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

Describing where people live as a sink is derogatory and unpleasant and you know it.

@rainyoutside

Sink estate. Lovely.

That's what you took from @exLtEveDallas post?

@rainyoutside do you think your admirable (genuinely) defense of low income families has spilled over into an inability to acknowledge or discuss the issues that some (not all) low income families face?

It's not all about fecklessness, there are lots of complicated issues that correlate with being very poor. And we also can't ignore that some families do suffer with issues such as substance abuse, unstable accommodation etc and some people do not have the same tools to cope with those things as others.

Certainly it's not a majority but I don't see anyone here asserting that it is a majority. But you're ignoring other peoples experiences of children not being fed and I'm not entirely sure why

@zaffa exactly what I thought.

Yes. It was. It shows she believes she is superior - she wouldn’t live in or on a sink estate and of course feeds her children. Unlike the sink mothers, who do not. They need the naice middle classes to provide shitty food.

Maybe try being a bit more respectful with your language.

Most of them are very nice people who would do anything for their children. Even as you or I would.

No. Christ you are like the ‘mad as a box of frogs’ poster who reported the term for racism

It is a widely used term. I could link you to Government documents that use the term. It is not derogatory towards people, it is a descriptor of an area. Give your head a shake and look at what else I wrote rather than getting hung up on a term that you don’t understand.

It might be a widely used term. It doesn’t make it a respectful one, does it?

Hey rainy. Ask me where I live. Fool.

Personal attacks now?

@rainyoutside

Yes. It was. It shows she believes she is superior - she wouldn’t live in or on a sink estate and of course feeds her children. Unlike the sink mothers, who do not. They need the naice middle classes to provide shitty food.

Maybe try being a bit more respectful with your language.

Most of them are very nice people who would do anything for their children. Even as you or I would.

What are you on about? Have you actually read @exLtEveDallas post or just made up a load of crap and pretended that's what she said?

Every child has a deprivation score. You know those who have less.

Using the word ‘sink’ to describe a place where people who do not have very much money live is highly disrespectful and quite revealing as to attitudes towards them.

It reveals a belief that they are in some way ‘others’ or different or set apart. This is emphasised by the fact that ‘they’ do not feed (and TBH I hate that too, they are children not cattle) ‘their’ children.

If you were to wander around that ‘sink estate’ you’d find the majority of children eat breakfast. And lunch. And an evening meal.

Their parents sometimes won’t, though.

Most.

@rainyoutside

Using the word ‘sink’ to describe a place where people who do not have very much money live is highly disrespectful and quite revealing as to attitudes towards them.

It reveals a belief that they are in some way ‘others’ or different or set apart. This is emphasised by the fact that ‘they’ do not feed (and TBH I hate that too, they are children not cattle) ‘their’ children.

If you were to wander around that ‘sink estate’ you’d find the majority of children eat breakfast. And lunch. And an evening meal.

Their parents sometimes won’t, though.

Most.

When it's you dipping into your own (minimum wage) pocket to make sure that the kids get something to eat because you can hear their stomachs rumbling or they've fainted (again), you tend to lose some of the pomposity.

@rainyoutside

Yes. It was. It shows she believes she is superior - she wouldn’t live in or on a sink estate and of course feeds her children. Unlike the sink mothers, who do not. They need the naice middle classes to provide shitty food.

Maybe try being a bit more respectful with your language.

Most of them are very nice people who would do anything for their children. Even as you or I would.

How on earth do you know where she lives ?

That is commendable of you, but it is also (IME) misguided.

Years ago I gained a lot of weight. I was doing one of those meal replacement plans (it worked, although I did gain some back )

I had three boys go into my office to get some books out. ‘Miss! Can we have a chocolate milkshake miss? We’re STARVING. We didn’t have any breakfast miss!’

If I had a pound for every time I hear that I would be able to retire early. Kids get hungry. I did as a teenager, I used to eat loads (and not gain weight: sadly that didn’t last!)

Even when I told them they were special diet milkshakes, they wanted them.

It would be so easy to assume they came from homes where they were routinely deprived of food. They weren’t.

Food poverty is a real problem and as I have said I endorse systems in schools to address it. But we should always recognise that firstly, the majority of parents are quite capable and therefore most children have eaten, and secondly, it is possible to do harm with good intentions.

story, I’m sorry you disagree but I am not going to change my mind. ‘Sink estate’ is a dreadful phrase and it is disrespectful. As is ‘sink school’ and ‘sink set.’

During lockdown our school stayed open throughout for the children of critical workers and vulnerable children. At the time we had a roll of 270 ish. I was there every single day.

Every single day we had 12 children of critical workers, and between 30 and 60 vulnerable. We wanted more to come in but lots were too scared.

The Govt considers Vulnerable children are those with social workers and/or EHCPs. We add to that some GRT children, children in poverty, children of SWers and children of addicts. We have lots of each.

Not all those children go without food. Some do. Some eat well but don’t have stable homes. Some eat well but have to fend for themselves. But some do go without food.

We were ‘allowed’ 30 referrals to the local food bank. We’d used them up by week 3 and thankfully they revised their rules. Families were allowed to be referred 3 times. We were resorting to referring ourselves so they had different names in the records - including the Heads.

FSM vouchers were a complete pain in the arse for families without the internet and Tesco probably made a mint not giving change for unused amounts (and only allowing multiples of £30). Plus £15 a week per child is nothing when families were spending double the amount on running their homes because they were in all day every day.

Don’t tell me what our sink estate is like. I live it every day.

The FSM vouchers were a PITA. The other problem is that it’s not always easy to buy food for one person cheaply. I probably didn’t explain that well but easier in a way if someone gives you a set amount per week, preferably combined into benefits.

There are undoubtedly some people who don’t prioritise their DCs. But actually starving them is unusual IME. More common tends to be the no breakfast at home, mars bar and bag of sweets and energy drink on the way to school. And obviously that creates its own problems!

But I can’t pretend I would be happy with my child being given what the OP describes and I don’t think it’s good for any child.

How on earth do you know where she lives?

Because sink estate really is a horrible expression used to describe where other people live. It would certainly be unusual for someone who currently lives on a more deprived council estate to say they live on a sink estate. (Someone who once lived in one and now thinks they have moved above it might do so).

It is bad enough to live in an area of a area of deprivation, social problems and anti-social behaviour without people looking down on you and thinking you live in a sink. It also becomes a problem for local authorities when decent potential tenants (even the desperate)
won't take accommodation there because of the reputation. I don't know about the rest of the country, by my local authority certainly wouldn't refer to a sink estate (I have heard it refered to as 'lower demand housing') as they have the problem of managing the void lets and trying to get less marginal tenants to accept housing there.

I am sure if exLtEveDallas happened to meet someone socially who happened to live on the estate, she wouldn't say, 'oh you live on that sink estate' to their face!

I could link you to Government documents that use the term.

I would be interested to see that.

Teach your daughter to eat when she is hungry. If she wants the bagel then its okay for her to have the bagel. Maybe reduce what is in her lunch if she isnt finishing it all.
Intuitive eating rather than a controlling or restrictive approach.
We have enough women who are neurotic about food and we dont need to raise any more.
I am an recovered bullimic and too much emphasis on food and eating/weight contributed to the disorder. I was 8yrs old when it began, and 20 something when I recovered.

Thank you cecily

It is a most unpleasant phrase, I have objected to it in school (‘sink sets’).

Eve has already intimated that that is where she lives.

That makes little difference. I’m not entirely sure I believe it, but regardless, it is no more acceptable because you happen to live there.

Eve has already intimated that that is where she lives.

Has she? She has said she lives it (as in her working life) she has not said that she lives on it (as in her home life). I will be quite happy, though somewhat amazed, to be corrected.

@CecilyP

I googled sink estate gov and this was the first document www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-pledges-to-transform-sink-estates

• Press release Prime Minister pledges to transform sink estates David Cameron will announce that some of the country’s most run-down housing estates will be replaced with attractive and safe homes*

I think in that context it is specifically referring to the physical appearance of the housing whereas when it is being discussed in the context of the people who live in it it is very different - and yes, disrespectful.