Mother shamed for sending her child to school with oreos

1235716

Replies

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 46,838 Member
    weird_me2 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Whilst no one should shame a parent we should as a society start to see the growing problem of children's health.
    For me an Oreo or cake or chocolate bar should be a treat for a child not an everyday normal part of lunch.
    If all schools agreed to the same there should be no issues. Children will do what the grown ups tell them to. If the teacher says no sweet things and all the parents abide by it children will eat the sandwich or whatever they are given.
    I actually wish only water was drunk at school not fruit juices.
    We have to get tougher for the sake of our children.
    As a parent we should not run out of a piece of fruit or a carrot.
    The parents who put Oreos etc into their children's lunch packs are making it hard for every other parent to try and make healthy lunches as children will always complain they haven't got it. That's why I wish schools would ban sugary foods completely.

    I had a friend who imposed this on her child growing up. It doesn't always work. He's now 24 years old and obese. Why? Because when he became an adult and had free reign, he took advantage of it. Obviously enjoying eating tons of food stuffs he missed out on as a kid. There's NOTHING wrong with teaching daily moderation.
    My DD's school has ice cream day after school on Wednesday's. Money made is used to help schools. Kids go crazy because for some of them, this may be their only treat for the week. My DD doesn't care. She gets her daily dose of "controlled" fun stuff a day, so ice cream day isn't a big deal to her.
    If it's a private school, which it sounds like, then fine impose whatever restrictions they deem allowable. But kids aren't dumb. Give them an opportunity to break the "rules" and they will take as much advantage of it as they can. So where they may be restricted to eat only a certain way ALL the time, they will eventually break off and make their own decisions to satisfy their denied wants.
    It not only happens with food, but money, dating, sex, game time, computer time, etc. can get abused when restrictions seem too tight.
    Teaching moderation is okay. In fact most lean people in good shape will usually tell you that don't totally restrict to just healthy options. Most people who are always insisting on healthy options are usually the ones who seem to have weight and health issues.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png




    I don't disagree with teaching kids moderation, but I don't think it needs done during school hours if it's against the rules. My DD had a cookie with her breakfast this morning. I was baking them for an event and she wanted one. I knew she couldn't take one to school with her, so why not have one at breakfast? She ran a mile this morning and has a 2 hour practice this evening. She'll probably even get a cupcake this evening. Does she have these things daily? No, but she doesn't go crazy when it's around because she knows there will always be next time.
    I abide by rules. If it's instituted and I want my kid to go there, then you abide or pick another school. My DD's school is reasonable with some restrictions (no candy) and so we abide.
    My DD can have whatever she wants, but does have to compromise to meet nutritional essentials. So if she wants ice cream, she does have to have protein and a good amount of vegetables before engaging. Does she eat all of it? Not all the time. But then again, many times she'll only like 1/3 cup of ice cream because she's pretty full from eating well before splurging.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 46,838 Member
    Morgaen73 wrote: »
    "If they have potatoes, the child will also need bread to go along with it."

    Uhm double starch is a healthier option is it?

    I saw this too, WTF is the reasoning behind that??
    To absorb the extra butter already on the potato. Duh.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png




  • Michael190lbs
    Michael190lbs Posts: 1,510 Member
    As a divorced very involved Father i was discusted when my son (9) gave up pop for lent.. There is no pop in my house and I never knew his mother allowed him to drink it.. We had a talk about and I realized why were divorced again.
  • CM9178
    CM9178 Posts: 1,272 Member
    edited April 2015
    I'm sorry but since when does a school have the right to tell you what your kid can or cannot eat for lunch? I think some schools have a rule about nuts because of allergies (although I disagree with that as well- unless it is being shared with the class for a party, why should my kid not be able to bring something for their own lunch just because other kids may be allergic to it?)

    It says all kids are REQUIRED to have a fruit, vegetable, healthy snack and milk. Um, what if the kid doesn't like any vegetables? (many kids don't). What if they don't like milk? So now they are going to force kids to eat things they don't like? The whole potato and bread thing makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    I'm actually a little confused about whether or not it is a private or public school after reading it again. The teacher refers to it as a a public school, and the news spoke to the public schools spokeswoman, but they also say that it is a private pre-school...

    If they want to have a healthy program in the school, that's wonderful - but that should only be in regards to what foods they are providing to the students. The parents should be able to let their kid bring whatever they want to give them for lunch. The school has absolutely no business butting in to that, unless the children has some kind of serious medical issue that is interfering with the school or classroom, as a result of their eating habits. For example, they are bringing candy or cookies every day and then they are hyper, running around the room like a nut.

    I don't see any harm in letting your kid have a couple oreos as a snack once in awhile. But even if I didn't like it, its none of my business what any other parents allow their children to eat and it shouldn't be the business of the school either. (I don't have children by the way).
  • SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage
    SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage Posts: 2,671 Member
    weird_me2 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Whilst no one should shame a parent we should as a society start to see the growing problem of children's health.
    For me an Oreo or cake or chocolate bar should be a treat for a child not an everyday normal part of lunch.
    If all schools agreed to the same there should be no issues. Children will do what the grown ups tell them to. If the teacher says no sweet things and all the parents abide by it children will eat the sandwich or whatever they are given.
    I actually wish only water was drunk at school not fruit juices.
    We have to get tougher for the sake of our children.
    As a parent we should not run out of a piece of fruit or a carrot.
    The parents who put Oreos etc into their children's lunch packs are making it hard for every other parent to try and make healthy lunches as children will always complain they haven't got it. That's why I wish schools would ban sugary foods completely.

    I had a friend who imposed this on her child growing up. It doesn't always work. He's now 24 years old and obese. Why? Because when he became an adult and had free reign, he took advantage of it. Obviously enjoying eating tons of food stuffs he missed out on as a kid. There's NOTHING wrong with teaching daily moderation.
    My DD's school has ice cream day after school on Wednesday's. Money made is used to help schools. Kids go crazy because for some of them, this may be their only treat for the week. My DD doesn't care. She gets her daily dose of "controlled" fun stuff a day, so ice cream day isn't a big deal to her.
    If it's a private school, which it sounds like, then fine impose whatever restrictions they deem allowable. But kids aren't dumb. Give them an opportunity to break the "rules" and they will take as much advantage of it as they can. So where they may be restricted to eat only a certain way ALL the time, they will eventually break off and make their own decisions to satisfy their denied wants.
    It not only happens with food, but money, dating, sex, game time, computer time, etc. can get abused when restrictions seem too tight.
    Teaching moderation is okay. In fact most lean people in good shape will usually tell you that don't totally restrict to just healthy options. Most people who are always insisting on healthy options are usually the ones who seem to have weight and health issues.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png




    I don't disagree with teaching kids moderation, but I don't think it needs done during school hours if it's against the rules. My DD had a cookie with her breakfast this morning. I was baking them for an event and she wanted one. I knew she couldn't take one to school with her, so why not have one at breakfast? She ran a mile this morning and has a 2 hour practice this evening. She'll probably even get a cupcake this evening. Does she have these things daily? No, but she doesn't go crazy when it's around because she knows there will always be next time.
    Exactly. Same with my son. He doesn't go nuts around cookies and stuff because he gets it whenever he wants generally (except right before bed because I'm not stupid).

    But not in his school lunch. Because those are the rules. I guess I'd rather just follow the simple rules then break them and then get myself on the news for the sake of argument. But that's just me.

    I personally don't like with the no flip-flop rule at work but I abide by it. The second I leave my office though, flip-flops it is.

    I guess I just don't understand the fuss.


  • DaveinSK
    DaveinSK Posts: 86 Member
    CM9178 wrote: »
    I'm actually a little confused about whether or not it is a private or public school after reading it again. The teacher refers to it as a a public school, and the news spoke to the public schools spokeswoman, but they also say that it is a private pre-school...

    The preschool my son goes to is inside a public school, but the pre-school itself is a private co-op. The school system itself doesn't run preschool. Maybe it's something similar to that.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,465 Member
    Morgaen73 wrote: »
    "If they have potatoes, the child will also need bread to go along with it."

    Uhm double starch is a healthier option is it?

    This silliness has happened in Canada too, due to a quirk in the Canada Food Guide. Potatoes are ranked with vegetables instead of breads.

  • CM9178
    CM9178 Posts: 1,272 Member
    kristydi wrote: »
    JenAndSome wrote: »
    sandryc79 wrote: »
    This should be titled: Mother was politely informed of private school policy.

    I don't agree with the policy because I don't think an occasional cookie is unhealthy. However, they have a right to set the policy and this is not shaming.

    Was it clarified that this was written policy and the mother ignored it? I haven't seen in any of the articles or heard in the comments what exactly the school's policy on packed lunches is outside of the ridiculous note they sent home with the cookies.

    This paragraph is from another article on this story
    Questions over the note remain. The director of Children's Academy said she's investigating the note, adding that it should not have gone out to any parent. The director said it is not school policy to tell parents what children can or can't eat for lunch.

    So it does not sound like this is school policy.

    I really hope that's true.. If it really is a school policy, it is ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed to exist. Can schools just go making up whatever policies they want, no matter how far over the edge they are?

    If it isn't a policy, I hope the teacher gets fired.. but she probably has tenure and nothing will be done. Wouldn't be surprised.
  • DataSeven
    DataSeven Posts: 245 Member
    This isn't a new thing... I went to elementary school 25+ years ago and junk food was banned. No junk food, chips, chocolate bars, candy, soda, etc... allowed for lunch. It was weird, because chocolate covered granola bars were allowed, but regular chocolate bars were not. You could also bring Twinkies-type cream filled cakes and fruit roll ups. But the 'hard stuff' was banned. No one really questioned it. I don't get this whole 'Muh rights!' argument.
  • hollyk57
    hollyk57 Posts: 527 Member
    edited April 2015
    Absurd. It's not the school's job to tell parents what they can feed their kids. And now I want oreos. Badly. Like, enough to even go buy them. Thank you Aurora schools.

    42856b6cfcfb176340f9495df8ae25bc.jpg
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,465 Member
    Similar Canadian story; day care fined parent $10. The potato was deemed another "vegetable" to the child was also given Ritz crackers to supplement.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mother-fined-10-for-packing-unbalanced-lunch-for-children-1.1551163
  • Sarasmaintaining
    Sarasmaintaining Posts: 1,027 Member
    edited April 2015
    peter56765 wrote: »
    My wife used to work at a preschool and more than a few parents would only send things like Oreos or a few graham crackers, often because they were ignorant of basic nutrition. Also, young kids are notorious for eating their cookies first and then being "too full" to eat the rest of their lunch. While I don't agree with the school's policy, I can understand why it's in place. There is a childhood obesity epidemic in this country and as every MFPer knows, the problem is about 80%-90% diet related. Although sugary snacks like Oreos are perfectly legal and are a choice, they are being banned for the same reason you can't smoke perfectly legal cigarettes on school grounds.

    I find it highly unlikely that most parents are sending in ONLY cookies for their kids lunch. Maybe a few, but that's not going to be the norm. I'm not ignorant of nutrition and my kids regularly bring Oreos (or homemade cookies) in their packed lunches. One of my kids is lactose intolerant and Oreos are dairy free. Cookies are not bad as part of a balanced diet, which my kids have. My kids also eat the fruit I send in the lunches because they also like fruit. It is possible for kids (and adults) to enjoy things like cookies AND fruit and veggies, and include both of them into a healthy diet.
  • skippygirlsmom
    skippygirlsmom Posts: 4,433 Member
    Whilst no one should shame a parent we should as a society start to see the growing problem of children's health.
    For me an Oreo or cake or chocolate bar should be a treat for a child not an everyday normal part of lunch.
    If all schools agreed to the same there should be no issues. Children will do what the grown ups tell them to. If the teacher says no sweet things and all the parents abide by it children will eat the sandwich or whatever they are given.
    I actually wish only water was drunk at school not fruit juices.
    We have to get tougher for the sake of our children.
    As a parent we should not run out of a piece of fruit or a carrot.
    The parents who put Oreos etc into their children's lunch packs are making it hard for every other parent to try and make healthy lunches as children will always complain they haven't got it. That's why I wish schools would ban sugary foods completely.

    My 14 year old takes a sandwich, fruit and/or cheese with water every day for lunch. She also takes a couple (2) cookies if she wants sometimes she does sometimes she does not. If that makes your job as a parent harder then you have more problems. My daughter's friends wear $100 jeans and $100 shoes, mine does not. I don't allow those parenting choices to make mine harder or affect our household. We simply do not spent that type of money on jeans or shoes. Mine will also not drive a Lexus or brand new car when she turns 16, others parents give those types of cars to their kids, again mine knows she will get a good affordable used car to drive until she can buy herself the car of her dreams. Why do you allow what goes on in my house to influence your kids so much. Also when you live in my single parent household working full time and raising my kids you get to tell me what I should and should not run out of...how's the view from your perfect parent pedestal? BTW her friends are all "dating" and she is not, don't care what goes on in the neighbors house has no affect on what goes on in ours.

  • redversustheblue
    redversustheblue Posts: 1,216 Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    Similar Canadian story; day care fined parent $10. The potato was deemed another "vegetable" to the child was also given Ritz crackers to supplement.

    http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/mother-fined-10-for-packing-unbalanced-lunch-for-children-1.1551163

    That's seriously insane.
  • fallenoaks4
    fallenoaks4 Posts: 63 Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    adamitri wrote: »
    SuggaD wrote: »
    Well I'm going to be judgy here and agree that it wasn't a healthy lunch, especially for a toddler. Not instilling good nutrition habits (and mom is obviously overweight) and dealing with toddlers after sugar rush ....not fun. But is it for the school to scold the parent...no.

    Other than the oreos what part of the lunch was unhealthy?

    Even the Oreos aren't unhealthy if the rest of the child's diet fulfills her nutritional needs.

    I haven't read the whole thread, but if this were my toddler, she would fill up on the Oreos first. Since she doesn't eat much at one sitting, it's possible that she wouldn't touch the sandwich or cheese. So no, her nutritional needs would not be met if all three things were put in front of her.
  • auntstephie321
    auntstephie321 Posts: 3,586 Member
    DirrtyH wrote: »
    Ugh. Seriously, this makes me question whether I even want to have kids. If this happened to me, I would flip my shiz, and probably pull my kid from the school, to be honest. This nanny state crap has gone way too far.

    I'm in the same boat, if I do have kids I'll have to seriously consider other avenues for education. If I want to give my child Oreos then I'm going to. Why does someone else get to tell me what's healthy or unhealthy? If they don't want to eat Oreos that's their choice, but they don't have the right to force others to follow along.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,465 Member
    By the time my children were in later elementary, they were making their own lunches and were deep in to serious trading with their friends. I am sure this would not be allowed today due to food allergies. Anyways, my son would pack five oranges and then work trades with the boy with a major addiction to oranges and then with the Baker's children (who were dead bored with fresh baked goods).