Kids snacks at school - white carbs twice before lunch

[prettyflowersinthesky]

DD is in y4.

I seriously don't want to be "that" parent so am wondering on the consensus on this.

DD's school has started giving the whole school's kids stodgy white carbs with jam twice before lunchtime (bagels).

Once when they arrive in the morning, and then again at break time.

DD is coming home with most of her lunch uneaten.

I fully appreciate about food poverty and that giving the kids food in this blanket way is a way of addressing that without singling out or embarrassing hungry children or families.

But I question

1. Whether or not the white carbs plus jam is appropriate nutrition
2. Whether or not most kids really need this
3. Whether or not two snacks between breakfast and lunch is excessive

There is no requirement for the kids to take and eat the snacks but to say to my child not to take them when the other kids are seems unfair.

I'm a bit torn, and certainly don't want to deny hungry kids access to food. But also wonder if the school needs to give this twice and also maybe the nutritional content of the snacks could be improved (e.g. fruit, whole grain snacks or something instead). I do appreciate that kids need more carbs than adults.

What does everyone think? Is this appropriate? I feel for the vast majority of kids without food poverty issues this is not necessary, so by serving all the kids a snack it is enforcing bad snacking habits, poor food choices as well as encouraging childhood obesity.

In many very healthy countries no snacking is allowed although I appreciate for very young children it may be necessary.

I am wondering whether or not to speak to the school about my concerns about them finding a better way to address the issues for the hungry kids.

But I do not want to speak up if I am seriously misinformed about all of this, hence interested in your responses. Thanks.

Yanbu = this is not appropriate / YABU - give the kids the snacks

Excellent posts, zaffa. I'm saddened by the posters who're still spouting off about 'Why can't they eat better things?' at this point in the thread. Disingenuous is putting it mildly.

I also think some of the wide-eyed ignorant are enjoying themselves a little. Nothing like looking down on people from an elevated position.

@LyingWitchInTheWardrobe

Excellent posts, zaffa. I'm saddened by the posters who're still spouting off about 'Why can't they eat better things?' at this point in the thread. Disingenuous is putting it mildly.

I also think some of the wide-eyed ignorant are enjoying themselves a little. Nothing like looking down on people from an elevated position.

Totally. The ignorance is mind blowing.

@LyingWitchInTheWardrobe

Excellent posts, zaffa. I'm saddened by the posters who're still spouting off about 'Why can't they eat better things?' at this point in the thread. Disingenuous is putting it mildly.

I also think some of the wide-eyed ignorant are enjoying themselves a little. Nothing like looking down on people from an elevated position.

Let them eat brioche!

God, no, not brioche!

Fruit for snacks.

@OverTheRainbow88 if your school has 85% PP then it will be attracting a huge amount of additional funding which is not available to the vast majority of schools.

I don't think anyone is questioning the fact that families living in poverty need additional support. And yes, where children are neglected there absolutely should be family support and social services involvement. But again, with underfunded services stretched paper-thin, often it's only the most serious or urgent cases which are quickly addressed. And no, this isn't good enough, but until the UK votes in a government which properly funds these vital services, schools have to do what they can to support their pupils.

Headteachers with no money, staff, or logistical flexibility (due to Covid) have to do what they can, accessing the relevant services for the families that need them in any way possible, and providing for the needs of their children in a way that's actually deliverable. No headteacher can magic thousands of pounds, extra staff, fridges, cooks, dishwashers and a new kitchen out of thin air while we wait for an adequately-resourced social services/ family support system.

Headteachers are trying to do something which closes the gap between children being unfed, and children having a nutritionally ideal diet. But when they are relying on charities, or (increasingly) what they or their staff pay for the food themselves, they can't do it all in one go.

I can’t believe anyone would want to take a bagel from kids poverty stricken children only on Mumsnet my first ever

@Hm2020

I’ve not read anyone saying that... I’m arguing for better for these children. It’s achievable, just takes time, hard work and funding. Kids shouldn’t eat the same food 10 times a week, just because they are living with food poverty doesn’t mean they should just be grateful and not strive for better. I wouldn’t feed my children 10 bagels a week so why would I accept this as better than nothing for other children?

@hm2020 'I can’t believe anyone would want to take a bagel from kids poverty stricken children only on Mumsnet my first ever'

where on the thread has anyone said this? you're completely making things up now.

The school's approach will ensure no child feels they are being singled out for being too poor for breakfast

The school’s lack of imagination is wasteful and causes problems for children who do not need to be fed. The kids who need fed aren’t going to massively improve with a quarter of a bagel. If they were targeting kids in the right way, more would be available for those who need it.

I go back to universal free school meals. I got free meals I could easily afford, but a parent with a child in P4 who doesn’t quite meet the threshold for free school meals still had to struggle to find over 40 quid per month per child. Widening access to those who need help is far better than chucking money at me because of some perceived issue with children on free school meals not being singled out - as if that happens with infants and not with older children.

[quote OverTheRainbow88]@Hm2020

I’ve not read anyone saying that... I’m arguing for better for these children. It’s achievable, just takes time, hard work and funding. Kids shouldn’t eat the same food 10 times a week, just because they are living with food poverty doesn’t mean they should just be grateful and not strive for better. I wouldn’t feed my children 10 bagels a week so why would I accept this as better than nothing for other children?[/quote]
But until the funding is available, and until schools have staff available to allocate time to this, do schools just leave the children to go hungry even though a charity has been set up to address precisely this issue?

It should be better, but better isn't coming.

What your daughter eats is your business. What the rest of the kids eat is not. So this would be a good opportunity to talk to your daughter about saying ‘no, thank you’ to food she doesn’t need to eat and minding your own business where the rest of the kids are concerned.

Of course bagels are better than nothing ffs! I can't believe what I read on here sometimes. A child who possibly hasn't eaten since 7.00 the previous evening and won't have anything substantial until midday would love a bagel regardless of the sneering classes. And it's not 10 bagels a week, it's one a day.

kursaalflyer - if you RTFT you will see nobody is suggesting taking away food from kids that need it.

Could you not just send your daughter in with what you consider to be a healthy snack instead? Such as a piece of fruit or something?

Fluffums I have RTFT thanks, I was responding to this comment

* I* wouldn’t feed my children 10 bagels a week so why would I accept this as better than nothing for other children

@Hm2020

I can’t believe anyone would want to take a bagel from kids poverty stricken children only on Mumsnet my first ever

Nobody has said this. Nobody is begrudging any child a bagel.

@Janevaljane

God, no, not brioche!

Fruit for snacks.

'Fruit' is better than a chocolate bar but still contains sugar and isn't the ideal go-to for every snack, particularly some fruit - there is a huge difference between some berries and grapes, for instance, or between pineapple and a pear.

I see nothing wrong with a piece of bagel with butter and a smudge of jam. Fruit is not automatically better and in the context of kids who haven't had breakfast is actually a poor substitute. I'd far rather my child had a buttered oatcake than a slice of pineapple.

@kursaalflyer

Of course bagels are better than nothing ffs! I can't believe what I read on here sometimes. A child who possibly hasn't eaten since 7.00 the previous evening and won't have anything substantial until midday would love a bagel regardless of the sneering classes. And it's not 10 bagels a week, it's one a day.

Agreed. I can't believe people would begrudge this.

If your dd will not refuse the snacks I would adjust the amount of carbs you give her for lunch and include more protein instead. Another poster mentioned asking herself if her tummy was empty and then taking the bagel if she wanted and I think that is a very good idea as it will make her take responsibility for her own eating.

Yes, only offering breakfast and snacks to kids that need them would save money however it would also single 'poor' kids out and research shows this leads to less uptake. Schools do not have endless budgets. Posters working in schools have already explained that some foods are donated etc. Where do people expect schools to find this money? Higher taxes, school funds (which people often begrudge paying)?

I agree that ideally different foods would be offered for breakfast and snack times but if budgets are limited and a school relies on donations then some food is better than no food.

You are in a lucky position that if your child has a carb heavy meal at school you can adjust her evening meal to include fore fruit, vegetables and protein. For the short term I would just do this and encourage her to only take a bagel if she is hungry.

@Storyoftonight "Agreed. I can't believe people would begrudge this."

FFS why can't people read the full thread. Nobody has said they want to deny hungry children food at any time. Merely wondered about the appropriateness of feeding the other kids that are not hungry (as this is a blanket approach) two sugary bready snacks between their breakfast and lunch.

Your child is at school to learn - so are all the others.
It's more than probable that your school varies from the "average" and more than 14% haven't had breakfast - those children need to be fed to improve their ability to concentrate, not go hungry because your daughter might eat more than she needs.
Maybe the lesson for your daughter to learn is to eat when she is hungry, and say "no thank you" when she isn't.

fluffums, so many people said it's not great solution, yet this is what they can do for those who needs it at this moment. And if the school started to introduce this scheme, there are children who needs them at op's school.

So what is your solution? What do you think would happen if OP and others who agrees with her complained to school? What can school do?
Easiest thing people in OP's position can do without taking away the chance to eat something from children who need those, is to adjust what they offer to your own children. What is so difficult with that?

@prettyflowersinthesky

I get that schools are busy. I just question how difficult it is to change from bagels to fruit, for example? Hardly rocket science and not exactly more expensive.

Not enough calories or complex carbs in it. You'll get a quick energy rush and then crash compared to a mixture such as bagel and jam.

You can't tell the school 'I don't want DD allowed to eat when everybody else does because I don't want her to get fat'. Unless you want to flag up as potentially having an ED that's being focused upon her, that is.

She's not eating all her packed lunch if she has the bagels. So reduce the bread, give her more protein/fat/vegetables in it than carbs and she'll self regulate.