R.I. School Bans Talking at Lunch (WHAT'S NEXT....BREATHING???!!!)

The Associated Press / http://www.saintroseschool.com/ ^ | 1/25/07 | JUSTIN M. NORTON

[paulat]

R.I. School Bans Talking at Lunch

Jan 25 6:22 PM US/Eastern

By JUSTIN M. NORTON Associated Press Writer

WARWICK, R.I. (AP) -- Class, from now on there will be no talking at lunch. A Roman Catholic elementary school adopted new lunchroom rules this week requiring students to remain silent while eating. The move comes after three recent choking incidents in the cafeteria.

No one was hurt, but the principal of St. Rose of Lima School explained in a letter to parents that if the lunchroom is loud, staff members cannot hear a child choking.

Christine Lamoureux, whose 12-year-old is a sixth-grader at the school, said she respects the safety issue but thinks the rule is a bad idea.

"They are silent all day," she said. "They have to get some type of release." She suggested quiet conversation be allowed during lunch.

Another mother, Thina Paone, does not mind the silent lunches, noting that the cafeteria "can be very crazy" at the suburban school south of Providence.

Principal Jeannine Fuller did not immediately return a call seeking comment, but a spokesman for the Diocese of Providence described the silence rule as a temporary safety measure.

Spokesman Michael Guilfoyle said the school does not expect complete silence but enough quiet to keep students safe.

Lori Healey, a teacher at the school who also has a son in third grade, said "silent lunch" means students can whisper.

"They know it's not for punishment," she said. "It's for safety, and they'll be the first ones to tell you."

Stacey Wildenhain, a teacher's assistant at St. Rose, said her 7-year- old son does not mind the policy. He told her: "The sooner we eat, the sooner we can get out to play," she said.

Amanda Karhuse, of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, said that students should not run wild during lunch, but that they also should not have to remain silent.

"It seems kind of ridiculous in our opinion," she said. "Kids need that social time, and they just need time to be kids at that age."

The principal's letter also spelled out other new lunch rules, including requiring students to stay in their seats and limiting them to one trip to the trash can. Any child who breaks the rules will serve detention the next day.

Paone's 6-year-old son, Joey, said he accepts the changes, but some of his classmates were having trouble obeying the rules.

Kara Casali, who also has a 6-year-old son at the school, said the rules against talking will be tough to enforce.

"I can't imagine having a silent lunch," she said.

___

On the Net:

St. Rose School: http://www.saintroseschool.com/

[SoftballMominVA]

There is only one Catholic school in our area. I've visited several times to test or collaborate with special education children. When I've gone in, the kids have silent lunch (at their desks - no cafeteria). It certainly could be that silent lunch is unique to this school. When I first visited I expected to see only nuns teaching, but actually there are only 3, and they are nothing like the stereotypical, mean nun you see portrayed in some literature. Very nice, very loving women.

My only criticism of the school is that it is somewhat a victim of its own success as the upper level classes are huge! One 5th grade class had 38 kids in it! The school has since instituted class limits and preference to those at the church (parish?) and class sizes for K-2 are closer to 25.

Had I not been pleased with the local public school, I wouldn't have hesitated to send my kids there. It's a sweet school with a lovely spirit. I've heard many good things about Catholic schools in general.

[Kaylee Frye]

When I was in elementary school, we simply had a big stop-light hooked up to a noise detector and when the volume got too loud, it went yellow, then red. We were all to keep the volume in the green zone. Worked fine for us. We could still talk, but it was quiet enough not to be unruly.

[okie01]

Please, do not associate me with wintertime's comments.

[Hoosier Catholic Momma]

Our dd's school has 2 of each grade to combat large class sizes. My daughter's class has 20 students, the other 2nd grade has 21. Several of the classrooms have around 15 or so students. The junior/senior high school next door has around 140 students (7-12). I think their staff/student ratio is 8:1 over there (or something in that ballpark). The two schools share a cafeteria, which is over in the elementary school, and they share a gym, which is over at the jr./sr. high. We have no nuns teaching there (although the previous principal was a nun--we met her and she was a good woman), but the director of religious ed is a nun, and there is a young priest teaching over at the high school (very conservative and very traditional). I went to Catholic school in the 70s/80s, and I only had a few nuns teach me in 9 years of Catholic education.

Unfortunately, the public schools around here are dismal, so it was homeschooling or the Catholic school, and our daughter LOVES going to school--she thrives in the traditional school setting (all A's and B's).

[SoftballMominVA]

Understood, my apologies - Freeper mail to you

[SoftballMominVA]

Do you find the school to be strict in their dealings with children? How do they handle discipline problems? What about literature and evolution?

The school I'm familiar with is a bit liberal (IMO) with some of the literature they use. For instance, I was surprised to see 4th graders reading The Giver by Lois Lowery. (Not the only example, just the first one that popped in my head)

The school property is so tiny - they are at capacity and just no where to go. They use the adjoining public school area for recess - and it is a bit of a hoot to see the kids in uniforms mixing in. (In our county all playing fields are controlled by the county, not the school, so anyone may use the fields. They do not belong to the school. That is probably not the case everywhere)

8:1! That is enviable! I suppose she will go there next? Goodish amount of interaction and attention. It will be a benefit to her

[jwalsh07]

When I was in fifth grade I had to go two days without talking for saying "shut-up" to a classmate. This wasn't my teacher's policy but some snub-nosed temoporary sub that my teacher didn't agree with but complied with the new "rules" until the sub left. It was a punishment that was more hurtful than constructive, and since I've grown older I realized how wrong it was.

LOL, how wrong was it? Do you see a therapist for post traumatic stress syndrome?

[wintertime]

That they're FReepers says they have the same standards the rest of us do.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If they are propping up a corrupt system by going to their government school every day, opening the doors, and collecting a paycheck, then they are guilty.

Ah..but perhaps their government schools aren't hurting children. It is possible.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Ummm...

We weren't allowed to talk at lunch during my six years at Katlick gramma skool, 1958-1964.

[wintertime]

Softballmom, there are plenty of dysfunctional schools in the U.S. I don't know if you or other the Freeper teachers work at one.

Yes, any teacher of any religion who cooperates in running these schools should be blamed. If they open the doors to schools that they know ( or should know) are using harmful teaching methods, graduate illiterate or innumerate( or barely so) children, or are unsafe, then YES it would be more moral to work at Mc Donalds. Hopefully, these are capable of working at jobs more demanding than Mc Donalds.

Yes, those working at Mc Donalds have more integrity than teachers who cooperate with school who hurt children emotionally, physically, or educationally.

Anyone who claims to be conservative and supports compulsory attendance government schools, and supports threatening other citizens with the sheriff's sale of their homes and businesses, is only partially conservative.

I can' know if the Freeper teachers are cooperating with government schools that harm children emotionally, physically, or educationally. If they are, they are one of three things:

1) Too stupid to know they are hurting children.

2) If they do know they are cooperating with government schools that hurt children, then they are greed.

3) If they do know they are cooperating with government schools that hurt children, then they may simply be sadistic.

I am in a rush, and have not proof read this.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Thought Catholic schools were pretty strict on the kids all the time, even at lunch.

During my tenure (3rd-8th grade 1958-1964) that was the rule.

[zbigreddogz]

I'm guessing this policy will be reversed pretty fast. No sane parents would leave their kids in an environment like this.

If I had my kid in there, I would pull my kid out so fast it would make your head swim.

[paulat]

No sane parents would leave their kids in an environment like this.

Makes you think that the folks who raised kids on the farm or the ranch had the right idea:

Fresh air
Exercise
Meaningful work
Study
Good sleep ('cuz yer doggone tired)

Not much opportunity to get into trouble.

[SoftballMominVA]

Well, since you have stated many times that ALL public schools are an abomination (or something along that line), then I guess I do fall in one of those three categories. Sadistic, a new adjective.

What you can't seem to bring yourself to admit is that there are good public schools out there. There are schools where the kids are happy and learning and the teachers engage their minds on a daily basis. Because humans run these schools, mistakes are made, but they are not mistakes of sadism. Not every classroom is run on a gang mentality by alpha students or sexually and emotionally abusive teachers. There are great public schools and awful public schools and plenty on a continuum between the two ends of the spectrum. I like to think I teach at one on the positive end and that my girls attended a great school. Yet, you more than once have come close to calling my daughters liars because they say they have not witnessed abuse. This has been expressed in comments such as "Well SoftballMom says HER daughters never saw this" "EYEROLL" "SURE!" These imply that they and/or I are lying. We are not.

You have even told other young posters that if they went to a public school their parents wasted their education. You have no way of knowing that. You make blanket statements that you have no way of proving then try to backtrack your way out of your statement with doubletalk. But your words are out there in black and white and are easily searchable. It's hard to defend absolutes and even harder to defend hyperbole.

[twinzmommy]

If you can *hear* them (as in coughing or making noise) aren't you supposed to let them try to get it up themselves? I thought Heimlech and such were only supposed to be done when the airway was blocked entirely.

And do the teachers have to be silent too? What about just having teachers SIT with the kids and encourage positive conversation during lunch?

[Crolis]

Back when I was in Catholic grade school, our lunchroom had a device on the wall with three light bulbs: one red, yellow and green.

When green was lit, we were allowed to talk and interact, but we had to remain respectful and not become unruly. We were free to be kids though.

When yellow went on, that was a warning that we were getting loud. We could still talk, but we had to speak more quietly and generally use quiet indoor voices when it was on.

When the red light was on, no talking period. It went on for either announcements prior to recess, or if we didn't be quiet. This was enforced by issuing demerits to misbehaving kids. 5 demerits would warrant after school suspension, and all demerits would have to be signed by your parent and returned to the teacher/principal the next day.

We never really had any significant discipline problems as I recall.

[wintertime]

Well, since you have stated many times that ALL public schools are an abomination

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Those who have followed my posts know that I use that comment in reference to the First Amendment violations. I have not used this statement in regard to the emotional, physical, or educational treatment or outcomes of the children in government schools.

Even though all government school are in violation of the First Amendment, it is theoretically possible ( I supposed) for a child to come through a government school without being physically, emotionally, or educationally damaged. All successful schools, both private and government, must restrict speech, press, assembly, and religious expression, if chaos is to be prevented. While children in both systems experience the same restrictions, the private system conforms to the Constitution, while the government system is in violation of the First Amendment. The child's experience would be the same.

So...for you to take this comment out of context is a strawman argument.

I hope you are not doing this to your students. If you are, it is abusive. Children are not sufficiently mature to recognize strawmen, and they are also vulnerable. Teachers are in a position of authority, and capable of adverserly effecting grades, recommendations, and future options.

I have only addressed one of your stawmen comments. Your post is one long list of stawmen. You claim to be a conservative but argue like a liberal. The tactics of the liberal include distortion, strawmen, taking comments out of context, looking for the one exception, and applying the argument universally. They aim to exhaust the conservative. If the conservative walks away in disgust, the liberal may falsely think they have won the argument. Ah...but this is the Internet and these post stand for all to judge. This techniques do not work here on the Internet.

Hm?...As I think about it, the liberal's arguing techniques remind me of the techniques used by middle school alpha-girls and their girl gang members.

You claim to be a conservative, but the term "conservative government school defender" is an oxymoron. You also argue like a liberal. Did you learn this in you college of education?

[SoftballMominVA]

Again, with the personal attacks and innuendoes when I hit close to the truth. How funny that you accuse me of the very same tactics that you use. Seeing as you are much older that I am, I would have thought you would have arrived at a different stage of life. To each his own I reckon.

I don't defend public schools nationwide - that would be arrogant. I do defend the right and responsibility that of parents to choose what is best for their child at the time. I respect the choices that parents make and am always happy when they excel. I have never told a child that their parents wasted their education - again, that would be arrogant.

Have a nice night

[metmom]

I admit, I sympathize with the "silent lunch" (and breakfast and supper) thing. I put in a lot of time and effort making meals, and I really wish everyone would just close their mouths and chew their food!

As opposed to throwing it around the cafeteria.

[luckystarmom]

I don't get those opposed to it, especially if the kids get to go outside after lunch.

I've seen too many kids just talk during lunch and not eat (my son would be one of those types of kids).

Let them eat in quiet for 15 minutes, and then let them get their energy out running around on the playground.