An irreverent, inclusive, alternative parenting community
Food Bans At School?
Tomorrow is NB's first day of kindergarten and I don't know if this is a local area thing or an all over thing, but a lot of our schools have started banning "junk" food. My brother's high school banned school "supplied" junk food a few years ago and replaced all the sodas in vending machines with bottled waters, gator aid, and that kind of thing. Same thing with the snacks. NB's school, despite a seeming obsession with chocolate milk, has done the same thing.
And it's not just school supplied anymore either. We decided to pack NB's lunch and snack most days because she is VERY picky. Example: If the school serves ham and cheese, she will refuse to eat it, even though she likes it because, "It's not the same as OUR ham and cheese." At her orientation we were given a packet of information, including a list of "acceptable" items for lunches and snacks. If she is bringing her own snacks we are responsible for making sure it is a healthy snack and the only drink she is allowed to bring for snack time is bottled water. The same goes for her lunches, except I can send juice or something in her thermos, but no soda or carbonated beverages of any kind.
A friend of mine, who's little girl starts K at another school got an even more detailed list. Only baked chips are allowed, absolutely NO candy or cookies or sweets of any kind, etc.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining really. I think it's pretty awesome that the schools in our area are starting to take an interest in nutrition, but really.... NO COOKIES??! Ever?
I kind of feel that if NB has a pretty balanced, solid, healthy lunch that it's not really harming her to throw in a couple of oreos now and again.
Do they do this at schools in your areas?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by The Oracle on -
I never said I supported telling parents what they can and cannot pack. I think I was pretty explicit about that.
wookie said:Far be it from me to dictate how anyone else parents, but I also take issue with the suggestion that getting my kid to not eat sugar at school is a simple matter of me as the parent just having "to teach [my kid] about healthy eating." Ah, but the devils advocate in me must step forward. Yes, of course you have and yes, of course you do, and for some people it's not a matter of knowledge but neurochemical issues.
But the other kids in your class should not be banned from sugar the way we ban peanuts because of Dragon's issue. It's not life or death. It's not safety. It fails to meet the litmus test requirements.
Yes, you have strong feelings on this issue. You live with it. I empathize with you very very much, and I do know one other adult who fits what you describe, and at least a half dozen kids.
Maybe it is the responsibility of the school, to whatever extent they are able, to forbid trading (our school does). But to forbid "unhealthy" foods for lunches *brought from home* is a giant can of very subjective worms that I strongly feel the school board has any grounds to open.
-
Permalink Reply by mcglory13 on -
Ok, I'm just feeling confused here. I'm not trying to be dense, but I really don't get why it is a problem if schools ban certain foods. I mean, so what? If you're cool with them having a few cookies, why can they not have it when they're home? Do people feel the same way about dress codes? That schools shouldn't be allowed to make rules about what kids can and cannot wear? It just seems like a limited time for me, and like there are many good reasons to do it, and I can't figure out what the problem is. Can somebody help me out (end of semester, must be brain dead)?
-
Permalink Reply by The Oracle on
-
mcg, I won't speak for others but for me there are two or three dynamics operating here that would have to be resolved before making what seems to be a major policy move like this .
1) There is a strong value placed on independence, freedom, choice, etc in our culture and when you overlay that onto people's parenting, it becomes even more emotionally charged.
2) Related to that, when we send our kids to school, we already give up control over many, many decision we'd otherwise get to make. Deciding what your kid eats is not only really personal,
It's also one of the only ways parents can have direct impact on their children's school days.
3) What I've learned over two years of trying (and mostly failing) to manage the Dragon's sugar intake is that sugar is deeply, deeply embedded into our
dominant culture. It's really hard for a lot of (I'd venture to say most) people to imagine an alternative to sugar in situations like birthdays, holidays, celebrations of any random variety, etc. For many people,
sugar is also a reward. And people LOVE to give candy and cookies to children, even children they don't know, even without running it by their parents.
So although an outright sugar ban would certainly make my life a lot easier, I think these values need to be considered before something like that happens. Also, any such movement probably wouldn't get buy-in unless it's backed by a lot of research along the lines of the article I posted above. I'd hope a lot more parents would consider keeping the sugar at home if there were some conclusive scientific research establishing causation between sugar consumption, behavioral problems and grades.
But like I said ... I'm just speaking from my perspective here. I'd love to hear from others about why the very strong opposition to an outright ban.
mcglory13 said:Ok, I'm just feeling confused here. I'm not trying to be dense, but I really don't get why it is a problem if schools ban certain foods. I mean, so what? If you're cool with them having a few cookies, why can they not have it when they're home? Do people feel the same way about dress codes? That schools shouldn't be allowed to make rules about what kids can and cannot wear? It just seems like a limited time for me, and like there are many good reasons to do it, and I can't figure out what the problem is. Can somebody help me out (end of semester, must be brain dead)?
-
Permalink Reply by GreenLantern on -
I don't see the school as a baby sitter. Kids go there to learn. Yes, we expect them to be safe there, but that's because we spend lots of tax dollars on them. We don't have a choice. I don't think public schools should do anything other than teach my kid and resolve issues with other students. They shouldn't even be required to provide food. When I was a kid, and went to catholic school for a few years, they didn't even offer lunch. You HAD to bring your own. The first time I saw a school provided lunch I thought it was the weirdest thing.
-
Permalink Reply by mcglory13 on
-
There are children who only eat at school, where breakfast and lunch are free, and will save portions of their lunch to take home to siblings who are not school aged.
-
Permalink Reply by The Oracle on
-
Well, I expect my kid to be safe at the school not because I spend tax dollars on it but because they're responsible for my kid during the time that he's there. I've given them that responsibility, they've taken it on. On a very basic level, what is the difference between that and a babysitter (who we also pay...)?
Also, I guess one thing I'm trying to make clear WRT the sugar thing is that there's a possibility that sugar contributes to behavioral problems, meaning a ban on it could conceivably fall under the category of "resolv[ing] issues with other students." Wouldn't you rather have your kid spending classroom time learning instead of waiting for the teacher to deal with behavioral problems?
I just don't think that nutrition happens in a vacuum. What we ingest affects us, probably including how we behave in whatever social context we're in. Look, I'm not draconian or fascist or whatever, I'm just reporting the reality from my perspective. I don't think you can separate food from the rest of the day or the rest of the environment that clearly.
GreenLantern said:I don't see the school as a baby sitter. Kids go there to learn. Yes, we expect them to be safe there, but that's because we spend lots of tax dollars on them. We don't have a choice. I don't think public schools should do anything other than teach my kid and resolve issues with other students. They shouldn't even be required to provide food. When I was a kid, and went to catholic school for a few years, they didn't even offer lunch. You HAD to bring your own. The first time I saw a school provided lunch I thought it was the weirdest thing.
-
Permalink Reply by kommishoner on -
Like I said before, I don't particularly care if the school asks parents not to send certain foods, or asks that certain foods not come onto school grounds. The school and I might disagree on what those foods are, but I don't really care if they ask me not to send them. My only beef is if they engage in shaming my kid about it, like FP mentioned. But I see that as a possibility, not a given in this scenario.
Here's how I look at it: schools have a great deal of responsibility for creating an effective learning environment. As a result, schools need a great deal of room to draw limits around what comes into the learning environment. For example, my kid can't bring his light-up Buzz Lightyear doll to school, and if he does he has to stow it somewhere out of reach for the day, because light-up Buzz Lightyear dolls aren't allowed in the classroom, because they're distracting. I don't see it as much different than saying kids can't bring candy to school, and if they do they have to stow it for the day, because it can be really distracting. It's not a value judgment on parents who give their kids light-up Buzz Lightyear dolls when the school asks me not to send one to school with my kid, and it's likewise not a value judgment on what parents might choose to feed their kids at home if they ask parents not to send certain foods to school. To me, anyway.
I totally hear the criticism that it's a slippery slope. But I guess I'd rather cross that bridge when we come to it. I figure the schools have their own cost/benefit analysis in that they're not going to keep a policy that becomes more time-consuming to enforce than the benefit derived from having it. I may eat my words, though, since there's been some interesting litigation on school policies with respect to aspirin where some schools have gone to incredible lengths to penalize kids for what seem like minor infractions. The Supreme Court decided a case on that last year, if I recall. I wouldn't be surprised if some school overreacts with a food policy and some sort of litigation happens that ends up limiting the right of schools to have these policies. /legal nerd.
-
Permalink Reply by The Oracle on
-
I think this is kind of a specious argument. It's like, If we let the gays marry, what next? Marrying your pet octopus? I mean, really. In my admittedly limited, admittedly non-legally-trained experience, I do believe there is an understanding that schools can regulate what happens on school grounds but generally not what happens outside of them.
Also, schools do regulate what students read or watch on TV ... on school grounds.
John T. Capp said:But if parents choose to let their kid have a Twinkie once a week or something as a treat, WTF? What's next? Telling people what their kids can eat at home? Regulating what they can read or watch on TV?
-
Permalink Reply by Gumbo Momma on -
That's how I feel about it too. Especially in a school situation like NB's where some kids are packing from home and others are opting for school provided. In the snack sense, I can see how if one kid had a candy bar while all the others had granola, it would be TOTALLY comparable to a buzz lightyear light up doll. Distracting, yes, and could cause issues, so I don't really mind being told to "please try and keep it healthy," by the school.
kommishoner said:BR>
Here's how I look at it: schools have a great deal of responsibility for creating an effective learning environment. As a result, schools need a great deal of room to draw limits around what comes into the learning environment. For example, my kid can't bring his light-up Buzz Lightyear doll to school, and if he does he has to stow it somewhere out of reach for the day, because light-up Buzz Lightyear dolls aren't allowed in the classroom, because they're distracting. I don't see it as much different than saying kids can't bring candy to school, and if they do they have to stow it for the day, because it can be really distracting. It's not a value judgment on parents who give their kids light-up Buzz Lightyear dolls when the school asks me not to send one to school with my kid, and it's likewise not a value judgment on what parents might choose to feed their kids at home if they ask parents not to send certain foods to school. To me, anyway.
/legal nerd.
-
Permalink Reply by Jeanette on -
I teach fourth and fifth graders at a school that has no real guidelines surrounding food. Many of my students pack their own lunch, and drink sugary, caffeinated sodas every day and/or candy. It comes close to impossible to adequately manage and instruct 26 to 32 students after lunch, because so many of them are crashing from sugar highs or hopped up on caffeine, causing constant disruptions and behavior problems. I should point out, too, that in my experience these kids are often sweethearts, who really seek to do their best in my classroom, but a can of Coke in a 60 - 80 pound body has a much more dramatic effect on them than is does on you or I, particularly considering that you and I have many more years of experience modulating our behavior than 9 and 10 year olds do. The result is that instruction slows down for everyone, even the kids that ate a healthy lunch and are capable at learning at a much, much faster pace.
My guess is that schools are starting these heavy - handed food bans in order to do better on high stakes tests.
I should also say that as a parent I get my nose a little out of joint when my daughter's school sends home things like these - they often feel judgmental and value-laden; I get defensive immediately. But I'd much rather feel a little defensive that have her sitting between two kids that have just had a can of Coke for lunch and a couple of pixie sticks.
-
Permalink Reply by wookie on -
But I'd much rather feel a little defensive that have her sitting between two kids that have just had a can of Coke for lunch and a couple of pixie sticks.
Why? Chances are, those two kids are going to be miserable SOB's for their teacher. And test badly. But it's not like they're going to dip your kid in sugar and consume him or her in a dark pagan ritual sacrifice to their dread Lord Sucrose.
In short, not a safety issue.
-
Permalink Reply by DLBK on -
No, not a safety issue, but those two kids are going to demand a lot of the teacher's time--time that could be spent on teaching the entire class...
wookie said:But I'd much rather feel a little defensive that have her sitting between two kids that have just had a can of Coke for lunch and a couple of pixie sticks.
Why? Chances are, those two kids are going to be miserable SOB's for their teacher. And test badly. But it's not like they're going to dip your kid in sugar and consume him or her in a dark pagan ritual sacrifice to their dread Lord Sucrose.
In short, not a safety issue.
© 2013 Created by Offsprunger.
Powered by
