Teachers feeding hungry children

Annobel That is good to hear. I feel sure there must be a solution somewhere.

Primary school meals are still pretty good overall.

The problem comes with secondary school (which can be from 10+)- where there are 'good' choices available actually, but the kids are too tempted by the poor food value items - and so daily choose the same, a plate of chips, with a bag of crips, very sweet cake/bun and fluorescent drink. They could choose salad, veg, baked potatoe, pasta or rice, with meat or fish - and a fruit or yogurt - but they don't. And if the school does try to withdraw 'unhealthy' items, the kids boycott the school meal, go to the chippy, or parents even come and shove MacDonalds burgers through the gate.

Of course the chips and biscuits have the biggest profits for the canteen - not much profit on nice fruit, good meat or fish, or even veg.

The issues are very complex, and go back a very long way. No magical solution unfortunately.

Parents often have to learn how to play with their children and can also learn to cook meals which they then take home with them for the family's tea. The school where I was chair of governors had a community room which could be used for such purposes. There is no reason why parenting courses should be punitive. When I was on the Social Services committee of the Council, I once went along to meet mums who were on one of these courses and the atmosphere was pleasantly informal and cosy. It had become a kind of club. And why not?

The problem is that many so called inadequate parents are stubborn enough to think they are doing fine and resent what they see as middle class interference. They probably would not be prepared to voluntarily attend parenting classes.

As for incentives/penalties, easy to attend the course, collect the money and then ignore everything you learned. As for Penalties, docking benefits would adverseley affect the very children you are trying to help, as would taking those children into care (where if recent reports are to be believed they are sitting targets for sexual abuse).

Elegran presumably there would have to be some sort of incentive or penalty. It is worrying that someone would not want to know how to be a better parent isn't it?

But could you force them to turn up for the whole course? If they had to be frogmarched there by the police, the yellow press would have a field day.

petallus no experience at all of parenting classes but think I could do a good job of them so surely others could. It cannot be difficult to show someone how to feed a family on a budget and teach them the basics of nutrition.

AlisonMA I wish I had your faith in the efficacy of parenting classes.

That's it - tapioca!

I think tapioca days might have been when my mate and I snuck out to the local transport caff for a bacon and egg buttie, till we got hauled up in front of the headmaster for 'lowering the tone'. Oh well, it was good while it lasted.

PS
She's ever so posh now.

PPS
I'm not.

j04 I agree that it's not always their fault but if there was complusory parenting classes for those affected it would solve the problem. Much better the 'nanny state' educates the parents and therefore the children than takes over the parental responsibilites.

I think 'frogspawn' might have been tapioca, Joan. I never had school dinners, but it made an appearance in my University residence, until it dawned on the cooks that nobody chose it. We had something called 'bath mat', but I think that was Yorkshire pudding.

We called tapioca pudding 'frogspawn' at school.

Some kids were 'starved' all through winter in post war Yorkshire, where 'starved' means really shivering cold. "Ah'm starved" meant I'm freezing to death, "Ah'm starving" meant I'm hungry.

Some kids did not have adequate clothing back then, nor enough to eat. School dinners, free school milk and daily cod liver oil must have helped a great deal. As for the cold weather - at least the schools I went to had good heating, even though they hadn't much else. We learned to write on slate boards with chalk, and wrote with a pen dipped in ink. I was the ink monitor - had to mix the powder and water and take it round the classrooms.

Even back then, I was born 1945, some kids came to school hungry. while others like me were well fed. But at least the school dinner had meat or fish with spuds and veggies, followed by pudding: creamed rice or sponge pudding and custard usually. Oh, there was 'frogspawn' too - some type of spherical pasta I think.

Does anyone remember some time between 1956 and 1961 when the potato harvest failed and they had to give us bread and butter with our meat and veggies instead? It was great - we couldn't afford real butter at home, but the catering orders to schools specified butter so that's what we got-the real thing. And the dinner ladies baked the bread too - no bought sliced white for us - lovely fresh rolls. We stuffed ourselves!!

But in some cases Alison, the abuse might not be the parents' fault.

Thanks for that article, jingl - I take back what I said, as obviously some children are just not getting enough food to eat, healthy or otherwise.

POGS & j04 I agree, starving or malnourishment, whatever you call it deserves attention. If children are not being properly cared for in whatever area of their lives the state should intervene. The same goes for obesity. Simple insistance that they go to the right type of parenting class should be enough. If that doesn't work then it is a really bad case of neglect.

I don't think we are talking here about food choices in the way one of us might choose different nutrition from another, we are talking about abuse and that is not too strong a word if a child is being under nourished.

I'm not sure 'starving' is too strong a term.

look at this article It's horrific.

pogs does have a point. It's the age old question of when is it justifiable to interfere with people's parenting styles in order to prevent actual damage to a child. If a child is fed (gets enough calories from whatever 'suitable' or 'unsuitable' source), which is not the same thing as "is well nourished", at what point, if at all, does it behove teachers to interfere?

There have always been parental choices that some people – who make different choices for various reasons – don't 'approve' of. How, when and what one feeds one's children is one of these.

I also accept that certain feeding choices affect children's ability to concentrate and behave well in class, but I doubt if their food intake is the only issue there. I often "felt hungry" at school (this is perfectly healthy and normal in a growing child). Didn't make me disruptive – well.... not very

If school meals are really as bad as some people are saying, it sounds as if we, as a society, should start any improvements there. We all have MPs to write to.

I think 'starved' is a bit strong, as well, POGS. No one is saying that schoolchildren are starving. Just that it's difficult to ensure that they're getting the proper nourishment they need to thrive.

POGS that's a bit harsh! You sound very certain of your facts. Do you know many poor people?

If school children are being starved then Social Services should be called in, teachers are not doing the children any favours in the long run.

It is not poverty that is the cause. Money is not an issue, it is poor parenting and lack of care.

I think this story is somewhat sensationalised by the Guardian.

Should be tefal. It only needs about1/4-1/2 teaspoonful of oil for a portion!

I can do them in my teal healthy fryer!

You can also do a spicy version with a bit of chilli or some cumin.

Oh yes! Roast potatos on a Sunday, again using rapeseed oil.