Teachers feeding hungry children

Well I certainly know schools where they have worked with the parents, Bags. If the hyperactivity / sugar-high is a clear reaction, then the parents are sometimes grateful to have it pointed out. Sometimes you can't get anywhere with the parents and I don't think you could then change the items in the lunch-box, though you can try banning certain things.

No it's not judgemental to criticise school meals. However, earlier in this thread some of us were somewhat scathing about those parents who sent their children to school without breakfast, saying it wasn't (as reported in the Guardian) because they were too poor to afford the food, but rather because they were lazy/drunk/inadequate etc.

I was wondering myself what the difference is between a jacket potato and cheese (earlier recommended by a gransnet post as being nutritious) and chips. Potato and fat in both cases!

Twenty years ago I went to USA for the first time and was amazed at the really fat people I saw there. There were none with that level of obesity in this country then. Now there are many. According to a recent tv program it is to do with big companies who want big profits.

Hear, hear! about the food industry, mamie! And I accept what you say about sugar highs and the problems they cause.

Next question: if what a child has in its lunch-box is too high in sugar, what can the school do? Do they remove the offending articles and feed the child something else? Who pays if that is the case? Or do they get in touch with the parents and tentatively make suggestions? All very tricky.

Nothing wrong with chips unless it is in excess, Bags, (have just been watching, "The men who made us fat" with horror). The problem is the child who day after day, as others have already said, has a lunch box with a chocolate bar, crisps, something fizzy and brightly coloured on a stick and nothing else. Some might say this is none of the school's business, but a hungry child cannot learn and a child full of sugar can be hyperactive and disruptive. This is the school's business.
I also think it is interesting that we rarely point the finger of blame at the food industry.

I remember making a huge meat and potato pie in a Domestic Science lesson at school. The teacher criticised it for looking "farmhousey" and I was sent out for saying that we lived in a farmhouse and it was to feed seven people. Stupid woman seemed to think someone cooking for seven people had time for pastry frills and leaves. Not in our house: any leftover raw pastry either got eaten raw or made into a few jam tarts. I think I had just tucked it under at the rim of the large pie dish on this occasion.

Another question. If vegetable oils are so good for us, and if potatoes are good food, what's wrong with chips for lunch? Ideally with an apple or something to follow, but...

Seems to me there are mixed messages. Maybe that's why so many kids (and adults) ignore it all and just eat what they like and what's easy to get.

jings, I suggest you use better soap . Besides which, a scientific "cause and effect" relationship between a high fat diet and clogged arteries has never been established.

My grandson, at 17, was 6' 3 and whilst he found the school meals quite tasty the portions were completely inadequate - they were probably fine for an 11-year old girl. 'Seconds' had to be paid for. This led to most of the top three years going into the local town to buy chips!
I think some schools found that meals recommended by Jamie Oliver were not at first liked by children unused to vegetables and fruit, but they gradually got used to them, so perhaps they just need to persevere.
Cookery - Domestic Science - Home Economics have morphed into Food Technology - I am presuming this includes lessons in healthy eating, cooking and budgeting. (In which case things have improved dramatically since the lessons I had at my grammar school in the 1950's, which consisted mainly of how to make cakes.)

But in the discussion above it was apparently the school meals service that was providing the chips, crisps, sugary cakes and drinks every day! That, to me, is far more disgraceful than parents being clueless because it would appear to be society being clueless. So we're all to blame for allowing our school meals service to get into such a state

(which it isn't at DD's school. Wondering why there is such a difference across the country).

I don't think it is being judgemental to note the indisputable fact that some parents do not have much knowledge of healthy eating. A diet of chips, crisps and Coke might be the norm for many families, but there is a huge increase in childhood obesity which is just another form of malnourishment. As I read the posts, it seems to me that what is being proposed is for schools to provide well-balanced meals, which does not imply a criticism of parents.
Whilst I agree that the state should not normally intervene in the way parents bring up their children, there have been cases of teenagers who weigh in excess of 20 stones which is extremely dangerous to their health. No doubt their parents think they are being kind in allowing them to eat what they like, but I think this is a form of abuse, caused not by malice but by ignorance and I believe the state has a duty to protect the children.

Has anyone noticed how hard it is to wash fat such as butter or dripping off of your fingers, while washing off vegetable oil is quite easy?

Probably the same with arteries.

Chips, cooked in rapeseed or sunflower oil, are good for children. Carbs for energy, vitamin C and minerals.

It seems to crop up every now and then; a month or so ago it was about badly behaved children!

To be honest, I wouldn't describe children eating chips every day as 'tragic' though I agree it might not be ideal.

Difficult to know when it is appropriate to intervene/interfere in other people's lifestyles. To some, eating burgers, chips, chocolate and so on is a normal way to go on.

I'm afraid there have been quite a few judgemental comments on this thread about supposedly inadequate/ feckless parents.

At one school where I worked Infants (KS1) were not allowed to bring a packed lunch. All kids ate the properly 'prepared from scratch' dinners and most asked for seconds..meat/fish & 2 veg /pots/rice/pasta followed by a pud; cake & custard, fruit and cream, rice pud. I strongly believe that kids have to be trained to eat different foods so they can make choices...

when they could choose to have a packed lunch very few chose to do so.

I am so sorry if you thing this is 'judgement'. There is absolutely nothing wrong in doing things 'differently' - nothing wrong with butter or margarine, or organic whatsits. But children fed on chips, chips, more chips with crisps and sugary buns and cakes - is just wrong, because it is slowly making those kids ill, and will lead to all sorts of problems in the long-term. We as a society should try and address this. There is no point in the State (us) spending millions on providing free school meals for those who need it - and feed them more unhealthy rubbish, is there?

Perhaps you need to see it happening, day in, day out - to understand what I mean, and how tragic it is. We tried at our school to have a few days a week without chips- but the children just didn't have school meals on those days, and went down the road to the chippy!

I very much agree with Bags that we should try not to judge too harshly people who do things differently from us.

I hate to say it but there can sometimes be quite a lot of that judging going on on Gransnet.

I agree bags - so difficult to know where to put that 'fine' line.
At the schools I taught at- it was heart breaking to see the children who we knew had free school meals- making the worst possible choices at the canteen. As said before, a daily plate of chips with ketchup, a bag of crisps, with a sugary bun or chocolate dollops and a fluorescent drink. Again - the saddest thing was that we knew there wouldn't be a balanced meal later at home either. And YES, it does have an influence on behaviour and learning, honest.

One could also say that it went totally against the basic idea of free school meals, eg that children from under-privileged families would receive form the State (us tax payers) a properly balanced meal and the necessary vitamins, proteins, and other things required. Remember those mums shown on TV news taking MacDonalds for their teenagers and handing them through the gate on days when chips were not for sale at the school. Tragic. Jamie Oliver has my vote. It is difficult for British and US people to see that they are unique in this.

In France for instance, schools have a proper menu and kids have to choose one of two choices for a starter (2 types of salad), a main meal including a choice of 2 (say meat or fish), then a carb (rice, pasta or potatoe) and a pud (piece of fruit, yogurt, mousse) = a 'proper' balanced meal.

Swift's "modest proposal" was that the children of the poor should be food for the rich. Looking at our present situation in the UK, that's exactly what's happening today when the rich (our shameless government included) feed on the poor, especially on the children of the poor. When I see the obscene amounts of money (from our taxes) wasted on the jubilee and the olympics, my blood pressure goes right off the Richter scale
Yes, feed the children, not the bankers.

bags most parents send OK lunches but I have seen a whole packet of Jammie dodgers and a jam sandwich as the only content of a 5yr olds lunch box! I know if kids are picky eaters you need them to eat something but there is also a case for encouraging a better diet and not pandering to a limited one..
All we ever said for packed lunches was no sweets and chocolates..best kept for a treat at home. I would have liked to ban hula hoops..it took kids ages to eat them by the time they put them on their fingers and then nibbled them off!

Oh yes, jura, I'm not saying there aren't unhealthy food choices, especially such sugary things as you mention. But there is a lot of nonsense talked about perfectly healthy food as well, especially, in my opinion, with regard to animal fats. As a parent I have the right to feed my child butter rather than low fat vegetable marg for instance, if I so choose, and it's no-one else's business.

I'm in two minds about the children who are given too much sugar and not enough in the way of vitamins and minerals in their diets. I think a school's role should be limited to educating children about food values and a balanced diet, without being too restrictive. The aim of that education would be to give them the means to make good choices (if they so choose) when they are in charge of their own food.

I'm really not sure about interfering in what parents do, even when the parents appear to whoever is judging to be incompetent. The easy answer is educate the parents as well, but of course there never is an easy answer. To my mind there is no need for anyone who can read to be ignorant of the basic food values of foods – calorie content, protein, carb, fat, minerals, vitamins, etc. The information is everywhere!

I do it too, but I really think we should try not to judge too harshly people who do things differently from us.

Bags I am surprised at your comment. Yes, there are lots of ridiculous fads around - but when you see kids eating the same 'plate of chips, + sugary bun + fluorescent drink' day after day - it is a concern surely. These kids diets has NO fruit or veg, no protein' but lots of fats and sugars and additives. Not too bad for those who go home to a balanced meal in the evening, but tragic for those who do not.

And kids with a lunch-pack that included a bag of crisps, some biscuits and a Mars bar, day in, day out - and who do not get a good breakfast, nor a balanced meal at home. Should it be the right of parents to provide a diet devoid of all vitamins or proteins, etc, but full of fat, salt and sugars + additives?

Surely as a Society we need to protect children. From abuse of any kind, include 'food' abuse- to some extent?

Oops! Crossed posts!

Going back to nanaej's comment at 1144, a lot of popular belief about what is healthy food (and otherwise) is bullshit, so I would argue that schools should not police lunchbox contents. Parents may have made deliberate choices that whoever is doing the policing doesn't agree with, but parents should do have that right.

A 'thank you' is just good manners, gillybob, hardly bowing and scraping...

gilly no I don't expect them to bow and scrape but if anyone gives me anything I always say thank you. Simple courtesy.