The school district is getting into the food business to get the students to eat better???

Isn't that the parent's responsibility?

Hope it's not a money loser as the district isn't exactly flush.

I don't really have a problem with this, EXCEPT that I seem to remember that the district discontinued a student ran educational lunch provider at Monte Vista last year as a means of limiting competition for their own offerings....how does that compute with this ?

Last school year, Monte Vista High had to shutdown its student run culinary food service because the school contract with Chartwell's didn't allow for "competition." The students truly preferred the student culinary food service over Chartwell's. The culinary students not only learned how to make the food, but also how to serve the food and how to run a business. One of the purposes of the culinary program is vocational training for those who do not plan on attending college, but the food service portion was shutdown! The variety of freshly made meals was much more vast than burgers, pizza & sandwiches. They had gourmet salads, hot soup, pasta, etc. It is short-sighted of the school district to discontinue a educational program in hopes to increase lunch sales because of a contract it signed. Are bought sandwiches for lunch that more exciting than what Mom makes?!! Well, maybe if they're hot...

If the Subway Sandwiches are on Whole Wheat bread, not just the misleading "Wheat Bread", that would be a good thing. Next, they would have to serve the sandwiches depicted in their commercials, not the one piece of meat and triangle of cheese that our local Subways serve.

I'm excited about the possibility of ordering Subway sandwiches at lunch. It's a good healthy option for students.

I here there will also be a Crispy Creme Donut franchise!!

Fight to bring back the student run cafeteria at Monte Vista, maybe San Ramon HS should consider this also - and heck, while you're at it - buy from local farmers.... have the students learn to cook - and cook healthy. I don't get it - or maybe there are Subway kickbacks to the schools...

One more example of a school district that does not have the best interests of the students in mind. After forcing the MV Culinary Academy to stop selling food last year, they do this!? I feel sick about this decision. The food that Culinary sold helped support a fabulous program that benefited the students and the community.

The San Ramon Valley Unified School District is corrupt, and is getting away with it because we parents are paying for things out of our own pockets that there would be plenty of money for if the money was managed properly. Parents.... Have you looked at how the money is spent? Get involved.

"Lil' Johnny" be "here"-ing 'bout Crispy Creme....
Probably ate too much junk food in spelling class.

Another example of parents who don't give a rats. Give the kids some money and walk out the door.

I would encourage all high school students to boycott Subway on campus, especially Monte Vista students that lost their student run culinary program. By the way, can't imagine too many high school students lining up for fruit and milk to compliment their high sodium, processed meat and cheese sandwich. Our tax dollars supporting yet another bad decision by the administration. Greed is NOT good. Don't get me started on the Becky Smith fiasco; she should have been given her exit papers a long time ago.

Chuck, I support your idea of boycotting Subway on campus, however it was Becky Smith that fought to allow Culinary to continue selling food on campus. She went head to head with the District to keep the Culinary sales alive. It was the district that signed a contract with Chartwell's, without looking at the overall impact on all schools. This contract also took away funding for other programs. One of the reasons that the district wanted her out of MV, was that she wasn't afraid to fight for her school.

Linda, you are clueless. I want my kid to have the option of eating whatever they want. Subway is by far better than a Burger King. But it's all in moderation, right? Honestly, I do not want him to drive around town in his 2010 BMW during lunch time.

When I was a kid it was fluffernutters and bologna sandwiches. Nothing wrong with that, and if today's kids ate those maybe they wouldn't all be spoiled brats. Also, does a kid really need a 2010 BMW? What's wrong with his legs? Can't he walk or ride a bike? Maybe he needs to get home in time to not do the yardwork and watch Popeye and the Three Stooges instead. Cripes...

Fluffernutter recipe:

First you spread, spread, spread your bread with peanut butter,
Then Marshmallow Fluff and you've got a Fluffernutter!

MmmmMMmmmmmm.......

Sadly Jeff, you are correct about the cars at least. Most kids drive more expensive cars than the teachers. Shame on parents for providing BMW's, Mercedes, etc. Let's not forget all the designer jeans, purses, etc. So....give your child money for a fast food lunch and then you don't have to be bothered going to the store to have healthy options for your student to pack for lunch.

Jeff, I hope you are kidding about the 2010 BMW. If not, you are quite a pompous backend.

My daughter was a zachiem winner and drove a 10 year old BMW, handed down through the family....we pay cash for cars and drive them into the ground...

"...the San Ramon Valley Unified School District board unanimously voted to own and operate Subway sandwich franchises at its four high schools"

How many did they buy...four?? Where did they get the money?

They're cutting their budget every which way, yet they can purchase a/several Subways? It doesn't sound right to me.... I don't get it.

Wonderin is right, where did the school district get the money to buy FOUR franchises when they are stating lack of funds and threatening cuts to education? That is the meat of this discussion, not whether someone has more money then another family or chooses to buy expensive cars. The car/envy stuff is a distraction to the important part of this. We live in a capitalistic society, those who have funds are able to purchase what they please, irregardless of whether someone feels other people "deserve" it more. Should teachers have cars that have less value then students? Why not, we each make choices that are reflected in what we own. I know individuals who consider expensive cars to be a waste yet they could easily buy one, they simply don't.

The interesting part of this news is as follows:
1. The school district shut down a functioning/educational food service group in order to protect their own business interests.
2. The school, despite constant reports of lack of funds, somehow finds the means to PURCHASE four businesses that are non essential and also non educational.

Those two facts should be investigated. If the school has enough money to buy four businesses, they must have enough funds to perform their primary function. They must not need additional funds from the community. Otherwise, they betrayed their primary fiduciary responsibility.

Wonderin is right, where did the school district get the money to buy FOUR franchises when they are stating lack of funds and threatening cuts to education? That is the meat of this discussion, not whether someone has more money then another family or chooses to buy expensive cars. The car/envy stuff is a distraction to the important part of this. We live in a capitalistic society, those who have funds are able to purchase what they please, irregardless of whether someone feels other people "deserve" it more. Should teachers have cars that have less value then students? Why not, we each make choices that are reflected in what we own. I know individuals who consider expensive cars to be a waste yet they could easily buy one, they simply don't.

The interesting part of this news is as follows:
1. The school district shut down a functioning/educational food service group in order to protect their own business interests.
2. The school, despite constant reports of lack of funds, somehow finds the means to PURCHASE four businesses that are non essential and also non educational.

Those two facts should be investigated. If the school has enough money to buy four businesses, they must have enough funds to perform their primary function. They must not need additional funds from the community. Otherwise, they betrayed their primary fiduciary responsibility.

Would someone from the School Board please post a comment, or be interviewed, to explain the reasons for their decision.

I keep getting the impression that none of us (me included) know enough about their reasons to accurately comment.

I know that the school district did not provide summer school for kids who had failing grades in core subjects, instead selling a workbook to use over the summer due to lack of funds. The education of students is the PRIMARY function of the district. Actually, I personally believe that flunking a core subject should result in retention.

Unless the franchises were GIFTS the school district has no business in neglecting their primary purpose to invest in future projects. The school does not NEED a subway, the school does need to teach core subjects.

Hey you shmucks - I lost 556 pounds eating Subway's excuse for food.
Too bad I gained it all back at Taco Bell.....

I don't understand all this fuss about Subway or no Subway. Why does it take taxpayer money to feed our kids lunch at school? It's not as if this community is comprised of destitute people! On the contrary, the families that live here are middle to upper-middle class, and can certainly afford to buy the foods needed to make lunch at home for brown-bagging. It might even be a good lesson in self-reliance to train our kids to make their own lunches (with supervision at first). This by itself can ensure good nutrition, will result in a very real cost savings for everyone, and help our kids to assume some responsibility. This is all common sense, so I know it won't be popular in Danville.

Andy-

The fuss is that the School district "found" funds to purchase franchises at a time when they have stated they have no money and are cutting classes, summer school, increasing class size, etc. Why is there money for something that they really don't need during a budget crunch?

As far as the dig towards Danville, why? Does it make you feel good? Many of the students bring lunch from home. The requirement for a school to provide lunch comes from the Federal level and was made to support the school lunch program for those who don't make enough money to feed their kids. Actually, there are children in this district who qualify for the free/reduced lunch program, looks/prejudices can be misleading.

Sorry sam, I am not monosyllabic. You clearly missed my meaning. Also, with regards to the "dig", if the shoe fits wear it.

One hopes that someone will be watching the books and that they at least break even. When tax payers had to bail out the district a year ago because they had mismanaged the lunch program (I believe it was $65000) my first question is what financial monitoring is in place to ensure we - the taxpayers are reimbursed the $25,000 investment and the program breaks even?

One hopes that someone will be watching the books and that they at least break even. When tax payers had to bail out the district a year ago because they had mismanaged the lunch program (I believe it was $65000) my first question is what financial monitoring is in place to ensure we - the taxpayers are reimbursed the $25,000 investment and the program breaks even?

Let's save some money and make our own damned sandwiches.