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

So that children don't* go hungry

And also, are you saying that I'm wrong to say the "large majority" of children go to school having had breakfast. It's 92%, according to the British Nutrition Foundation.

the majority of children at risk ah! You've added 'at risk'. That's a different thing altogether as well you know.

Sorry I didn't meant it to come across so rude, despite how rude you have been to other posters (including me at an earlier point on the thread). It reads a bit like a personal insult but I genuinely mean it, objectively.

It reads a bit like a personal insult but I genuinely mean it, objectively

Oh, that's ok then 😜

A simple Google reveals many statistics about food poverty And statistics by the same source you mentioned say that when surveyed 1 in 4 children were going to school without breakfast.

Also statistics from even the previous year will soon become irrelevant because of the dramatic affect of the pandemic.

@Janevaljane 😅

And statistics by the same source you mentioned say that when surveyed 1 in 4 children were going to school without breakfast

That was 1 in 4 secondary.

We are discussing primary kids. 92% have breakfast.

I work in a deprived secondary. Mostly parents are absolutely trying their best. We have only had a couple of students who we know are long-term/every day hungry. But we absolutely have some who are frequently hungry.

Sometimes it is the students themselves who are not helping themselves. Chaotic homelife happens everywhere - but money can buffer some of it. But teenagers - you know - they get up too late, they cannot be bothered with breakfast, they will miss the bus, they don't fancy what is on offer, mum/dad has already left the house so no-one to check if they eat. They don't have the spare cash to grab something on the way. They are helping with caring responsibilities so no time to grab a bowl of sugar cereal. No-one has had time/money to top up the cupboards. Parents not on the breadline may have the resources to solve this (extra money for the canteen/cash for something from the coffee-shop). Poorer families do not. So we have children who, by the time they get to school they hungry. Or hangry.

In the current Covid world there are less morning-based options for a lot of children from the school canteen (we knew of several who would use their FSM allowance for breakfast options rather than wait for lunch/have a smaller lunch. Our canteen isn't open at break.

Our FSM numbers have gone up during Covid too. And you have to be pretty fucking bread-line to qualify (stingy govt).

Fed children learn better.

This is why FSM are still in existence.

So to all the "I don't think there enough hungry children out there" - well, I wish I lived in your world.

I think we should just let the 8% of primary school children be hungry until lunch time.

Is this what you think @Janevaljane? Because if not, please read through your responses.

@CloudyVanilla I believe we maybe need to stop feeding the hairy.......

So to all the "I don't think there enough hungry children out there" - well, I wish I lived in your world

Who said that?

I was accused of being "naive" because I didn't realise the "majority of kids" went to school with no breakfast.

The majority of kids do have breakfast.

This means giving all kids a jam bagel is a waste of resources.

(Also this is about primary not secondary)

No need for the jam, for any kid. Tell your kid that she's only to have one snack maybe? I don't understand why they put jam on them - butter would be better. Or a piece of fruit

Maybe put time and resources into educating parents who don't give their 8 year olds breakfast, so they have the knowledge and/or desire to feed their own children, rather than making schools responsible?

I’ve worked in places where the majority are on FSM. Their parents still love them and do their best by them. Funny, that. Anyone would think poor people love their kids the same as middle class parents do shock

And yet some children do go hungry and their teachers know they do.
May be little to do with whether they are on FSM (they are on an adequate income and the paycheque hasn't come through, the child has SEN or school anxiety and it's really hard to get them out of the house, the parent has mental health issues and is overwhelmed at the moment where normally they are organised at getting food in the house).

It just seems you want to make a needless point (many families feed their children well despite limited income) by denying another point (many children do go hungry, some because their families have no money coming in).

Agree @ineedaholidaynow . 8% is a lot of kids and how were these statistics gathered?

And yet some children do go hungry and their teachers know they do. May be little to do with whether they are on FSM (they are on an adequate income and the paycheque hasn't come through, the child has SEN or school anxiety and it's really hard to get them out of the house, the parent has mental health issues and is overwhelmed at the moment where normally they are organised at getting food in the house)

These would all be unusual situations so presumably one offs.

Surely the need is self evident? If there was no established need to provide breakfasts, then why would the government and overstretched schools be bothering to provide it? Why would charities like magic breakfast exist? Why would there be a statistically established attainment gap between children who do eat breakfast vs children who don't?

The goal posts have now shifted. When people pointed out why it may be necessary to provide a bagel as opposed to something healthier for breakfast, the argument has now changed to why are we providing breakfast at all.

I've never said providing a bagel for breakfast was something that shouldn't happen. If you have to give all the kids a jam bagel for breakfast, then don't also give a jam bagel as a snack.

Charities like magic breakfast exist to make money.

As for a Tory government feeding children out of the goodness of their hearts. Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

4,710,000 primary aged children in the UK. 8% of that is 376,800 children.

I guess they must have followed every single child home over say a week to know that. That’s dedication.

@OnDisplay

4,710,000 primary aged children in the UK. 8% of that is 376,800 children.

Yes. It's a lot. But not the majority.

Surely having two half bagels with a bit of jam in the morning is no different to two slices of toast and marmalade. It's not the main meal of the day after all but filling and energy-giving. People often have sweet things to start the day, on the continent all sorts of pastries are on offer and nobody thinks twice about it but their main meals are protein based.

When I was a child I could not stomach anything to eat first thing in the morning; I'd have a drink and go off to school. My mother used to do her nut occasionally about it but that's how it was. Of course, I was hungry a bit later in the morning and would have been glad of some toast then but back in those days, it wasn't on offer. I vaguely remember a tuck shop where we could buy a small packet of biscuits, eg - 2 biscuits.

My son was exactly the same (& my reaction was the same as my mum's), but as he took a packed lunch when he got older, he could eat some of that at break time.

I never worried, we always had a decent meal in the evening.

Problem is @Janevaljane schools have become responsible, for many reasons, for many things other than education.

Interestingly during lockdown there were many PP on MN shouting that schools needed to be open because 'we need to think about the vulnerable children'.

Those children are still vulnerable even though schools are open, although some people on here seem to be arguing that there don't seem to be that many anyway.

@rainyoutside

Charities like magic breakfast exist to make money.

As for a Tory government feeding children out of the goodness of their hearts. Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

That is literally my point re the Tory government. I didn't want be too offensive by explicitly stating Tory government despite my own political (strong) leanings to the left. My point was this government wouldn't be making it a thing if they didn't feel the need to as they are indeed not charitable.

And erm, charities exist to make money?