to think that my DSs should be allowed to eat what I give them at breaktime?

[lonelymom]

My DSs school seems to have an unwritten rule that they are ONLY allowed fruit at breaktime. Problem is one of my DSs only eats bananas unsupervised. Any other fruit and I have to stand over him saying 'Git it down yer throat NOW!'. Anyway as his bananas have been coming home uneaten and bashed (even though he has a 'bananaguard' being the height of coolness that he is) I started to give him 'schoolbars' and apple crisps but he is coming home saying that his teacher will not let him eat them and he has to put them back in his bag . Now come on - these are a form of fruit , they contain lots of fruit anyway. I am furious about the apple crisps as these are essentially dried apple slices dipped in lemon juice. I have spoken to his teacher about this a few times and she has said that it's OK so I don't know what the hells going on. This nanny state we live in makes me bloody angry. I am a grown adult who should be able to decide what my kid eats!! If I want to give him a Mars Bar, I should be able to, fgs. By the way, my other DS (in a different class) gets to eat his.

"Schools might have been doing this for a while and parents might have been going along with it but, imo, it is wrong to have inflexible rules like this. It might "promote healthy eating" but it also, I think, sends a message that the school is more responsible than the parent. Who does that help?"

but in some cases, school DOES behave more responsibly than parents - some parents are CLULESS about what constitutes a good diet

btw, we have milk at playtime at our school

Me too, I once admitted AIBU. Perhaps there should be an AIBU anonymous helpline.

I agree with dinny, in some cases school does behave more responsibly.

If your child sees you bending the rules what message does that give them?

dinny, "some" parents are clueless but most parents are not. Blanket rules like this, on their own, do nothing to address the poor parenting of poor parents. Conversely, if effective action is taken to support people who are struggling, rules like this are irrelevant. How about "some people are bad drivers so let's ban driving altogether"?

mehgalegs, if the rule did not exist, the issue of bending it would not arise.

like the idea of Aibu helpline .....tbh, aibu really should be replaced by a ranting corner....as that is often what people really want to do...I know I did, especially with above mentioned post....I was upset, stressed out and just not thinking clear...

saying that, I did think, at the time, that people who were critiquing my op because of style/readability and grammar were unreasonable....because, come on...when having a rant style and form kind of taking a backseat in my mind...

Sadly though Mrs H, the rule needs to exist.

So Highwater...how would ou adress this then...I would be interested in your suggestions...

because, you see where I live people go to KFC believing it is a healthy option, because it is chicken ....I can understand your frustration, but I think, in this case blanket rules are a neccessaty

oh, and I wasn't over-exaggerating with the KFC example...which s really sad

I disagree, mehgalegs. I absolutely stand by my view that having rules like this, especially if it is accompanied by enforcement that could involve a child having items publicly confiscated with the criticism, express or implied, of the parent who put the item in the bag, undermines parents without necessarily achieving anything of value.

If the parent is supplying the food, it is the parent's responsibility to decide what it is and, so long as the child is not demonstrably suffering (e.g. packed lunch every day of nothing but chocolate doughnuts) then the school exceeds its remit by imposing such a rule. In my opinion.

I agree with MrsH. And she's looking so solitary just now.

But if the parent knows the rule why would they not give the child fruit? Then the whole confiscation, humiliation finger pointing situation would be avoided.

FairLadyRantALot, you see I am, generally, opposed to blanket rules as a matter of principle.

I would do all sorts of things to promote and support healthy eating and to discourage people from going relying on KFC and the like. I'd get rid of a lot of huge supermarkets for a start. I'd try to make sure that children grow up learning to cook real food, sourced locally, instead of relying on takeaways and processed foods so much. I won't hijack this thread by describing in detail what else I would do but suffice to say it wouldn't involve any rigid rules.

MsHighwater...but there are people that think a single bag of crisp for lunch will be enough....they do not see wrong in that....
and those that think a donught is a great lunch most likely also exist....I think you would find, if you looked deeper into the issue, that that is possibly just why these blanket rules were established....

But what is your suggestion...? go on...what shoud be done? tis easy to say that something shouldn't be done in whatever way..often harder to come up with better options....

Thanks pointydog. Feeling a bit solitary, too, till you came along. :-)

x-posted...and whilst good ideas and those are partly implemented....at this stage this would still mean a very unhealhy and lacking of nutrition diet for a lot of Kids...

You see, I really know where you are coming from, as such....but other people don't have the same understanding of not really enforced rules...

an example..I stick to all those road user rules if a sign says a certain speedlimit I will keep it, etc....however a lot of people don't unless they know there is a speedcamera that could get them into trouble....and tis the same in every area, sadly....people, or some, can only seem to follow a rule if they know there will be negative consequences....

I just came up with some better options, I think.

I know that some people will make crap choices for themselves and their kids. Frankly, it goes a lot farther than what they choose to feed their kids on. Making rules like this is, frankly, a bit pointless.

Perhaps universal free school meals would be one way of addressing the issue. Having mandatory cookery lessons for schoolkids would be another. Keeping under-16s in school during the school day and having a "tuck shop" that only supplies healthy stuff might work. Offering practical support for people who are struggling with their parenting would definitely help, I'd say. I'd insist that schools must use food sourced from their local area and I'd make sure that all public bodies did the same. Planning policy would be changed to make sure that small local retailers are supported and not squeezed out by large supermarkets so that a genuine choice of good quality food is available even to people who rely on public transport.

How's that for starters?

FairLady, I believe in the law of unintended consequences and think it would apply here. I just don't think rules like this are a good idea in the long run even if they seem to make short term sense. Short term solutions, in any case, tend to push long term solutions out of the reckoning, don't they?

yup, I still agree with MrsH

All right, not hijacking here. My DS has just started reception. Every day his fruit comes home untouched and his waterbottle unopened. I'm actually a bit worried he is going to get hungry/dehydrated during the day. If he has a bit of cake/bread/muesli bar and some squash or juice to drink, they get consumed. Does this matter or do we need to go on a fruit-and-water diet at home too until he forgets there is anything else in the world to eat?

I am genuinely at a loss. We eat reasonably OK IMO as a family but this is a pretty strict standard.

SIL has been telling us some sad things from Edinburgh. Her children's school is slated for closure.

The council was trying to close cooking facilities in many school kitchens and make the dinner ladies redundant whilst offering what SIL said was a truly dire cold lunch to the children, probably the same company that supplies ERI .

Here in the West the councils are really trying to get more healthy eating initiatives in place, as, of course, the West has higher rates of obesity, smoking, poor eating, excess drinking, low exercise and consequently, lower life expectancies.

hmmm...
but surely traffic rules have exist a long time and all drivers have to know them....doesn't stop a lot of people just to really act on them if negative consequences to their own person could happen....

Like I say, I do agree there need to be other changes, of course...but nutrition, at least to a part, will maybe get children of the future get more aware of better options...
but your ideas are all good and right....I think the whole chocolate/crisp are a treat thing might be a bad thing....because it makes possibly and potential bad food out to be the good uplifting food....which then means healthy food is boring and undesirable....iykwim...

tbh, I think they should turn things around and make processed foods reallllly expensive and all fruit veg etc....should be dirt cheap....

We've jad more PE. Schools have been tying themselves in knots for the last few years trying to provide two hours of pure PE a week to the detriment of other subjects in the timetable. Just recently, some minister or other said (very quietly) we should stop aiming for 2 hrs a week. It completely ignores the fact that Active Schools Co-ordinators organise a huge variety of lunch time and after school sporty activities.

'Edinburgh council, as far as I can tell, is on a mission to remove all families from the city centre.'

they did a fab job helping our decision to move on and not return.

allowing the building of nothing but tens of thousands of 2-bed shoebox flats, trams, one school severely oversubscribed and the other left to rack and ruin in the area, more licenses for even more pubs, etc.

MIL said Porty was poorly designed and built from the get go.