to want SOME control over packed lunches?

[kinderfool]

DD's (6yo) first day back at school today and she was a bit nervous about her new class so in her packed lunch, besides her drinks bottle, ham sandwich, a plum, piece of cheese (proper cheese not cheese spread or something) and a box of cherry tomatoes (at least 10 or more), I put in a Kinder egg (a massive treat for her) to cheer her up.

Comes to pick up and she'd had a reasonable day but was anxious to tell me she'd really wanted to eat her egg but hadn't been allowed. Checked her lunch bag expecting that she'd tried to eat that first and been stopped but after checking first and asking her, found out she'd eaten every crumb of everything else and had one little bite of choc before the TA watching stopped her. And it wasn't as if certain things aren't allowed, there's no nut allergy notifications at her school, and no set down rules about what can/can't be brought.

Now I completely sympathise with the need to crack down on kids who get a lunch of Coke, crisps and chocolate AND would completely understand if it was the toy they'd objected to (but dd was told by me she could eat the egg but not to even open the toy bit, to bring it home with her instead and knowing her she'd have repeated this parrot-style to the TA), but this just seems completely overboard for the first day.

As far as I can see, what I sent her with is a balanced meal so as long as it stays that way it should be of no concern to anyone else what I want her to eat. Plus she's a skinny little thing (thanks to never staying still) so the very last thing I need is someone putting ideas into her head that it's only ever acceptable to eat uber-healthy foods.

AIBU to, in a very polite and reasonable way, tell the TA to keep her nose out?

Exactly Goblinchild-they expect the school to phone Johnny's mum and take him home for an afternoon of exclusion!
A school is a community-it is made up of all the people in it-all acting together. I don't think that polishing the collective halo and punishing Johnny's mum is very constructive.

I'm glad someone has mentioned the negative effect on the whole class when there is a child who can't concentrate due to a regular lunch of a Milky Way and Diet coke. (This happens - I'm not making it up!)

The people saying schools have no right to make these rules are the middle class equivalent of those mothers who pushed chips through the school railings when Jamie Oliver tried to make healthier lunches!

There's a no Frubes rule at DDs school, as apparrently, the children can't open them and eat them without being messy. I was very when we got the letter telling us not to send them in their lunches, and when I tried anyway, it came back uneaten.

What piscesmoon,clemette,goblinchild and jybay said.

Our children are part of a community and we need to work hard to make sure they are responsible, functioning members of the community.

Even the most rugged individualist wouldn't defend your right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Unless there was a fire, of course. In which case, yelling "Fire!" rather than making your unobtrusive way to the fire exit leaving everyone else to their fate is the proper thing to do.

Piscemomn, I am not saying that there should be a different rule for every one, i am saying there simply should not be a rule because there is no way a quickly drawn food policy will be suitable for all. Some children do have a long walk to school for example and can do with the extra bit of calories. Now if someone has everyday in their lunch box a couple of mars bars a fizzy drink and a bag of hoops the issue needs to be adressed with that one person, not the entire school!

I was talking to the Ht in our school who was saying that soon some yogourts and cheeses will be "forbidden" and in a near future, telling us what we cannot put in our lunch box will be exactly the same as telling us what we can put in it as there will be so much you are not allowed to give to our DCs. It will be like all chidren should have the very same lunch box. Wrong wrong, wong!

Jbay, those "jamie oliver" mothers do not give chips to their DCs every day. By passing take aways through the school gates, they where making a point that the choice of food they give to their dcs was theirs. They brought chips because they new it would people and make them talk.

Sorry Piscesmoon, I mistyped your name!

I'm with you, Gorionine.

"By passing take aways through the school gates, they where making a point that the choice of food they give to their dcs was theirs. They brought chips because they new it would shock people and make them talk. "

Thereby giving their children the message that trying new things is bad, that eating healthy food is something to be avoided and that any attempt to improve things is to be subverted because "we don't do it that way here"

I remember one of those mothers saying "Children don't like garlic". Beyond stupid!

But surely to give the children the message that good nutrition is the way to go then the schools should be giving lessons on this and educating the children, not forcing a different way on them.
As I've said before, how about bringing back proper cookery lessons. How about nutrition being taught by qualified nutritionists.

Making food an issue for people is not the way to convert them to a healthier lifestyle. Banning foods isn't going to stop people wanting them. Not dealing with the real "villains" if that's the problem, isn't going to help their children eat better.

We had problems with one of our children who ended up taking no lunch to avoid over-enthusiastic dinner time staff. Ended up having to go into school to discuss as she was getting very hung up about food in general because of it.

But..as scaryteacher says it more or less becomes a non-issue once they get to secondary.

Would it really be the end of the world if all lunchboxes were the same? Not that I think that it's really going to happen but, if it did, would the edifice of civilisation crash around our ears?

I agree with gorionine that no rule can exactly fit each child's circumstances but I disagree that it therefore follows that you can't make any sensible rules about lunches. What is the problem with saying "no biscuits/sweets/chocolate" etc? Sure, if a child has a balanced diet, some sweet foods are fine but it is also fine for children to go without sweet foods for 6.25 hours 5 days a week.

School rules cannot be tailored to each individual child - their aim is to do the best for the community as a whole. It is not possible or desirable for schools to police the contents of each child's lunchbox then try to educate any parent providing unhealthy food. Schools need to provide rules for the community as a whole and they are doing their best to make kids healthier. It is really depressing to see how some posters seem unable to accept that.

"It is not possible or desirable for schools to police the contents of each child's lunchbox"

That's what some schools seem to be doing already.

" then try to educate any parent providing unhealthy food."

Then educate the child as the up and coming next generation to have children.
And then, offer education in nutrition to the wider community.
And if the contents of a child's lunchbox are causing the child a particular health concern or the school a behavioural concern then maybe get other agencies involved.

"Schools need to provide rules for the community as a whole "

No they don't. They need to provide an education for the children attending the school. They may need to provide rules for the school community to run smoothly and safely but the contents of a child's lunchbox doesn't fall into that area imo.

juule I agree with you, nearly posted the same earlier but just held back thinking, actually nutrition is so very very important

but in the main I agree with you, esp on the "schools need to provide rules for the community as a whole"

this is a government nutrition programme, basically, operated through schools -- only the rules are all over the place

"doing their best to make kids healthier"

actually a lot of parents are doing their best to make their kids healthier too and some posters seem unable to accept that

my boys were skinny little rats tails and they used up power stations of energy in school -- and quite frankly at break they need carbs, not melon balls

I'm not talking about a sugar rush either

so it's not fair on the skinny ones

and I agree with you mmrsceptic. Particularly the bit about the 'rules' being all over the place.

Sometimes it seems that some schools (dinner time staff?) make them up as they go along.

Melon is a carbohydrate.
I wonder how children in Nepal cope having to walk for an hour to get to school without resorting to a mars bar. Nutritionally these arguments are bordering on the ludicrous.

is little johnny going to be well behaved when his blood sugar levels crash because he doesn't touch his healthy lunch ?

Do Nepal children live only on melons?

perhaps we should ban melons then as apart from the water and fibre, there ain't much beside the sugar.. however

1 oz melon
2 carbs
9 calories

it really doesn't step up the plate

i think they might manage a bit of rice
quite a lot of oil

this is bizarre

I haven't brought my children up on Nepalese food so I don't think they'd manage it if I put it in their lunchbox

"i have terminally ill baby son"

Disneystar - I am sorry to hear that your family is going through this. Wishing you the strength / determination to battle on

Just come back on and wasn't expecting so many messages! Obv can't catch up with each bit but poking my head up to show I haven't started something and walked off!

Not to be flippant but will have to sum up a few things in one go.

Personally think in situations where there's no immediate obvious risk of danger (such as there is with glass bottles) a bit of common sense should be used instead of all-out bans just because they're easier. Yes there are some people who'll get pestered by their kids more because of what they see in someone else's lunchbox but isn't part of having kids to be pestered on and off for 16+ years? I'm far more bothered by the McDonalds around every corner, the huge bright junk food ads all over the place etc.

Also, there are many more approaches to promoting healthy living than a blanket ban on choc/sweets. Our school for instance, which I don't think is that out of the ordinary, holds only cake sales as its monthly fundraising effort, made chocolate crispy cakes as their token 'cooking' lesson last year and has closed their gardening club (tending a vegetable allotment) due to lack of teacher volunteers. As I said before, I'm quite happy to believe that the Kinder egg incident (dd's subsequent lunches, including things like a mini gingerbread man and a fruit flapjack haven't been monitored)) was because of the toy which I can understand now (was having a blonde day) BUT I feel the chocolate/sweets thing is a drop in the ocean concerning health education and there's far more important things to be focusing on.

When I was young we were taught some foods were 'good' (eat lots please) and some were 'bad' (you shouldn't be eating any but we know you will). I learnt about food values/quantities elsewhere but not everyone will have, including, I suspect, the sort of parent who fills their dc's lunch with just 'junk'. If instead dc's are taught that no food is ever off limits at any time (unless there are allergies involved of course) but shown how they fit into normal life there would be no need for blanket bans, as there shouldn't be now. If pester power is really that great, surely the dc going home to tell his mum his lunchbox should only have had a small pack of better crisps and not a family pack of Doritos and asking for hummous because he tried it at cooking time will have far more impact than a teacher 'imposing their will' (how it presumably could be seen).

Yes fruit is partly carbohydrate but if you saw the amounts dd burns through in a day/week you'd appreciate some kids need something with more calories in one go just to get through the day (not meaning choc here, that's only an instant hit but bulkier carbs like bread, flapjacks etc). I appreciate some kids will be unmanageable after eating certain foods but they need to be addressed individually, just as they would if they were hyperactive with no food cause. DD certainly will be tired and refuse to do anything slightly energetic if her blood sugar drops so I'm over the moon her school hasn't picked on flapjack/cake/breadsticks etc as 'unnecessary' just because they're high in calories.

(and as others said, need to go through proper channels too, have already raised the issue of cake sales - nothing against them but ours is like a white icing orgy this time of year - and the gardening club but it takes time - still plodding away at it)

Message withdrawn

I haven't brought my children up on Nepalese food so I don't think they'd manage it if I put it in their lunchbox
ah, so you have raised your child on processed crap so that's what they need in their lunchbox. That is also bizarre....
How on earth do all these British children at all these "repressive" schools cope without their mid morning bulking agents? Or all the children at nurseries and pre-school who are growing rapidly without the same?

Haven't brought children up on Nepalese diet therefore must have brought them up on processed crap.

Really don't follow your logic there, Clemette.