Primary school rules regarding snacks

[kenyancowgirl]

To give it its proper title, its the School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme - http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/5ADAY/Pages/ ... cheme.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. We do Cool Milk too (I think we're the same LA, Kenyancowgirl) - just wish that was extended to KS2, I'd happily pay for my two to have milk every day

JD

I think we are in the same LA! (Warks) - but for the Cool Milk - you can pay for it in KS2! My youngest has just decided not to carry on as he prefers to have water but about half of his class still pay for it - and get it - (and certainly my eldest had it all the way through Y6)

[JamesDean]

I think we are in the same LA! (Warks) - but for the Cool Milk - you can pay for it in KS2! My youngest has just decided not to carry on as he prefers to have water but about half of his class still pay for it - and get it - (and certainly my eldest had it all the way through Y6)

Yes, Warks! Must be our school then, Kenyancowgirl - no milk in KS2

JD

[Amber]

Under the previous OFSTED regime there was actually an assessment criterion about whether the school 'encouraged children to adopt a healthy lifestyle'. Somehow this became interpreted in some cases as 'refused to allow anything which might be called unhealthy to pass the lips of any child in its care'. This is I think where the notion of inspecting lunch boxes and laying down what may and may not be consumed came from. It certainly isn't enforceable in that your child can't be excluded for bringing in contraband food. Though the midday supervisors seem scary enough to most kids without the added power to confiscate snacks.

It used to hack me off totally as my lot always seemed to flag mid morning if all they could have was fruit - I have never seen the problem with higher calorie snacks and once had a face to face row with a teacher when my son took homemade cakes in on his birthday and was told they were 'junk food' and weren't allowed on the premises. By way of explanation I was told (in suitably grave tones) that some children brought in a big sausage roll every day for lunch and obviously that had to be stamped out with the full force of school authority - after all if one's offspring became morbidly obese as a result of this kind of unfettered gluttony, it would clearly be the school' s fault. Not sure what those kids ate once lunch box inspections started. All very well intentioned, but having taught children who literally didn't eat from day to day, I do wonder if the policing resources might have been better directed elsewhere.

[scary mum]

I remember reading in some guidance somewhere that a ham sandwich was considered to be an unhealthy thing in a lunch box as it was high fat. When I see what is served up by the schools themselves I really have to wonder what it is all about.

[talea51]

Under the previous OFSTED regime there was actually an assessment criterion about whether the school 'encouraged children to adopt a healthy lifestyle'. Somehow this became interpreted in some cases as 'refused to allow anything which might be called unhealthy to pass the lips of any child in its care'. This is I think where the notion of inspecting lunch boxes and laying down what may and may not be consumed came from. It certainly isn't enforceable in that your child can't be excluded for bringing in contraband food. Though the midday supervisors seem scary enough to most kids without the added power to confiscate snacks.

It used to hack me off totally as my lot always seemed to flag mid morning if all they could have was fruit - I have never seen the problem with higher calorie snacks and once had a face to face row with a teacher when my son took homemade cakes in on his birthday and was told they were 'junk food' and weren't allowed on the premises. By way of explanation I was told #in suitably grave tones# that some children brought in a big sausage roll every day for lunch and obviously that had to be stamped out with the full force of school authority - after all if one's offspring became morbidly obese as a result of this kind of unfettered gluttony, it would clearly be the school' s fault. Not sure what those kids ate once lunch box inspections started. All very well intentioned, but having taught children who literally didn't eat from day to day, I do wonder if the policing resources might have been better directed elsewhere.

I have a child who gets migraines and having fruit as a snack is not the best thing for her. The resultant spike and dip in her blood sugar is a definite headache trigger. She is much better off with a snack that contains slow burn calories #like cheese# or an oat bar. However, she does not want to be singled out as the only one with special permission to have these "naughty" snacks so that now leaves us having to provide her with fruit or vegetables and hope that it doesn't increase the frequency of her migraines.

Who do these people think we are? They are entitled to educate and to try to encourage healthy food choices but they are not entitled to take away personal choice. People have the right to make their own decisions, even bad ones and no one should have the right to take those choices away.

[doodles]

Our school went the other way and the lunches (no packed lunch option) went a bit grown up - not sure the children had the same tastes though. My DS managed escape going into lunch once or twice and I was told that he would be sent to the Head if it happened again. He told me that was fine by him as he could then tell him how c..p (his words) the veggie option was. Didn't know whether to admonish him for his language (which of course I did) or admire him because I knew he would do it!!!!!

I do get fed up with caterers "tampering" with good plain simple food that children have been eating for decades. What's wrong with fish and chips occasionally, curry and rice, spaghetti bolognaise and sausage, mash and peas if they are cooked well? Active children do have different nutritional requirements from sedentary desk bound adults - something that gets overlooked far too often in my opinion.

[um]

I agree soo much with you, Doodles.

Dd is underweight - in fact last year, after a virus, we were referred to a consultant because she was 16kg underweight for her height and below the baseline centile line on the chart. It has been a big struggle - in a world that is pushing all the low fat options onto children - to get her weight up. I have to go out of my way to ensure that all the food I buy her is 'full-fat'. Sometimes that takes a bit of a search! I am frustrated that this 'cool milk' is actually semi-skimmed, and that she is not getting enough food, of high enough calories, through her school meals.

[hermanmunster]

I agree Um - sometimes kids do need "building up" and encouraging to eat a bit more - very "healthy" eating can be anything but for some.. (read - "getting fed up of DC reading nutritional info on EVERY packet as we go round the supermarket")

I don't like the obsession with healthy food - people do have choice and should be allowed to eat as they wish, provided it is not to excess. TBH there are really rather few lifestyle things that make much difference to health (other than smoking).

[Tinkers]

A girl at DDs primary had cystic fibrosis, basically meaning she doesn't digest food very well. As a result a healthy diet for her is high fat, just to get at least some calories in. As a result she was allowed chocolate as a snack at primary.

My own DD doesn't particular eat loads, not too fussy an eater, but doesn't like dairy (except ice cream and cheese) or pastry.

Fruit didn't really keep her going at primary and she is so slow to eat that she didn't bother eating any snack as it meant less play time. I dread to think what she was like by lunchtime.

[Okanagan]

We have the same problem the other way around - ds1 is technically overweight. BUT.... he's a sporty child doing an average of 2 hours a day of out of school sport/training, and competing in his primary sport at international level. As a result he is very "solid" and already has what you might call an adult male body type, rather than what's typical of an 11 or 12 year old. You wouldn't actually find much fat on him at all, but the crude measures don't look at that.