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?

Maybe it's because I rarly give my kids deserts. If their still hungry after tea they get fruit. sweet treats (healthy or not) are hardly a nessasary end to every meal and don't make them balenced, they are treats. This doesn't mean I vilify certain foods or ban them, I do it with alcohol and 'bad films' these are never allowed as they are (in my eyes) wrong to let children have or see (they are 6, 3 and 1).

But food is to be enjoyed, I love food, so do my kids. I really would go to a parenting class or set up a food one. There was one at my local sure start centre I went along but stopped as it was litrally the basics how to peal and cut fruit and veg (normal stuff like carrots and bananas) good start for people who don't know but I wanted other basics like good old pastry and a salt free pizza base (got them now yum). I went on the cooking section on MN but everything they suggest seems to need time I don't have (soaking overnight). I imagine I could manage as I got used to it (have to many balls in the air) . Think this is how some parents feel about cooking from scrach.

funnily enough at home if they have a snack it will be usually be fruit they ask for..an apple or strawberries or grapes and drinks it's mostly water..but if they ask for a biscuit or muffin or some Ribena I will oblige just not everyday and I buy them a 5p chew from the shops as a little surprise ..it's more organic with me..but their natural inclination is a eat well..and I believe part of that is because I didn't make certain foods into enermies..but I told them about the reasons they should not have them everyday and what the results could be...

There are tricks..soaking overnight?...buy tinned..it's about adding your own touch to food..cooking from scratch is scary but well worth it..I just recently taught my DH to cook some dishes and he feels so free!..

it's scary but it's not as hard as it seems..now I can't keep him away from the cooker!

I'm inclined to agree that some schools take it too far, & don't think it through - nothing wrong with a nice slab of cake as part of a balanced lunchbox.

But: there's a lad in my tutor group, aged 15, who stops off at the bakery on the way to school for a bacon butty & a bun. Then he sits in my classroom drinking Red Bull & eating chocolate (or rather, he would had we not spent the last 4 years at war over it...I've won .

He eats (crisps) & drinks (pop, including energy drinks) in every lesson in which he thinks he can get away with it.

He has a 'panini' from the canteen at break - our 'Healthy Eating' award means we don't serve pizza. Oh no. We toast tomato puree & cheap grated cheese in a white baguette, rather than smearing the puree & cheese on a white pizza base, & we call it a panini.

& another bun.

He eats & drinks crap in another two lessons.

Then he has lunch - pasta, topped with baked beans & cheap grated cheese. With a side of chips. & a bun.

Two more lessons, more pop. More crisps & chocolate.

He lives off takeaways at home.

I know all this because I've been his tutor for 4 years, & whilst I have no control over what he eats, we have discussed it because his eating in class constantly gets him in bother.

Obviously, he's overweight, heading quite quickly towards obese. His behaviour & attitude are a problem, & his self-esteem's low, although he tries to hide it by being aggressive.

He's been like this since he was a chunky 11 year old, & doubtless before, & it's not down to packed lunches because he doesn't have them - it's because he sees eating crap all day, every day, as the norm.

& I really believe that good school lunches & a straightforward policy on what food is allowed to be brought into school, could've influenced his habits. His mum's been involved in endless discussions about his behaviour, & the subject of his diet has been raised - her line is a) it's none of school's business & b) she has no control over him & it's too late to start now.

'Jake' is an extreme example of the eating habits I encounter daily amongst children at a very well regarded secondary.

My own kids are 5 & under, & I keep an eye on what they eat. Neither dh nor I are slim! But 'Jake's parents obviously don't, won't or can't. If a rule that my dc can't take chocolate in their lunchbox means fewer kids eat like Jake, then I'm entirely supportive of it.

They won't suffer by it - it's ridiculous to suggest that I can't get enough calories into them on sandwiches, fruit & a yoghurt! Ds has a good breakfast, eats according to school rules, is collected by CM, has a couple of biscuits, comes home, has tea.

If I want to give him sweets or chocolate as a 'treat', & they certainly aren't banned in our house, there's no shortage of hours in the day in which to do so.

ravenAK, you are right that your "Jake" is an extreme example. I assume that eating in class is not allowed yet still he does it so I think it's a bit of a leap to imagine that a "no sweets" rule for packed lunches would have made the slightest difference,

Not that extreme, MsHighwater. He's at the extreme end of a spectrum.

Look, I think that in an ideal world the OP's dc's Kinder egg should've been a nice thought & no-one's business but theirs.

& in the 70s/80s when I was a schoolchild, it would've been.

But we do, as a society, have a massive ongoing problem with children's diet.

It's not just 'Jake'. Many of my tutor group have chips & muffins daily, if they have school meals, or they get given cash in lieu of a packed lunch & stock up on confectionary at the corner shop.

They need to know better before they hit secondary!

We need to move towards a situation where it's part of the culture that one's midday meal is balanced - might include a chocolate biscuit, might not, but no-one's going to suffer by missing out on one.

& so it comes down to: do we target individual parents who are sending poor-quality lunches? Mostly, they'll be people who are badly-informed or dismissive about the importance of their dc's diet - none of us sets out to harm our children. I'm sceptical, from experience, of the value of making the already-defensive feel 'picked on'

Or do we just have a rule: no sweets or chocolate in packed lunches, for example (& if we do it's imperative the school lunches are good!), which might irritate the odd parent who sees it as Big Brother-ish, but which helps to create a culture where the sorts of foods which are unhealthy - if consumed in isolation & to excess - are seen as options, not basic food groups.

I just don't see why it's such a big deal. If your school's policy is silly or the school meals rotten, then by all means take them on on that one.

I don't serve my dc spag bol for breakfast, or muesli for lunch or carrot sticks for Easter! IME children are perfectly happy with the basic framework of appropriate times to eat appropriate foods - & if they aren't, cf. 'Jake', then it needs addressing.

MsHighwater you have I see completely popped your bubble of how "terrible it is that I shall be forced to do anything that I don't want to do and to hell with the benefits of a small sacrifice for my children on anyone else" because quite clearly you won't be forced into doing anything, as you can quite easily home school as you pointed out.

I think that you will find that as obesity in children is doing nothing but increase, the packed lunch policies are here to stay. Some schools obviously do it better than others (and I totally agree SGB, dinner ladies are without training and support not the people who should be making quite complex dietary assessments) but then the only reason why some schools have taken to checking boxes is because parents seem incapable of following what are not the most complicated of rules, generally no sweets, chocolate or fizzy drinks (I agree the ones that are banning cake are a bit silly, but hey, I don't ever eat cake for my lunch, so I don't really see why it is necessary).

The reason why healthy eating education is being delivered through schools is simply because most children attend them. There are parenting classes, and indeed healthy eating and cookery classes too in many areas, but they are voluntary and sadly are highly unlikely to appeal to the parents of the "Jakes" of the world, who see nothing wrong with feeding their children junk all the time. Yes they are trying to get a message through the "back door" as it were, but poor diets have serious consequences for children and for society as a whole.

Even for those who really don't subscribe to the concept of community, as the increasing costs of catering to the very fat fall fairly widely, with incidental stuff like having to increase the strength of operating tables, or the width of seats on public transport for example, or cuts in services because there is a finite pot and obesity is associated with all sorts of health and social welfare issues, or more taxes (bearing in mind that tax is raised through many other as well as income tax).

No (wo)man or child is an island. Thank goodness.

I give up, how is it going to help the comunity to restrict my DCs diet? I would totally agree with packed lunch guidlines but will never agree to have no say in my children's diet which is the current problem.

There seem to be a school of thought that parents most of the time are absolute idiots who have no idea how to raise their own children. I think that when parent will actually be given full responsability for their children things will improve, be it about healthy eating, bad behaviour.... Until then parents who let the school, governement take over the "parenting bit" for them will just be passive people looking at their children grow up , without actually having to get involved in their education.

But how are you "having no say"? Seriously are there schools which tell you precisely what you must give your child for lunch?

Some parents are totally passive about their childrens education. Unfortunately that is in no way a recent phenomena. The reasons why some parents feed their children badly is fairly complex (otherwise it would be much easier to fix) but do you really think that effectively giving up on trying to help the children affected would be a good idea?

Totally conflicted on this

As a (I like to think!) sensible parent I feel mildly irritated at being told that my DC cannot have a little treat in their lunchboxes to go along with the very healthy lunches I provide them.

However I also feel slightly irritated (not to mention sad) that last year there were children in DD's class (FS1) that turned up with two bottles of fanta and a packet of bicuits for lunch.

ravenAK, the thing is that I believe that the kind of rules we are talking about here will not create a culture "the sorts of foods which are unhealthy - if consumed in isolation & to excess - are seen as options, not basic food groups" so much as it will create one in which parents are encouraged to assume that, at least in relation to some things, their role is merely to fund their children's upbringing, not to influence it in any meaningful way.

I have no problem with healthy eating education being delivered in schools. It's when it steps over the line into pointless control-freakery that I object.

clemette can write me off as a stary-eyed fascist if she likes but it won't make what I'm saying any less true.

Teachers not allowed to look in lunchboxes- breach of human rights

so say the DFES
Just found this article about a little boy www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1540693/Head-told-he-cannot-open-boys-lunch-box.html

The whole lunchbox mafia thing is ridiculous.

There are better things they should be doing with their time than seeking out undesirable kitkat felonies

Interesting article, katiestar! Glad to see the dad stuck to his guns. It is none of the teacher's business what's in his lunchbox. Give guidelines, yes, but from then on, keep out! Responsibility is ultimately with the PARENTS. Too much inteference these days... whatever did we do back in the 80s?!!!

Hallelujah!

Throughout this thread it has been increasingly apparent that schools cannot be depended on to act appropriately about this stuff. I mean, what the hell was the school thinking of by banishing the boy in this way? Ostracising him and singling him out in this way in pursuance of a policy that is supposed to be for his benefit!

I haven't read the whole thread so apologise if this has been said before.

It isn't the odd little kit kat that causes obesity, it is lack of exercise.

Go back 5 years and the utter shite that they were pumping kids full of at lunch time was The school I taught at had a slush puppy machine/coke vending machines and the canteen seemingly served only burgers, chips and pizzas.

It just seems to me that there is a sensible middle ground somewhere.

I agree, brettgirl2, exercise is key to keeping healthy. It is not a black and white issue! Just eat everything (yes, everything from all of the food groups!) in moderation, in sensible proportions, and you should stay reasonably healthy. It's common sense and we should be credited with some. I felt really sorry for that boy and would have been FUMING if it had been my son. Just think how he felt - he hadn't been bullying anyone/hadn't not done his work - just innocently sitting down to eat his (IMO reasonble) lunch! Poor boy.

yes but some parents really are idiots and don't take responsabillty. I think the worst offenders should be refered to SS before its goes to far and be removed if nessasary. I mean some parents can't see there kids are fat even when they have sores round their waists when wearing their 'genarous fit' (what that all about)pants. these parents really are compleatly unaware that diet changes and exersize will help as they have tried it all before (yeh for a day or 2) we are just naturally big people, is a good one.

Just because some parents are idiots (not in dispute) does not make it right or effective to treat everyone as though they are idiots.

yes it does!! When there was no law to put children in carseats MOST parents (not me) didn't use them for children over 12months, if at all, sometimes they didn't make them wear seat belts. Now that its law they do. If the HAVE to provide a lunch that is healthy with no sweet thigs, they might start thinking about it at home as well.
I'm all for banning things, I bet if you looked in my local schools lunch boxes (if you were allowed) you would see that it is infact the majority of children with crap for dinner. I imagine thats why your school adopted this policy (just a thought)

Oh yeah. Giving the odd sweet or piece of chocolate really has equivalence with risking death or serious injury in a car crash. Give me a break!

Just a thought. If you are "all for banning things", who gets to decide who gets to decide what to ban?

I wish I was as perfect as you flopalong but it seems I have still a long way to go. Are really thinking that you are so much better than the rest of us? "My dc has a pudding in school but it is law in fat, salt and sugar blah blah bah" How dare you implie that I/we (freedom defenders) pump our kids full of fat salt and sugar because we allow the odd chocolate? How do you know they eat more desert than yours and that it is shop baught (BTW if you look well enough into the composition of things,you will find that not all shop bought things are evil)

If you ask arround to people why they actually do pack their children lunch I doubt that the answer will be "it is so I can give them as much junk as possible." The reasons for packed lunch are very often:

• to acomodate a special diet requirement

• to have a better idea of the quantity of food your Dcs are actually eating.

• to give a healthy lunch at a more cost effective price.

In my case it is all of the above.

I spend time every morning preparing my dcs food and making sure they have a balanced diet and it is more than what you do as you relie on someone else to do it for you. I will not suffer you to judge me and tell me I am wronging my children or crating a bad example for the comunity because I am really not!

Brettgirl2 very nice post!

Oh FGS, I have said I feed my kids crap too so not perfect just can't see what the big issue is, give them stuff like that at home and teach your children to stick to the rules that schools make.

Yes I do pay for school dinners so I have one less thing to do but am thinking of changing as he is leaving the veg and keeps eating egg buttys or baked potato with beans, not good for the nose.

I also keep pointing out that the ban isn't to help the children of the thoughtful intellegent parents like yourselves. Its to help the children who have stupid parents.

I wasn't saying that bad food and risk of death were the same thing I was saying that making things law can make a differnce.

Oh and I think I should decide who should ban what because I want to, as I don't like being told what to do unless I agree with it