Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
School Food Policies
WeepingAngel81
Posts: 2,232 Member
I am in a mom group on facebook, and yesterday there was a post created that had me wondering what other parents here think.
A child refused to eat the healthy snack that was offered to her. The deal was, if you eat your healthy snack, you can have a cookie. She was not given a cookie, and according to the mom posting, she was the only one not given a cookie. The mom the asked for other opinions.
Most of the opinions fell into the "burn her" category, calling the teacher many derogatory names. Many people said that children should have the choice to decide what they want to eat without consequences, and that if they choose a cookie of the fruit or veggie option, it should be allowed. One person said that every child should be given a cookie no matter the circumstance.
What are your thoughts?
According to friends and family, I am the hard *kitten* parent. I am very black and white with my kids not matter the situation. You don't do chores, you don't get to go swimming with your friends. You don't do your homework, you don't get to watch TV. I was one of the few who said that in my house, my kids need to eat the food that will fuel their bodies before eating the fun sugary snack. I do offer both, and am trying to teach my children balance. It is ok to have cookies and ice cream, etc., but you need to eat food that is good for you as well. My kids, like any other kids, will go on a binge when I am not home. If I leave out any "fun" foods, they are gone within 48 hours. I have to hide the fun food, and leave out a fun snack each day for each of them. They know they can eat it at any time, but they better have eaten the veggies I offered with their supper as well. I would have been happy that the school is also teaching my kids the same. I understand that not every kid will like the healthier option given, so I am all for having options, such as carrots and/or celery with peanut butter, or apples and oranges. Then they can decide which option they want in order to also have the cookie. I have one kid who loves green beans, but the other can't stand them, so options are a must! I know what my kids will eat, and I am willing to adjust from there.
A child refused to eat the healthy snack that was offered to her. The deal was, if you eat your healthy snack, you can have a cookie. She was not given a cookie, and according to the mom posting, she was the only one not given a cookie. The mom the asked for other opinions.
Most of the opinions fell into the "burn her" category, calling the teacher many derogatory names. Many people said that children should have the choice to decide what they want to eat without consequences, and that if they choose a cookie of the fruit or veggie option, it should be allowed. One person said that every child should be given a cookie no matter the circumstance.
What are your thoughts?
According to friends and family, I am the hard *kitten* parent. I am very black and white with my kids not matter the situation. You don't do chores, you don't get to go swimming with your friends. You don't do your homework, you don't get to watch TV. I was one of the few who said that in my house, my kids need to eat the food that will fuel their bodies before eating the fun sugary snack. I do offer both, and am trying to teach my children balance. It is ok to have cookies and ice cream, etc., but you need to eat food that is good for you as well. My kids, like any other kids, will go on a binge when I am not home. If I leave out any "fun" foods, they are gone within 48 hours. I have to hide the fun food, and leave out a fun snack each day for each of them. They know they can eat it at any time, but they better have eaten the veggies I offered with their supper as well. I would have been happy that the school is also teaching my kids the same. I understand that not every kid will like the healthier option given, so I am all for having options, such as carrots and/or celery with peanut butter, or apples and oranges. Then they can decide which option they want in order to also have the cookie. I have one kid who loves green beans, but the other can't stand them, so options are a must! I know what my kids will eat, and I am willing to adjust from there.
5
Replies
-
I think the school's laser focus on one snack is misguided. I believe in Ellyn Satter's division of food responsibility when it comes to kids -- the adults are responsible for presenting food options, children are responsible for choosing what and how much they will eat. I think if a "healthy" snack and an "unhealthy" cookie were both on offer, it should have been left to the children to choose. If the school doesn't want kids eating cookies, the school shouldn't offer cookies.
ETA: I also believe using "unhealthy" foods to bribe children into eating "healthy" ones is a bad idea. It gives kids the idea that healthful foods are yucky, and require some sort of reward to be worth eating. And what if the kid isn't hungry enough for two snacks but really wants the cookie? They're likely to overeat (forcing themselves to eat both snacks when only hungry enough for one) in order to get what they truly want. This sets a bad precedent: "Ignore your hunger and satiety cues, kids, because that's the only way you'll ever get a treat."
Children need an overall healthful, varied diet. They do not need to be hounded and punished for eating a single cookie at a single meal.26 -
Too many parents these days want to be their kids friend. Step up to the plate and parent your kids. Choices come with consequences. That is why so many kids today grow up not being able to make a decision without mommy and/or daddy. Wake up America. Get tough.14
-
WeepingAngel81 wrote: »My kids, like any other kids, will go on a binge when I am not home.
Really? that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it? i never binged as a kid, and we always had a well stocked treat cupboard at home. it was only as an adult when i moved out of home that i gained any weight.13 -
There's no point setting boundaries with children unless you are going to actually follow them. Kudos for following through with the established boundaries (no snack = no cookie). I don't really care if the boundaries are fair or not (life isn't fair princess) we spend way too much time teaching kids that they are above the rules and setting them up for failure when it comes to operating within the confines of a job or the laws of society.17
-
Children will eat both what is familiar and what appeals to them. Sometimes food offered has not been served at home or they don't like the taste and texture. The school in this case, IMO, has overstepped its authority in terms of withholding food from a child and placing value on the vegetables and shaming the child. Shaming a child is never okay.
8 -
depends on how old the child was? were they old enough to understand the reasoning behind the consequences of not having the healthy snack (I think there is a difference between doing this with a kindergartender vs. a 3/4th grader)8
-
Children need an overall healthful, varied diet. They do not need to be hounded and punished for eating a single cookie at a single meal.
Which is why I feel that it should be an option with something healthy.TavistockToad wrote: »WeepingAngel81 wrote: »My kids, like any other kids, will go on a binge when I am not home.
Really? that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it? i never binged as a kid, and we always had a well stocked treat cupboard at home. it was only as an adult when i moved out of home that i gained any weight.
Yes, I was making a sweeping generalization. I just figured that if given the option, most kids would eat the chips over the carrot sticks, or the cookies over the apples. Maybe I am wrong there. However, that wasn't the main focus. I am just curious as to how other parents would react and how they handle balancing healthy foods with fun snacks in their own households. Everyone is different, and I am always open to learning something new.2 -
WeepingAngel81 wrote: »
Okay, so what if the kid isn't hungry enough for two snacks? Sorry, kid, no cookie for you -- you just get the apple? That seems pretty harsh, if the cookies have already been offered.
6 -
deannalfisher wrote: »depends on how old the child was? were they old enough to understand the reasoning behind the consequences of not having the healthy snack (I think there is a difference between doing this with a kindergartender vs. a 3/4th grader)
That's a great question. I agree that there are different ways to teach kids depending on their ages. She didn't mention and I didn't ask.
0 -
I think the school's laser focus on one snack is misguided. I believe in Ellyn Satter's division of food responsibility when it comes to kids -- the adults are responsible for presenting food options, children are responsible for choosing what and how much they will eat. I think if a "healthy" snack and an "unhealthy" cookie were both on offer, it should have been left to the children to choose. If the school doesn't want kids eating cookies, the school shouldn't offer cookies.
ETA: I also believe using "unhealthy" foods to bribe children into eating "healthy" ones is a bad idea. It gives kids the idea that healthful foods are yucky, and require some sort of reward to be worth eating. And what if the kid isn't hungry enough for two snacks but really wants the cookie? They're likely to overeat (forcing themselves to eat both snacks when only hungry enough for one) in order to get what they truly want. This sets a bad precedent: "Ignore your hunger and satiety cues, kids, because that's the only way you'll ever get a treat."
Children need an overall healthful, varied diet. They do not need to be hounded and punished for eating a single cookie at a single meal.
Pretty much all of this. Also - two items for a snack just seems excessive anyway. I'm also interested in what age group this was, and if it's a daily occurrence or a special occasion.
3 -
I think the school should only offer health snacks, no option for cookies. If the parents want the kids to have questionable items, sent it with them.14
-
Honestly, I'd be ok with them just not even having the cookies. That's what I would prefer. We don't do the "if you eat this, then you can have this treat" thing around here, because I don't want healthy food to be a means to an end. The healthy food is the goal. The cookie is just for sometimes.
That being said, if that's the rule, I'm totally ok with the teacher following through with it. I don't see it as shaming the child any more than it's shaming a kid to get a bad grade on a test because he didn't study. If you do this, you get this result. If you don't do this, you get a different and unpleasant result. If the teacher stood in front of the class and said, "Oh, look, everyone, Sally isn't getting her cookie because she made a bad choice," then yeah, that's shaming, but just not giving her the cookie isn't shaming. In this case, the child chose not to eat the healthy snack, knowing full well that she wasn't going to get a cookie. That's a valid choice, and frankly, if the kid was upset about it or thought it was unfair, maybe that's a sign that she needs the adults in her life to follow through on boundaries and consequences more often.18 -
Kids should ALWAYS have a choice.........do you want an apple or an orange.......nobody said you shouldn't choose what those choices are
6 -
impyimpyaj wrote: »Honestly, I'd be ok with them just not even having the cookies. That's what I would prefer. We don't do the "if you eat this, then you can have this treat" thing around here, because I don't want healthy food to be a means to an end. The healthy food is the goal. The cookie is just for sometimes.
That being said, if that's the rule, I'm totally ok with the teacher following through with it. I don't see it as shaming the child any more than it's shaming a kid to get a bad grade on a test because he didn't study. If you do this, you get this result. If you don't do this, you get a different and unpleasant result. If the teacher stood in front of the class and said, "Oh, look, everyone, Sally isn't getting her cookie because she made a bad choice," then yeah, that's shaming, but just not giving her the cookie isn't shaming. In this case, the child chose not to eat the healthy snack, knowing full well that she wasn't going to get a cookie. That's a valid choice, and frankly, if the kid was upset about it or thought it was unfair, maybe that's a sign that she needs the adults in her life to follow through on boundaries and consequences more often.
From what I understand as I went through the post, there was no direct shaming. She simply didn't get the cookie, and the teacher moved on with whatever else was next on the agenda. Growing up, my parents always had the "if you eat this, then you can have this treat" approach. I am sure my sister and I pushed back on that, but I can't remember to be honest. What I do remember is that one time my mom made an really awful meal. My sister and I were in tears as my dad came home from working a long day. He was already over it lol. I was telling us we needed to eat, as he took his first bite. He swallowed, looked at the two of us, and said "come on girls, we're going to McDonalds" hahaha! My poor mom has never lived that meal down. In general though, I often remember having ice cream after supper with my parents. We would watch whatever family comedy was on that night, and enjoy our treat (or not if we chose not to eat supper).
4 -
WeepingAngel81 wrote: »
Okay, so what if the kid isn't hungry enough for two snacks? Sorry, kid, no cookie for you -- you just get the apple? That seems pretty harsh, if the cookies have already been offered.
I am saying they should have 2 healthy options such as carrots or apples. Not necessarily carrots or cookie. If they are offered carrot or apple, and then if you are still hungry you can have a cookie, I don't see that as harsh.
3 -
WeepingAngel81 wrote: »WeepingAngel81 wrote: »
Okay, so what if the kid isn't hungry enough for two snacks? Sorry, kid, no cookie for you -- you just get the apple? That seems pretty harsh, if the cookies have already been offered.
I am saying they should have 2 healthy options such as carrots or apples. Not necessarily carrots or cookie. If they are offered carrot or apple, and then if you are still hungry you can have a cookie, I don't see that as harsh.
Except in effect what this does is only give "treats" to kids with larger appetites or higher caloric needs. If one petite young girl is full after her "healthy" choice, but the tall boy next to her still has room for a cookie (and gets one), the school is effectively just rewarding those who eat more. What kind of message do you think that sends to the kids? What kind of message do you think it sends to set up "healthy" food as an obstacle you must clear to get "treats?" I don't understand the point of offering cookies at all if the school doesn't want kids eating them. If the point is "to coerce kids into choosing a healthy snack," it seems the easier and more logical route would be to only offer healthy snacks.8 -
TavistockToad wrote: »WeepingAngel81 wrote: »My kids, like any other kids, will go on a binge when I am not home.
Really? that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it? i never binged as a kid, and we always had a well stocked treat cupboard at home. it was only as an adult when i moved out of home that i gained any weight.
I think most kids would binge eat treats if they thought there would be no repercussions. I wouldn't have done it as a child either because I know there would have been repercussions. But I wanted to. I wanted to eat the whole jar of cookies and ruin my appetite for dinner. I think it's is fair to say that most kids want to.4 -
I think the healthy snack before cookie thing is stupid. So the kid didn't get a cookie. Boo hoo. The mom needs to stop making a big deal of it. She sounds ridiculous.7
-
9
-
As someone earlier said, I'm NOT on board with offering the cookie as a "prize" for eating a healthy snack. What a terrible way to foster bad eating habits...
Wouldn't the whole thing be easier if they had only healthy snacks most of the time? If you're hungry today, have some more carrots or another apple. No problem!
Then just have cookies occasionally as a treat, and give one to each child (as long as they want one).
And if you're hungry after your cookie, then hey all the healthy snacks are here too.
It seems too simple, right?10 -
WeepingAngel81 wrote: »I am in a mom group on facebook, and yesterday there was a post created that had me wondering what other parents here think.
A child refused to eat the healthy snack that was offered to her. The deal was, if you eat your healthy snack, you can have a cookie. She was not given a cookie, and according to the mom posting, she was the only one not given a cookie. The mom the asked for other opinions.
Too bad, life is a *kitten* sometimes. If she followed the rule she would have gotten a cookie (even though I don't think they should be offered in the first place)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5diMImYIIA 6 -
This story and the reactions gave me a good laugh.
Thanks for this.
It too showed me, why the world is as it is today.
It has something to do with rules and how we handle them.
What the teacher did was playing a game (quid pro quo) and set up the rules for this game.
Every participant of the game knew the rules and had the choice to act accordingly.
Knowing and accepting that in a game (as well as in the real world) any action will cause a reaction and therefore has consequences.
One participant now chose a more creative solution by trying to bend the rules and complaining when the consequences came ...
Acceptable behaviour?
Should this even be rewarded?
Lets take this some serious levels higher:
Rule: If you kill somebody you will go to jail for a very long time
Here we have the same most basic rule-construction as in the opening example: Premise and consequence.
I'm quite sure that no one of those that opted for "The kid should get the cookie anyhow, because it surely knows best" will opt for "The man should not go to jail, since obviously he knew better who should live and who shouldn't".
I know that this is a very exaggerated example ...
Is it?
How many steps does it take from "If I run to Mom I'll get the cookie anyhow" over "Rules only apply to those stupid enough to live by them" to "Hey, this guy used up the space where I wanted to be"?
The teacher didn't do anything wrong.
She did her job, she tried to teach her pupils a lesson.
The parents now perverted exactly this lesson.
Lets see how many of the pupils will play by the rules the next time a game is played.
Lets just hope no one gets hurt
Thank you so very much.11 -
WeepingAngel81 wrote: »WeepingAngel81 wrote: »
Okay, so what if the kid isn't hungry enough for two snacks? Sorry, kid, no cookie for you -- you just get the apple? That seems pretty harsh, if the cookies have already been offered.
I am saying they should have 2 healthy options such as carrots or apples. Not necessarily carrots or cookie. If they are offered carrot or apple, and then if you are still hungry you can have a cookie, I don't see that as harsh.
So would you as at teacher want to have to administer this for 20-30 kids? Or as a team of cafeteria workers have each of your teammates responsible to do this for maybe 50-75 kids?
Just offer 1-2 healthy snacks from the school. No school employee wants to have to make sure a kid ate one thing before they could have something else.2 -
WeepingAngel81 wrote: »WeepingAngel81 wrote: »
Okay, so what if the kid isn't hungry enough for two snacks? Sorry, kid, no cookie for you -- you just get the apple? That seems pretty harsh, if the cookies have already been offered.
I am saying they should have 2 healthy options such as carrots or apples. Not necessarily carrots or cookie. If they are offered carrot or apple, and then if you are still hungry you can have a cookie, I don't see that as harsh.
Except in effect what this does is only give "treats" to kids with larger appetites or higher caloric needs. If one petite young girl is full after her "healthy" choice, but the tall boy next to her still has room for a cookie (and gets one), the school is effectively just rewarding those who eat more. What kind of message do you think that sends to the kids? What kind of message do you think it sends to set up "healthy" food as an obstacle you must clear to get "treats?" I don't understand the point of offering cookies at all if the school doesn't want kids eating them. If the point is "to coerce kids into choosing a healthy snack," it seems the easier and more logical route would be to only offer healthy snacks.
Yes, it would be easier and more logical to only offer healthy snacks. Maybe in this case, this is what the school will end up doing.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »TavistockToad wrote: »WeepingAngel81 wrote: »My kids, like any other kids, will go on a binge when I am not home.
Really? that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it? i never binged as a kid, and we always had a well stocked treat cupboard at home. it was only as an adult when i moved out of home that i gained any weight.
I think most kids would binge eat treats if they thought there would be no repercussions. I wouldn't have done it as a child either because I know there would have been repercussions. But I wanted to. I wanted to eat the whole jar of cookies and ruin my appetite for dinner. I think it's is fair to say that most kids want to.
Yes! I was the exact same way when I was a kid. I remember selling some kind of chocolate bars for band. They were $1 each. I knew that if I ate that candy I would have to pay for them. It didn't stop me from having a few, but I didn't want to pay for all 50 of them that were sent home with us,
1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »WeepingAngel81 wrote: »WeepingAngel81 wrote: »
Okay, so what if the kid isn't hungry enough for two snacks? Sorry, kid, no cookie for you -- you just get the apple? That seems pretty harsh, if the cookies have already been offered.
I am saying they should have 2 healthy options such as carrots or apples. Not necessarily carrots or cookie. If they are offered carrot or apple, and then if you are still hungry you can have a cookie, I don't see that as harsh.
So would you as at teacher want to have to administer this for 20-30 kids? Or as a team of cafeteria workers have each of your teammates responsible to do this for maybe 50-75 kids?
Just offer 1-2 healthy snacks from the school. No school employee wants to have to make sure a kid ate one thing before they could have something else.
You make a good point. No, I wouldn't want to be the one to administer this. Which would lead to one of the other suggestions of not having any cookies to begin with. This would make it easier on the teachers and whoever else is giving the snacks.
2 -
She wasn't there and doesn't know that nobody else got a cookie. I think that requiring kids to eat one snack before they get the treat encourages overeating but this isn't something I would complain about. Life is full of stupid rules and kids need to learn that. Are stupid rules a good thing? No. But better to learn this as a small child than grow up to be the constant complainer, constant whiner about how things aren't fair.6
-
WeepingAngel81 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »WeepingAngel81 wrote: »WeepingAngel81 wrote: »
Okay, so what if the kid isn't hungry enough for two snacks? Sorry, kid, no cookie for you -- you just get the apple? That seems pretty harsh, if the cookies have already been offered.
I am saying they should have 2 healthy options such as carrots or apples. Not necessarily carrots or cookie. If they are offered carrot or apple, and then if you are still hungry you can have a cookie, I don't see that as harsh.
So would you as at teacher want to have to administer this for 20-30 kids? Or as a team of cafeteria workers have each of your teammates responsible to do this for maybe 50-75 kids?
Just offer 1-2 healthy snacks from the school. No school employee wants to have to make sure a kid ate one thing before they could have something else.
You make a good point. No, I wouldn't want to be the one to administer this. Which would lead to one of the other suggestions of not having any cookies to begin with. This would make it easier on the teachers and whoever else is giving the snacks.
Suggest on the Facebook post that the complaining mom go to the school every day to ensure the policy is followed as written.
That ought to shut her up.7 -
Not sure why the school is offering snacks at all, but this seems like a variation on the theme of "eat your veg or no dessert" that seems pretty common? Also, those who for whatever reason end up eating less (eg if they're on a 1200kcal target here!) need to make smarter choices with their food to get adequate nutrients. That's also similar to this incident - eat the more nutritious stuff first. This seems to reflect real life in several useful ways - in particular that real life doesn't always match up with any given notion of fairness.3
-
Children will always choose desire over common sense. It's up to adults to help the child to build good habits. Personally, I don't think cookies should have been offered at all. In my home, there is no desert. There is no sweet reward for doing what is expected of you. This creates a mind set that they should be rewarded for eating right which can lead to over eating later on in life instead of eating till you are full.
Remember the "Finish what's on your plate if you want desert." from childhood? Remember eating past the point of full just for a cookie or ice cream cone? Anyone regret or resent their parents for teaching them that? I do. I won't make my kids fat.. Junk is reserved for special occasions like birthdays and holidays.3 -
GlassAngyl wrote: »Children will always choose desire over common sense. It's up to adults to help the child to build good habits. Personally, I don't think cookies should have been offered at all. In my home, there is no desert. There is no sweet reward for doing what is expected of you. This creates a mind set that they should be rewarded for eating right which can lead to over eating later on in life instead of eating till you are full.
Remember the "Finish what's on your plate if you want desert." from childhood? Remember eating past the point of full just for a cookie or ice cream cone? Anyone regret or resent their parents for teaching them that? I do. I won't make my kids fat.. Junk is reserved for special occasions like birthdays and holidays.
I grew up in a finish what's on your plate if you want dessert home. I think it taught me good habits by teaching me which foods are important for health and which are treats.5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions