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?

I think the train of thought that it's perfectly ok to eat chocolate, sweets, cake and crisps every day is part of the reason why we have such a huge obesity problem in the UK.

People now view these things as proper food - they're not. They provide a fair amount of calories with very little nutritional content. Everyone deserves a treat occasionally but when something is given daily it's no longer a treat but a staple part of their diet.

I totally agree, Sidge, that these things should NOT be daily food. However, I think outright telling the parents that they cannot be packed might cross a line. Hopefully, the parents would know enough to make these things occasional treats, (which it sounds like the OP was doing), but I don't think I'd want to tell someone how to feed their children.

It might not be an ideal diet to eat these things every day, Sidge, but there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these things in moderation. This hysteria - which are just perpetuated by these bans, whether imposed by schools or by parents themselves - hardly contributes to an informed and rational attitude, does it?

is perpetuated, obviously

But as has been mentioned before - the lunches provided by school include some sort of sweet dessert course.

They can't have it all ways.

But it seems that the state of some children shows that some parents do need to be told.
I consider chocolate a sweet/treat, not a food, so wouldn´t put it in a lunch box.

I agree CheerfulYank but the problem here on MN is that we assume all parents of school aged children are as knowledgeable, caring and intelligent as we all are but sadly that isn't the case.

As a school nurse I feel I am fighting a losing battle trying to educate and empower parents to bring their children up to be healthy adults. The schools walk a fine line I think - if they have a blanket rule so that no child is singled out for having a crap lunchbox the parents that do have some knowledge and feed their children well feel aggrieved. But if they don't have any sort of rules or restrictions then they run the risk of a large number of their schoolchildren eating unhealthily not occasionally but every day.

Most schools seem to get the balance fairly right - my DD2s school just says that chocolate and fizzy drinks are not to be in lunchboxes and will be returned home. Fair enough I think, especially as the school is always roasting hot and it would melt! But at the end of last term I had to visit a school (in my professional capacity) to try and educate them that the enormously long list of restrictions they were placing on parents regarding lunchboxes was unnecessary and inaccurate and they had overstepped the mark. This came about as a result of a parent phoning me having got nowhere talking to the Head. After a brief crash course in nutrition and how children's needs differ from adults they revised their list!

I'm actually conflicted on this. I know when my DS goes to school he will not be eating the school lunch (except occasionally as a treat) b/c it's crap. But if I pack him healthy things what's to stop him from trading? It would be nice if I knew that every child had a healthful lunch, and obviously it would be best for them as well. I suppose a flat out no chocolate or fizzy drinks rule is fine.

MsHighwater absolutely these things are fine in moderation - but your idea of moderation and other parents' is probably completely different. I know parents who think having 4 bags of crisps a day is fine for their 6 year old. The school can't keep tabs on whether little johnny is having a Penguin bar every lunchtime or just once a week, and they shouldn't need to because that's the parents' job.

I personally have no problem with children having puddings, as given with school dinners. But parents don't send their child in with a pudding in their packed lunch, they send Snickers bars, KitKats and Mars bars. There is no way on earth that a Mars Bar provides any of the nutrients you might find in a flapjack or sponge pudding and custard.

Sidge, I wouldn't expect the school to keep tabs on every child's lunch box - I'm not the one advocating that the school should be confiscating "contraband", remember.

It would be enough for me - and, imo, should be enough for anyone - for the school to pay attention to (among other things) the contents of the lunchbox of any child whose behaviour or general wellbeing is giving cause for concern. Those parents who are providing an inadequate diet for their child (and that will be more than just having the odd sweet or piece of chocolate with their lunch) can be approached and the rest of us can be left alone.

juuule, of course not all kids get wired after sweets; but a school is a collection of MANY kids, as you know! That's one of the reasons why there is this kind of rule, isn't it; because if there wasn't, what if you had 200 out of 400 kids eating sweets at lunch, if only a third of those are affected and 'wired' that is still a very bad scenario for the teachers and the other kids, isn't it.

your domain as a parent mshighwater ends when you hand your dd over at school. They are for that time in loco parentis and you do have to accept rules - you're not going to agree with all of them but you still need to accept them in order for your child to have a stress free experience imo. It's a partnership - you get to choose what food you send in for your DD but within the rules of the school. And those rules are set imo for very good reasons, to promote healthy eating and to enable children to have the best chance of concentrating and learning well while they're there.

Isn't the child's diet the parent's concern? My DS is underweight and has severe food allergies leading to a very restricted diet. He had also developed food issues (guess you would when food can kill you) so DS often goes to school with choc spread sandwiches. I make sure it is brown bread and he has raw carrots as well to try and compensate. I would be delighted if he ate a pudding just for the calories but he won't or can't. anyone who saw his lunch box would think that it was terrible if they didn't know the background ( I am very open with the school).

In co Durham this year they're piloting free school meals for all children - will be interesting to see if it (a) leads to increased take-up and (b) would therefore lead to a decrease in the what's in the school lunch controversy.

severe food allergies leading to a very restricted diet is a very specific need though isn't it dros. My point is that, yes of course our children's diet is our concern but when school enters the equation it is a partnership with the school for the reasons I've given which I think are good reasons!

Your ds' lunch would be considered a special case of course because of the circumstances. Not everyone by any means is in that position.

I think it's entirely reasonable for a school to say no sweetsd or chocolate in lunchboxes. They can surely survive on healthy food between their Cocopops at 8.00 and their home time sweeties at 3.15!

I too think the childs diet lies with the parents.

Schools should advise only, but policing lunch boxes is taking things too far.

If they notice a child has a daily lunch of mars bars and red bul, then yes mention it on an ad hoc basis.

But children with a small cake or biscuit as part of a healthy lunch should be left in peace to eat it, as are the children eating school provided lunches with a flapjack for their pudding. What is the difference?

There's a big difference, psychologically if not actually, between a cake or biscuit and a sweet, a bar of chocolate or a Kinder egg.

"your domain as a parent mshighwater ends when you hand your dd over at school". Oh no, it doesn't, slowreadingprogress. My domain as a parent will end (if it ever does ) when my dd becomes an adult.

According to your logic, the school could invite Claire's Accessories to come into the school to have everyone's ears pierced and the parents would have no say as long as it happened on school premises and during school hours. I don't think so.

oh sorry MsH you're misunderstanding me. I'm talking about lunches only here as it's what the thread is about. For the good, sensible, logical reasons I've given, I believe that a school policy of no sweets is sensible.

And there is a difference between accepting that the school is legally in loco parentis, which they are, and saying that you have no parental rights anymore. That's just illogical. I'm afraid when the time comes you will have to accept the school is in loco parentis because they are. I'm not saying that they can do what they like, as you seem to be understanding it - I'm saying they will have rules and regs which you have to abide by basically.

There's a lot of truth in the saying 'there's no such thing as an unhealthy food, only an unhealthy diet)
i think there is a lot of misunderstanding on the part of some schools (and parents) as to what constitutes a healthy diet for a child.Their calorific requirements are nearly as high as an adults but because they (often) eat much less in volume, they generally need food with a higher calorie concentration.We had a dietician come to speak to the parents at our school and the biggest problem was children being given a lunchbox consisting something like a meat sandwich , an apple and a yogurt which she said doesn't contain nearly enough calories.

Seeker- there is a lot of difference nutritionally between a homebaked cake or a pudding such as sponge and custard , and sweets

that's interesting madamearcati (I really love your name!!) did the dietician explain what should be in the lunchbox to add calories?

Some children eat plain porrige for breakfast and have no sweets at home after school. Personnaly I would rather my Dcs have a chocolate at the morning break in school (not every day) than just before bedtime.

I so sgree with you madamearcati.

Ask the school if they are also banning chocolate sponge, or chocolate custard for the children on school dinners!

but can you see gorion that that IS a personal thing which would however have implications for the whole school community? YOUR kids would be fine with their sweetie morning snack, but if they all did that you may then have 20% of the school population which is wired and not fit to concentrate plus another however many who never get any proper food in their lunch because their parents know sweets are allowed?

I mean what is the reason behind you not wanting them to have sweets before bed - because it would affect their behaviour in some way? Well, multiply that by 400 and that's why there is a rule in school, in my extremely humble opinion.

slowreadingprogress, thanks but I'm familiar with the concept of in loco parentis. I was taking issue with your assertion that my "domain as a parent ends when [I] hand dd over to the school". The former means that the school can take some decisions on my behalf. The latter is tosh, basically.