live in, rather than the world that we do live in.
Thankfully, there are some in Congress who understand the way to achieve the former is by implementing practical solutions for the latter.
LUCY MENARD
Albany