School dinners

[flymo]

<rant> How dare a school even contemplate banning what we choose to feed our children with. I would like to kindly remind them who the parents are. Do us a favour, teach them to the best of your ability and butt out of the rest please. </rant>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23285884

[daveyrach]

Agree wholeheartedly!

[The Idle Biker]

Assuming that parents know best, but many don't. They feed their kids pack lunch cr@p and that affects the kids ability to learn.

I wonder if the initiative is based on helping the kids eat well to learn well or making money out of the school dinner service?

Not sure, but did you you see the size of the healthy dinner portions, I'd need a good old nap in the afternoon after that lot. I'd never make it through it double maths.

[flymo]

Assuming that parents know best, but many don't. They feed their kids pack lunch cr@p and that affects the kids ability to learn.

I wonder if the initiative is based on helping the kids eat well to learn well or making money out of the school dinner service?

Not sure, but did you you see the size of the healthy dinner portions, I'd need a good old nap in the afternoon after that lot. I'd never make it through it double maths.

I'm sure the intentions are sound, but the approach isn't. They can offer advice, that's fine, but I think this is overstepping the mark.

[jambo]

Personally I liked school dinners. I'm in 2 minds about this, I can see where they're going with it, but I'm not sure it's the right approach to get parents on-board which is what they need to do.

If the school meals are good quality and cheap, and the parents are engaged in what the kids are being fed, then hopefully the kids will eat at the canteen. However, it's hard to demand that parents have to pay the school to provide a meal, and enforce a policy that there's no alternative without getting people's backs up.

It'd be nice to think every school kitchen was being run by Jamie Oliver, and that to take in a packed lunch would be massively missing out, but I suspect we're a way from that just yet...

Jambo

[flymo]

Personally I liked school dinners. I'm in 2 minds about this, I can see where they're going with it, but I'm not sure it's the right approach to get parents on-board which is what they need to do.

If the school meals are good quality and cheap, and the parents are engaged in what the kids are being fed, then hopefully the kids will eat at the canteen. However, it's hard to demand that parents have to pay the school to provide a meal, and enforce a policy that there's no alternative without getting people's backs up.

It'd be nice to think every school kitchen was being run by Jamie Oliver, and that to take in a packed lunch would be massively missing out, but I suspect we're a way from that just yet...

Jambo

I agree. Our school canteen is pretty good as it happens, they invited parents in on a parents evening and let them taste what was on offer etc.

[Jackie_Black]

If they are going to do it the food needs to be better. I would never eat in the canteen where I work. It's all just yellow foods (pizza etc). Parents need to stop their kids drinking energy drinks and stuff though. There's nothing more unteachable than a 13 year old kid who has just had a litre of blue charge.:confused:

[NTECUK]

My son goes to an Accadamy.So they don't have to comply.
Just another way of pushing accadimies through by the back door:smt018

[NTECUK]

If they are going to do it the food needs to be better. I would never eat in the canteen where I work. It's all just yellow foods (pizza etc). Parents need to stop their kids drinking energy drinks and stuff though. There's nothing more unteachable than a 13 year old kid who has just had a litre of blue charge.:confused:
How you going to stop them using there pocket mony and going to the local shop.
Ban ther allowance???

[Dave20046]

Having seen infants from deprived backgrounds appearing at school with half a tin of god knows how old baked beans for lunch (without cutlery) I kind of see where this could be of benefit. Enforcing nationally though?! No. Giving schools the power to enforce it?maybe.


P.s. they weren't even Heinz!

[Dave20046]

Ironically I always had a packed lunch as the school dinners were fairly unhealthy

[maviczap]

I'm sure the intentions are sound, but the approach isn't. They can offer advice, that's fine, but I think this is overstepping the mark.

+1

If they are going to do it the food needs to be better. I would never eat in the canteen where I work. It's all just yellow foods (pizza etc). Parents need to stop their kids drinking energy drinks and stuff though. There's nothing more unteachable than a 13 year old kid who has just had a litre of blue charge.:confused:

Also +1 they've got to set an agreed standard so the kids will eat it.

What they can't do a lot about is kids going out of school to get chips,energy drinks etc etc. Or the daft parents who were getting orders for chips etc and delivering them over the fence :confused:

Both my kids have packed lunches, the eldest eats like a sparrow, so it grumpy by the time she gets home because she hasn't eaten enough, and wouldn't have school dinners anyway.

The youngest has school dinners Mon - Wed & then packed lunch, but that's only because they have 'Pick'n Mix' lunches, jelly, hot dogs, fruit, which she likes but doesn't sound like a particularly good nutritional meal to be served up by a school?

But when I was in 6th form I used to have chips one day, and a packet of custard creams the next, I still weigh pretty much what I did then, which was nearly 40 years ago!

[Messie]

Surprisingly, despite the obvious health and behaviour benefits, teachers do not want another 'ban' that they have to enforce.
It's another one of the current government's ideas, designed to appeal to the non-thinkers.
Several points to make...
There are guidelines that some schools have to follow about nutritional values - however Academies are exempt
If we ban packed lunches how do we stop kids having their own food/drink in their bags?
If we, the teachers, are expected to 'police' the ban, when do we get our lunch break?
The kids at my school are not allowed out at lunchtime - doesn't stop them eating sugary, fatty crap though
The health and concentration benefits of a balanced healthy meal are obvious to many but not to some. Education and reward is the key, not big hammer banning.

PS most of what I've put probably applies more to Secondary school rather than Primaries

[dirtydog]

Well our youngest starts primary school in September and the school has already given a list if what is and isnt allowed in her packed lunch. No chocolate at all, no crisps, no peanut butter (the peanut butter probs more to do with allergies though) only allowed water to drink, no squash, fruit juice etc just water. The schoo, lunches they opted out of the local council ones because they felt the food wasn't right for wee ones. Basically the menu was stuff like fajitas etc and that the menus were more aimed at 7+ years and they found the younger ones wouldn't eat a lot of the food. So now they have stuff like roasts, now and again fish and chips, home made chicken/fish goujons etc

[Jackie_Black]

I don't want to ban anything for the kids. I really want them to make the right choice and keep off the taurine laced beverages though.

No way should we be making them eat school dinners unless they are improved. A lot of parents are better equipped to feed their children than schools. It's hard enough trying to teach them never mind feeding them the correct balance of macronutrients.

[L3nny]

What a load of old crap, when I was at school, which wasn't that long ago, pies, chips, cheapo sausages and fatty sandwiches were the staple of school dinners all washed down with sugar laced panda pops and followed by a bar of chocolate.

Some of the kids who went to my school even got a job when they left.

[Specialone]

It's been proved that healthy eating has a positive effect on children's learning and behaviour, so in that respect, it's a good idea to try and get kids to eat better.

But, as messie said, education is the way not the 'ban hammer', this just creates a rebellious attitude from parents and food and drink will be smuggled in.

I don't see why sugar free squash can't be used instead of plain water, if it encourages more water being taken on board, thats gotta be a positive surely.

You'll never stop some stupid parents though who don't see any harm in feeding their kids pizza and turkey twizzlers every day.

[kaivalagi]

What a load of old crap, when I was at school, which wasn't that long ago, pies, chips, cheapo sausages and fatty sandwiches were the staple of school dinners all washed down with sugar laced panda pops and followed by a bar of chocolate.

Some of the kids who went to my school even got a job when they left.

You know I sort of agree with you, this is overboard for sure, especially when compared to the other far far more important issues. There are more important things like a parents support with homework or just generally taking an interest in what your kids have been up too all day (if they can remember!). If there is the wrong mental attitude nothing else will matter, good diet or not.

Yes in our well informed society it is known that a good diet is beneficial for so many reasons but I think the whole nanny state thing where people are not left to their own devices but instead forced to do the "right" PC thing all the time is a tad much.

Alright so in this case we may be helping some less fortunate children to eat properly etc etc but that could be dealt with on an individual basis if it's so important. The trouble is with all this comes a reduction in general freedoms because the government / some jumped up head teachers (probably child less) think the average joe doesn't know best.....

If my kids went to this school I would be having it out with the head teacher, listing what I plan on feeding my kids in their packed lunches and not paying for mediocre school dinners...what's the school going to do? Remove kids packed lunches and not let them eat anything at all?

[rowdy]

Trouble is, if they ban pack lunches then there is a good chance a fair few pupils will skip lunch all together if they don't like any of the healthy options. I agree, there are people that put a lot of crap in their kids lunch boxes, but eating nothing at all is not healthy either.

As for school dinners, I have two children that both go to a school that are both on the same site, but the primary school is separate from the secondary school. The primary school used to offer school dinners and they were fairly good, but this stopped and they have to take pack lunches now.
The secondary school has a canteen. It does offer some healthy options, but also a lot of crap as well.
This school uses the parent pay facility, which is the only way the students can pay for their lunches to stop bullying and kids nicking dinner money off other kids. On the parent pay website you can check what food your child has had each day, and needless to say because of the choice, my eldest is often opting for bacon rolls, hot dogs, cakes etc. The prices used to be reasonable, but have recently been increased, by a fair bit.

We have also had the problem, with one or two of my sons friends being from fairly hard up families, is that he was also buying them their lunch as well, which was getting rather expensive!

[Bluepete]

http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk24/conker51/best_photos_of_the_week_80_photos16_zpsee197321.jp g

[Spank86]

<rant> How dare a school even contemplate banning what we choose to feed our children with. I would like to kindly remind them who the parents are. Do us a favour, teach them to the best of your ability and butt out of the rest please. </rant>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23285884

Because not all parents feed their children a sensible diet and we all have to pay for their healthcare if it has long term effects.

You might equally say how dare they interfere with what you teach your children, it's a school, they act in loco parentis in your absence and thus have a right to look after the well being of that child for the duration.

I'm sure the intentions are sound, but the approach isn't. They can offer advice, that's fine, but I think this is overstepping the mark.
fine, take your kids out of school then.


Trouble is, if they ban pack lunches then there is a good chance a fair few pupils will skip lunch all together if they don't like any of the healthy options. I agree, there are people that put a lot of crap in their kids lunch boxes, but eating nothing at all is not healthy either.

never did me any harm

[Spank86]

It's another one of the current government's ideas, designed to appeal to the non-thinkers...

Say what you really feel, don't beat about he bush. Clearly anyone that disagrees with you is stupid and doesn't think.


There are guidelines that some schools have to follow about nutritional values - however Academies are exempt
that's not a problem with the legislation merely it's scope.

If we ban packed lunches how do we stop kids having their own food/drink in their bags?
If you ban fighting how do you stop kids hitting each other?

Oh right, you can't, but you do reduce the problem purely by having the ban and reduce it further by dealing with transgressions.


If we, the teachers, are expected to 'police' the ban, when do we get our lunch break?
Same as normal you already have some teachers with playtime duties and dinner ladies, It's hardly going to need stazi levels of monitoring.

The kids at my school are not allowed out at lunchtime - doesn't stop them eating sugary, fatty crap though
it would do if they weren't allowed to bring the crap in with them or go out and if a lot of them ARE going out that's a bit of a failure in the schools duty of care.


The health and concentration benefits of a balanced healthy meal are obvious to many but not to some. Education and reward is the key, not big hammer banning.
both would be good, education takes time Plus humans are innately bad at adopting shall we say "painful habits" for long term future reward, the younger the worse.


PS most of what I've put probably applies more to Secondary school rather than Primaries

You're right and I think this legislation would be better phased in gradually from a primary level to build good habits early. then by the time they got to secondary you would have much less of a problem to contend with.

[PyroUK]

I used to yearn for "crappy" school dinners as a kid, but that's because my parents sent me to school with a packed lunch that would put a lot of the other kids dinners to shame. It was all very good and health but as a small child being the odd one out made me feel like crap. The woes of being from a different culture *ho hum*

I loved the odd day I could get potato smileys and turkey twizlers and cheesy chips!

To be fair, if the schools dinner was reasonably priced, well balanced and most of all appealing to the kids, I think a lot of parents would prefer it in some circumstances. If you have a hectic life amd it's rush out the door type stuff, one less thing to do is better surely?

On the flip side I can see it angering the decent sensible parents who actually make good lunches for their kids that are balanced and what the kids want who are being told what to do.

It's all swings and roundabouts, it will be good for some and not so good for other parents.

Agree a staged principle is better, get them used to it younger so it isn't a shock later.

[kaivalagi]

Because not all parents feed their children a sensible diet and we all have to pay for their healthcare if it has long term effects.
So if you ride a motorcycle or smoke or drink alcohol should you be forced to stop that too, should we ban it all....it all adds to the cost of running the NHS right? We can provide guidelines for sensible living etc but we shouldn't try to enforce it, it's a loss of our liberties.

In general I just don't buy it, it's all PC b0ll0cks to my mind. At the end of the day how can there be this notion of stopping parents providing packed lunches when you look at the state of a lot of the school dinners available, it's a little hypocritical really for a school system to suggest such a thing when they can't get what they provide for the kids right a lot of the time either...

I know some schools provide good food but a lot don't, it's the same with packed lunches right?

Should be pro-choice...end of

[21QUEST]

So if you ride a motorcycle or smoke or drink alcohol should you be forced to stop that too, should we ban it all....it all adds to the cost of running the NHS right? We can provide guidelines for sensible living etc but we shouldn't try to enforce it, it's a loss of our liberties.

In general I just don't buy it, it's all PC b0ll0cks to my mind. At the end of the day how can there be this notion of stopping parents providing packed lunches when you look at the state of a lot of the school dinners available, it's a little hypocritical really for a school system to suggest such a thing when they can't get what they provide for the kids right a lot of the time either...

I know some schools provide good food but a lot don't, it's the same with packed lunches right?

Should be pro-choice...end of

THIS!!

I've not bothered reading most of the other posts in details but at the end of the day, the answer is pretty much as the man says...IMO or course.

Perhaps we should also put a limit on how 'Fatty level' :D allowed for MPs and/or the civil servants who come up with these sort of nonsense...leading by example, as the saying goes.

[Spank86]

So if you ride a motorcycle or smoke or drink alcohol should you be forced to stop that too, should we ban it all....it all adds to the cost of running the NHS right? We can provide guidelines for sensible living etc but we shouldn't try to enforce it, it's a loss of our liberties.
I'm not a child.

And you'll note that children are not allowed to do the things you suggest no matter what their parents would like.

shock horror.



Should be pro-choice...end of
but it's not the childs choice. It's the choice made for the child either by the parent or the school.

And yes school dinners need to be improved too.

[kaivalagi]

I'm not a child.

And you'll note that children are not allowed to do the things you suggest no matter what their parents would like.

shock horror.

Not sure what you are trying to point out here? Isn't the basic issue here that a school can't accept that parents make the right choice for a child's lunch?

Does the child make the packed lunch? Mine don't and neither do most others.

but it's not the childs choice. It's the choice made for the child either by the parent or the school..

Exactly, who makes the packed lunches again? Pro-choice for the parents to make the packed lunches how they see fit.

In fact you've made a valid point, if the children have to eat school dinners and not what's in their packed lunch then they will likely have a choice to make as far as their nutrition to some degree...the school will no doubt ensure there is lots of choice as the canteen is more or less a business after all...

I just don't understand how anyone can defend a school making choices for children where a parent was previously the main decision maker...suggest/guide by all means, I'll welcome that and sometimes seek advice of course but they ain't taking over when it comes to my kids!

[Spank86]

Not sure what you are trying to point out here? Isn't the basic issue here that a school can't accept that parents make the right choice for a child's lunch?

Does the child make the packed lunch? Mine don't and neither do most others.

the point is that I make an informed adult decision about these things for myself only, children cannot by definition and so an adult must make that decision for them and if parents make the wrong decisions for child raising it is a long accepted practice that the state steps in to protect the child.



Exactly, who makes the packed lunches again? Pro-choice for the parents to make the packed lunches how they see fit.
parents. They make decisions that could have long lasting consequences on the childs health, education and general well being, the state has to mitigate the effects if the choices are bad.
Would you be pro the choice to put dangerous chemicals in a packed lunch?.. but you are pro the choice to provide a child with poor nutrition for 15 years of their life which could have equally bad effects?


In fact you've made a valid point, if the children have to eat school dinners and not what's in their packed lunch then they will likely have a choice to make as far as their nutrition to some degree...the school will no doubt ensure there is lots of choice as the canteen is more or less a business after all...

some choice, from a selection that ought to be regulated.


I just don't understand how anyone can defend a school making choices for children where a parent was previously the main decision maker...suggest/guide by all means, I'll welcome that and sometimes seek advice of course but they ain't taking bloody over when it comes to my kids!
Because thats the role of the state and schools. They exist precisely to remove the possibilities of bad choices from parents and other apparatus like social services exist to remove other bad choices if parents are even worse. Try not to take it personally, not everyone is you or makes good choices for their kids. The state already makes thousands of choices for both you and your kids every day, this is one more and in a lot of cases it's a good one.

[kaivalagi]

I get what you are saying Spank86 I do, and for some of the more neglecting parents it would be a help but for the majority I think not.

I assume you have your own children in school? In general would you allow the school to remove choices you would normally make for your own children to benefit all children equally, even if it would make no difference for most kids? i.e. lose your own choices in matters where you did nothing wrong before?

If the school/state are so concerned about a child's nutrition then why not educate/assist the individual parents who are providing a poor excuse for a lunch? Why does it have to be that all are affected because of a select few.

I think what my child eats should be up to me no matter if you think it's a wrong choice I am making as I love my children and look after them to the best of my ability and that should be enough. The only time the state should get involved is if social services would normally be brought in IMHO.

I'll shut up now / rant over, it's obvious it's all about the balance between state/school involvement to better a child's future versus the care parents give (or not) for their loved ones. As you can tell I've had enough of a nanny state thinking I don't know what's best for me and mine. The packed lunch saga is just one of those scenarios...

[Spank86]

No I don't have kids in school but I don't think that invalidates my opinions.

I can see why you might think it's not so good an idea but you have to admit that there is an obesity problem in this country and all the education in the world isn't fixing it.

when 1 in 5 people are overweight you have to do something about it at the ground level, you'll never fix this generation now and I don't find it a sensible option to allow the current attitudes to spread.



The thing I don't understand is why people are quite so anti it. I mean yes I can see you not thinking it's a great idea but what do you think the school is going to be feeding your kids that's so bad (or what are you feeding them that's so amazing/terrible?). I just don't understand how it can raise such ire, TBH it might be quite handy for some parents to have schools break a few fussy eating habits.



I'll shut up now / rant over, it's obvious it's all about the balance between state/school involvement to better a child's future versus the care parents give (or not) for their loved ones. As you can tell I've had enough of a nanny state thinking I don't know what's best for me and mine. The packed lunch saga is just one of those scenarios...

And that's all I believe the discussion is. One of balance. There's no big principles involved to my mind, the precedent both ways already exists.

We already turn the responsibilities for many things over to schools this is just one more quite minor one in the grand scheme of things, hell letting schools teach science(and some other subjects) is a far bigger one with the mess they make of it and the "lies for kids" they use to make stuff easier to understand.

[Pete7]

How much is a school dinner now? used to be 12p when I was at school and tasted like it too.

Perhaps I should sue the school for forcing me to eat cabbage and peas that had been boiled to death for at least 3 hours. Don't know what the mash was made of but it wasn't potatoes and the custard was thickened with sugar to save the cost of milk. As a child of the 1970s school dinners were truely dreadful.

I really hope things have changed but our kids had packed lunches. Yes it contained a chocolate biscuit but also fruit etc.

Pete

[yorkie_chris]

I'm not a child.

And you'll note that children are not allowed to do the things you suggest no matter what their parents would like.

shock horror.


I was allowed to motorcycle as a child and thoroughly bloody enjoyed it!

The smoking and drinking I had to do on the sly. However it was almost infinitely healthier than the crap they attempted to serve up as food at school! Sneaking off to the chippy for a fish butty and an ounce of baccy from the shop next to it was the only way to avoid starvation!

[daveyrach]

Because not all parents feed their children a sensible diet and we all have to pay for their healthcare if it has long term effects.

Ban smoking and drinking and anything linked to ill health then, why should I pay for some smokers chronic illness or some alcoholics new liver??

Fact is I feed my children a sensible healthy packed lunch, there is already rules in place that say no nuts or chocolate at my daughters school (apparently for HS reasons) but I will not pay for school dinners when I can feed them a healthy packed lunch for less. And yes that does include fresh vegetables and fruit grown in my own garden! (Shock horror) in fact my girls (3 & 10 years old) grow their own strawberry's with little input from me or their mum!

[flymo]

Parents not doing right by their children is a matter to take up with the individual parents, not a reason to take the responsibility away from all.

Is the next suggestion that the authorities are going to pop round at 8pm and make sure the kids are tucked up in bed? What a load of tosh.

[Spank86]

Ban smoking and drinking and anything linked to ill health then, why should I pay for some smokers chronic illness or some alcoholics new liver??

Come back to me when it's children smoking and drinking alcohol. Once you become an adult you make your own decisions but studies show that children who become fat find it far far harder to do anything about their weight in later life, it stays with them and does much more damage because it was there at an early age.



Fact is I feed my children a sensible healthy packed lunch, there is already rules in place that say no nuts or chocolate at my daughters school (apparently for HS reasons) but I will not pay for school dinners when I can feed them a healthy packed lunch for less. And yes that does include fresh vegetables and fruit grown in my own garden! (Shock horror) in fact my girls (3 & 10 years old) grow their own strawberry's with little input from me or their mum!
anecdotes are lovely to hear but not a sound basis for national policies.

Parents not doing right by their children is a matter to take up with the individual parents, not a reason to take the responsibility away from all.
Good point, lets scrap the education system and let parents teach their own kids or pay for their own schools.

[daveyrach]

Do studies also not show that children from poorer backgrounds are more likely to be obese, the same children that are already entitled to free school meals?

I agree with what Flymo says also but what ever they do will be incredibly difficult to police, will it mean bailiffs if parents refuse to pay for school meals a lot of children just wouldn't eat.

[Spank86]

Bit like the laws on mobile phones whilst driving then.

[daveyrach]

Exactly, all this debate is all very well but I personally believe its unenforceable. Like a lot of the carp that comes out of Westminster recently.

[flymo]

Good point, lets scrap the education system and let parents teach their own kids or pay for their own schools.

I appear to have run out of troll food, sorry about that.

[Amadeus]

If the headline was "Free school lunches for all" one would probably (depending on where you live in the country of course) say "Oh, that's a good thing".
In my mind, all this is is exactly that - the offer of free lunches for all. I doubt teachers will be expected to search every child for food/sweets etc. Most parents would surely think that it would be a good thing, just on household economics; the sort of parent who gives a child redbull and Wotsits for their lunch probably isn't the brightest of individuals and will probably continue to feed their child rubbish, quite possibly impacting their educational growth.

[daveyrach]

If the headline was "Free school lunches for all" one would probably (depending on where you live in the country of course) say "Oh, that's a good thing".
In my mind, all this is is exactly that - the offer of free lunches for all. I doubt teachers will be expected to search every child for food/sweets etc. Most parents would surely think that it would be a good thing, just on household economics; the sort of parent who gives a child redbull and Wotsits for their lunch probably isn't the brightest of individuals and will probably continue to feed their child rubbish, quite possibly impacting their educational growth.

This, they are not physically allowed to search children or their bags

[Spank86]

I appear to have run out of troll food, sorry about that.
I'm serious, you either accept that you place your children in the care of teachers or you don't.

It's that simple, why draw arbitrary lines about food and not other things.

Exactly, all this debate is all very well but I personally believe its unenforceable. Like a lot of the carp that comes out of Westminster recently.
it will be 90% self enforced. the kids are in an enclosed environment after all.

[yorkie_chris]

School dinners were expensive compared to butties when I was at school too.

[Messie]

Yes we are * in response to post #41

NUT Pupil Behaviour: Advice and Guidance for Teachers (November 2011)


1. You can search a pupil for any item banned underthe school rules, if the pupil agrees to be searched. School staff who have been authorised by thehead teacher can search pupils, with their consent, under the Education andInspections Act 2006 as part of their authority to discipline.



2. School staff can also, under Section 45 ofViolent Crime Reduction Act 2006, search pupils without their consent where they suspect a pupil has prohibiteditems. The items that can be searchedfor under this power (currently) are knives or weapons, alcohol, illegal drugsand stolen items. It is a criminaloffence to bring a weapon such as a knife to school. This list may be extended in the future bylegislation.

However, we have far better things to do than check kids bags and pockets for sweet or fatty foods

[Messie]

it will be 90% self enforced. the kids are in an enclosed environment after all.


:smt046

[daveyrach]

Yes we are * in response to post #41

NUT Pupil Behaviour: Advice and Guidance for Teachers (November 2011)


1. You can search a pupil for any item banned underthe school rules, if the pupil agrees to be searched. School staff who have been authorised by thehead teacher can search pupils, with their consent, under the Education andInspections Act 2006 as part of their authority to discipline.



2. School staff can also, under Section 45 ofViolent Crime Reduction Act 2006, search pupils without their consent where they suspect a pupil has prohibiteditems. The items that can be searchedfor under this power (currently) are knives or weapons, alcohol, illegal drugsand stolen items. It is a criminaloffence to bring a weapon such as a knife to school. This list may be extended in the future bylegislation.

However, we have far better things to do than check kids bags and pockets for sweet or fatty foods

My son attends a specialist deaf school which is not a state school so does not fall under the local authority rules, hence why he finished for summer 2 weeks ago and goes back a week before my daughters.

Added to which the school insist they cannot search him or his bag even with my consent, I've never looked into it any further tbh.

[timwilky]

My experience of my kids/grand kids school lunches are :-

The meals are generally poor quality cooked to a budget. But the kids introduce pester power, johhny has crisp/chocolate with his lunch I want too.

It is no win. My grandson had a letter sent home telling his mum he was underweight. He eats extremely well. He is a powerhouse running on full steam. My picky grand daughter who eats very little had the opposite letter saying she is obese. Should schools be in the job of looking at the weight/diets of 6&7 year olds? and making judgments.

[Spank86]

:smt046
I agree, which is why you have to build good habits at primary school.

[Amadeus]

I agree, which is why you have to build good habits at primary school.

http://acidcow.com/pics/20101125/giant_halibut_02.jpg

[Spank86]

no, you've lost me there.

[Sid Squid]

I'm serious, you either accept that you place your children in the care of teachers or you don't.

It's that simple, why draw arbitrary lines about food and not other things.
It's not simple and I find it hard to believe that you're being serious, even children live in a free country*. As such they and their parents may make the choices they wish to, whether good, bad or indifferent. The state has absolutely no business whatsoever deciding what people - even children - eat.



* Don't anyone start a ruck about that - different question entirely.

[PyroUK]

http://acidcow.com/pics/20101125/giant_halibut_02.jpg

Now that with a plate of chips!! Mmmmmm

[flymo]

It's not simple and I find it hard to believe that you're being serious, even children live in a free country*. As such they and their parents may make the choices they wish to, whether good, bad or indifferent. The state has absolutely no business whatsoever deciding what people - even children - eat.





+1

[Messie]

It's not simple and I find it hard to believe that you're being serious, even children live in a free country*. As such they and their parents may make the choices they wish to, whether good, bad or indifferent. The state has absolutely no business whatsoever deciding what people - even children - eat.



* Don't anyone start a ruck about that - different question entirely.

This country maybe free (again, I don't care to argue this one here) but once they are inside our fences and walls are kids are not.

They have to do up their tie, roll down their skirt, take off the nail varnish and wear the correct colour shoes. They mustn't run in the corridor nor eat in the non-designated areas. They may not use their phones within the school walls not walk around with earphones in their ears.

Clearly at least 90% of students adhere to these rules at all times (they must have been trained in Primary School ;) ). and what the lazy teachers, who do not need any lunch break themselves, need to do is check they are eating regulation food.
That's when we're not anxiously planning for The Gove to spray his next ill thought out spit of a hammer to beat us all with.

I love my job x

[Spank86]

It's not simple and I find it hard to believe that you're being serious, even children live in a free country*. As such they and their parents may make the choices they wish to, whether good, bad or indifferent. The state has absolutely no business whatsoever deciding what people - even children - eat.

ignoring your asterisked point, parents don't get to make free choice for children. Many choices are made for them in schools this is just another one.

Outside of school the state can also intervene in a child's upbringing in many ways TBH the only reason i could see anyone getting upset about this is if they wanted to raise a vegan child or something and that wasn't catered for (health issues aside). It's frigging lunch not sodomy101.

[Spank86]

Clearly at least 90% of students adhere to these rules at all times (they must have been trained in Primary School ;) ).

Are you suggesting they don't at your school? because the vast majority certainly did at the schools I attended. Wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to why.


and what the lazy teachers, who do not need any lunch break themselves, need to do is check they are eating regulation food.
You wouldn't need to check if the food was supplied, or are you suggesting there would be a flood of children swarming over the fences and down to the shops every lunchtime and that all the teachers would need to don riot gear and employ water cannons to stop them?

or would a few of the usual suspects avoid the ban and most go along with it because they couldn't be arsed to do otherwise.

[Messie]

Spank - just go and get real will you please. The theoretical argument for compulsory school meals may have some (dictatorship-like) qualities, but in the real world this won't and can't happen.

Personally I would like to be sure that each child has clean ears, as I think it's good for their well-being (NB silly example for the purposes of discussion) but there is no way I could or should check each and every day that such cleanliness is the case.
We are teachers, in a school. Our job is to educate children so that they pass the tests that open the doors for the next thing they want to do. Other sorts of care are the jjob of different people.

Spank - are you also known as Ralph?

[Spank86]

Spank - just go and get real will you please. The theoretical argument for compulsory school meals may have some (dictatorship-like) qualities, but in the real world this won't and can't happen.

Because of the potential for a black market sandwich system? I seriously doubt it would require massive enforcement if as I said implemented from the start of the school system


Personally I would like to be sure that each child has clean ears, as I think it's good for their well-being (NB silly example for the purposes of discussion) but there is no way I could or should check each and every day that such cleanliness is the case.
It might help them listen but in your example there would be no need to check every child every day, ears dont get clogged that quick.


We are teachers, in a school. Our job is to educate children so that they pass the tests that open the doors for the next thing they want to do. Other sorts of care are the jjob of different people.
What are you anticipating having to do differently? given that meals would presumably be provided at a central location by a team of dinner ladies?

One would have thought hey would have lunch duties as they do in lots of primary schools, if anything that could reduce what you have to do.


Spank - are you also known as Ralph?
Isn't there some sort of forum guideline about peing personally offensive or does it not apply to mods? I only ask because you started off this thread heavily implying that anyone who didn't agree with you "didn't think", or to paraphrase "is stupid" and your latter posts haven't improved, using mild language doesn't mitigate the intent.

[Messie]

Oh ffs.
How on earth does being asked if you are also called Ralph class as being personally offensive?
Mild language - now I know you are just a troll

Now I remember why I kept out of threads where people just want to shout the loudest.

I'm going to regret arguing back but I didn't start off the thread in any way at all. I just put my view as a teacher across, a view that many on here are not witness to.

No wonder the forum has lost so many active members.

Carry on shouting Spank - and have the floor to yourself

[Spank86]

Oh ffs.
How on earth does being asked if you are also called Ralph class as being personally offensive?
There's no way I can answer that without joining you. It clearly wasnt an inquiry as to my real name and you can't pretend it was.

Mild language - now I know you are just a troll
As oppose to overtly offensive language and now you're doing it again. I've asked nicely.

I'm going to regret arguing back but I didn't start off the thread in any way at all. I just put my view as a teacher across, a view that many on here are not witness to.


It's another one of the current government's ideas, designed to appeal to the non-thinkers.

I beg to differ.

And since you don't want to discuss the point, merely be reactionary and now defensive there's no point me "shouting" as you put it or explaining at all.

[yorkie_chris]

To be fair she didn't "start the thread" as in post the original link... maybe it would be better worded "...you started responding to this thread by..."

[Spank86]

To be fair she didn't "start the thread" as in post the original link... maybe it would be better worded "...you started responding to this thread by..."
Apologies if it was misunderstood, I was referring to her start in the thread not trying to say she started the thread.

A poor choice of phrasing on my part perhaps.

[Amadeus]

It's not simple and I find it hard to believe that you're being serious, even children live in a free country*. As such they and their parents may make the choices they wish to, whether good, bad or indifferent. The state has absolutely no business whatsoever deciding what people - even children - eat.

Wow.

I think it's aimed at those parents who either cannot afford to feed their child properly, or they do not have the knowledge to do so.

[flymo]

Mild language - now I know you are just a troll

[...]

Carry on shouting Spank - and have the floor to yourself

totally agree.

[Messie]

Now where is it .....

ah found it....

the ignore button.

And breathe :)

[yorkie_chris]

Amadeus,

In that case if they were aiming at those people then they MISSED!

All the scratters get free school meals anyway. If they're that poor to be turning up (they don't...) with half a tin of baked beans (they're not) then the state pays for their crap meal ticket... which can be usefully traded for fags.

[Amadeus]

To be fair she didn't "start the thread" as in post the original link... maybe it would be better worded "...you started responding to this thread by..."

I thought it was thunder but I realised it was the collective noise of 1000 orgers falling of their chairs is shock at YC being diplomatic! It must be the heat - normal service will be resumed shortly I'm sure. :-)

(And just in case anyone does start suggesting I'm being rude, it was purely TIC and an attempt to lighten the tone)

[daveyrach]

No wonder the forum has lost so many active members.



Agree with this too many 'discussions' like this. The Org used to be a place of friendly banter but there seems to be more n more trolling, it's why I barely post at all coz when you do people literally jump down ur throat.



Sent from my Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk

[Amadeus]

Amadeus,

In that case if they were aiming at those people then they MISSED!

All the scratters get free school meals anyway. If they're that poor to be turning up (they don't...) with half a tin of baked beans (they're not) then the state pays for their crap meal ticket... which can be usefully traded for fags.

Hmm, fair point. I have no idea then!
:-)

[Spank86]

Agree with this too many 'discussions' like this. The Org used to be a place of friendly banter but there seems to be more n more trolling, it's why I barely post at all coz when you do people literally jump down ur throat.

http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/05/before-you-accuse-someone-of-being-troll.html

I was going to drop this thread because I think I've made my reasons as clear as I can but just for future reference, I'm not trolling I simply disagree with you.

If you dislike disagreement (which in itself I never take personally) I'd suggest making it clear in your posts and I'll not direct any comments towards them.


And now I think you've all had more than enough of me for one subject.:smt039

[yorkie_chris]

Agree with this too many 'discussions' like this. The Org used to be a place of friendly banter but there seems to be more n more trolling, it's why I barely post at all coz when you do people literally jump down ur throat.



Sent from my Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk

Doesn't spak regularly ride with some other southern fairies of an .org persuasion?

Nothing wrong with gobsh*tes if they actually do a bit. This is afterall a biking forum and various cores of membership who actually know each other and meet and ride is what you need. We're all grown ups here (well except spank, and davepreston, and lew speight, and badger... actually never mind that bit). Debates become heated, opinions are like *rseholes, grow a thick skin, ride faster than the bloke next to you and never drink with XXbadgerxx .... what more do you need to know...

Hmm, fair point. I have no idea then!
:-)

I tihnk it's just a sh*t idea with absolutely no merit.

[Specialone]

As someone said earlier, surely we can disagree and have an adult discussion without getting personal?

[DJ123]

There have been far worse threads started on/about newbies, Joe Marcon & femaleAcid, to name 2.

TBF I've only been on here 2 years, IMO it's only got busier and better. The GM section has expanded rapidly as have other areas on the forum. There is more banter, personalities and characters before. More of them are newer to the forum and not those who have been on here for a period of time.
Every post you read/write is open to the interpretation of those that read it, we all know that.

[daveyrach]

http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/05/before-you-accuse-someone-of-being-troll.html

I was going to drop this thread because I think I've made my reasons as clear as I can but just for future reference, I'm not trolling I simply disagree with you.

If you dislike disagreement (which in itself I never take personally) I'd suggest making it clear in your posts and I'll not direct any comments towards them.


And now I think you've all had more than enough of me for one subject.:smt039

Ok well I disagree with you. But the impression I got was it was your opinion n no one elses mattered including that of a teacher who woyld be directly affected by these changes.

Sent from my Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk

[Sid Squid]

This country maybe free (again, I don't care to argue this one here)As I requested you shouldn't
but once they are inside our fences and walls are kids are not.
Yes, they really really are. Indeed perhaps they should be the free-est they'll ever be in their lives.

Dear Statists this really isn't hard to understand - as far as their behaviour goes children live in the same free country as the rest of us - whether within school grounds or not - where certain behavioural standards are expected, and which may - and most certainly should - be enforced by considered regulation and suitable chastisement if reasonably expected standards are not met. Think deeper - my being prevented by law from murdering you isn't a compromise of my freedoms - it's an enhancement of all of our freedoms.

This ISN'T in any way connected with what someone puts in their tummy - whether you approve of the foodstuff or not this is NOT a behavioural issue and as such is not in any way the remit of the state or any agent thereof.

ignoring your asterisked pointAs I requested you should.

That's twice now - did I not make myself clear?
parents don't get to make free choice for children. Many choices are made for them in schools this is just another one.
Did you really say that? I confess myself disappointed - I hardly know where to start with that nonsensically errant connection.
Outside of school the state can also intervene in a child's upbringing in many ways TBH the only reason i could see anyone getting upset about this is if they wanted to raise a vegan child or something and that wasn't catered for (health issues aside). It's frigging lunch not sodomy101.
1. If the state feels that a child is being treated in a manner that breaks the law or falls short of that reasonably considered suitable, (whether or not you and/or the agent of the state would consider it a 'good' choice), they have a perfectly well trodden route to intervention, one which I imagine most reasonable people would consider a good thing, if a child were fed from bins you may have a argument, as this is a question of the specifics of the foodstuff the state considers acceptable, you most emphatically do not.
2. It's not 'frigging lunch' it's a facet of state intervention that says nothing about nutrition and a lot about control.

[kaivalagi]

2. It's not 'frigging lunch' it's a facet of state intervention that says nothing about nutrition and a lot about control.
Amen!

[Milky Bar Kid]

Oh my goodness Spank!! Can I firstly point out that you accuse Messie of basically calling anyone who didn't agree with her stupid and a non thinker and then you incessantly argue and shout and stamp your feet as CLEARLY only your opinion is the right one? Get off your box and STFU!

Phew.

Right, I agree with Sid and pretty much everyone else on this thread. The kids who are from poverty stricken families get free meals anyway, and 9/10 these are the kids who have poor lunch boxes anyway. The government needs to stop sticking its oar into these sorts of things in this manner.

When I was at Primary, I remember vividly the teachers bringing in fresh fruit and veg for us all to try and experiment with. This is what works with kids NOT forcing them to eat canteen food. Kids are stubborn. They make choices themselves ALL the time. It's simple, they will dig their heels in and not eat. Or they will sneak biscuits and stuff in.

Also, perhaps being cynical here but have they said anywhere if parents will still have to pay for this? If so, perhaps a ploy to have more money spent on school dinners???

[Spank86]

Oh my goodness Spank!! Can I firstly point out that you accuse Messie of basically calling anyone who didn't agree with her stupid and a non thinker and then you incessantly argue and shout and stamp your feet as CLEARLY only your opinion is the right one? Get off your box and STFU!

I do so hate making myself a hypocrite but I had to return to answer this.
how exactly would you interpret the posts (specifically the first line of hers) I quoted from her?

As for accusing me of arguing, I was under the impression this was a discussion and attempting to get people to explain why they thought it was in infringement of their rights and such a heinous thing to give a child dinner whilst they were in the care of the school. But no0body seemed to want to say anything specific about it. aside from that it was "nanny state BS" or dictatorial or some such.
As it happens I no longer care enough to continue, not if people would prefer agreement.

The only foot stamping in my mind was in response to rudeness, If its come across otherwise I apologies, I'm used to slightly more robust debate on other forums I frequent.

[rowdy]

When I was at Primary, I remember vividly the teachers bringing in fresh fruit and veg for us all to try and experiment with. This is what works with kids NOT forcing them to eat canteen food. Kids are stubborn. They make choices themselves ALL the time. It's simple, they will dig their heels in and not eat. Or they will sneak biscuits and stuff in.

When I was at primary school, I remember vividly the dinner lady presenting me with some sort of pilchard mess that looked like a dog had shat on the plate, and when I refused to eat it I then had said dinner lady force said mess down my throat. That was probably the last school dinner I ate.

Amen for pack lunches :).

[Paul the 6th]

http://www.atheistrev.com/2013/05/before-you-accuse-someone-of-being-troll.html


Dude when you drop a link to an article with "Before you accuse someone of being a troll" as the headline...................

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEdHlYf1J9tWts3drXcAQll63I874VH 7NVhuypqKJlO3ghJ_Y8YQ

[Spank86]

Dude when you drop a link to an article with "Before you accuse someone of being a troll" as the headline...................

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEdHlYf1J9tWts3drXcAQll63I874VH 7NVhuypqKJlO3ghJ_Y8YQ

In my defence I DID wait until after I'd been directly accused of a troll and was using it as part of an explanation of why I'm NOT trolling since there seems to be some misunderstanding.

What would you like the article to be called?

[Paul the 6th]

"Top 5 tips & things to check before playing the troll card in an Internet discussion about a random topical subject on a message board - an idiots guide" would probably help clear up any uncertainty about the article you are referencing during said debate.

N.b. has the potential to level up to douchebag level 10,000 though.

[Paul the 6th]

Ps. You don't seem bothered by the fact I'm inferring you're a douchebag but your feelings were ruffled by someone else asking if your name was Ralph...

Or is it 'cuz she's a mod? Big Trollin' ain't easy :razz:

[Spank86]

"Top 5 tips & things to check before playing the troll card in an Internet discussion about a random topical subject on a message board - an idiots guide" would probably help clear up any uncertainty about the article you are referencing during said debate.

N.b. has the potential to level up to douchebag level 10,000 though.
that would require me to be prepared to imply others are stupid.

Ps. You don't seem bothered by the fact I'm inferring you're a douchebag but your feelings were ruffled by someone else asking if your name was Ralph...

Or is it 'cuz she's a mod? Big Trollin' ain't easy :razz:
Three things; one is I (vaguely) know you, the second is you have no way of knowing how offended I am(or were), and the third is I think you, I, and messie all know it wasn't a query as to my first name. At least you were honest in your opinion of my post (which was what I took you to be criticising) TBH I'm really not sure how I can make it any clearer, nothing I have said in this thread was an attempt at trolling.

If I was trolling and not having a polite discussion BTW this entire post would be about the difference between implication and inference.

[Biker Biggles]

Trolling is largely like beauty,in the eye of the beholder.Not to be confused with having a strong and perhaps unpopular opinion,then perhaps being a bit pedantic and persistant in expressing said opinion.I can see why Spanks postings might annoy someone,but it dont amount to trolling unless one had a very low threshold for being offended.

[Paul the 6th]

you're all nazi's....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[Owenski]

Riiiiiiiittteeee so.... School Dinners?

What this thread needs is a Poll.


[and yeah those posts are both 100% Trolling]

[Sid Squid]

you're all nazi's...
All Nazi's what?

[Biker Biggles]

All Nazi's what?

I feel an arguement about apostle's coming on.
Oh Jesu's:nomore:

[Paul the 6th]

off topic sid! :razz:

[Paul the 6th]

I always had packed lunches by the way... The food in our school was crap pizzas and burgers looked like cremated polly filler.

[Sid Squid]

I feel an arguement about apostle's coming on.
Oh Jesu's:nomore:
Excellent!

[dizzyblonde]

Jeewhizz

How can children be guided when all the adults act like children


See you in a few weeks time, for my next random post

Signed

A.Parent ;)

[Paul the 6th]

spank started it.













;)

[gruntygiggles]

Jeewhizz

How can children be guided when all the adults act like children


See you in a few weeks time, for my next random post

Signed

A.Parent ;)

That's precisely what I was thinking Lou.

There's been mention of old regulars leaving the forum because of threads like this and I would be one of them. I never left but have had a good couple of years with extremely low activity because it all started to become a bit competitive...who could shout the loudest, who could get the last word.

It is childish behaviour. It is not in the name of debate...it is narcissistic.

Debate requires a level of respect for each other. If you can't do that, you are not joining a debate, you are steamrollering it.

May I politely suggest that this get back on topic now...it's an important subject. I don't have children, but feel strongly about good nutrition.

Schools offering nutritious foods to children is a great thing.
Schools dictating what children can and can't eat is crossing a line.

I would rather see the money be invested in educating the children on food and helping them make the right choices for themselves.

[Owenski]

Schools offering nutritious foods to children is a great thing.
Schools dictating what children can and can't eat is crossing a line.
.

2 Lines...
2 Lines that say it better than 10 pages of tripe.

:thumbsup: GG

[Bibio]

i gave my kids packed lunches as there was nothing on the school dinner menu that they liked. yes they were entitled to free meals but the food was crap.

school... the education in the UK is slowly becoming a joke. once proud of our education system its been slowly turned into a 'good citizen' brainwashing camp.

''rant warning''
the state want everyone to be little good sheep so as they can shout 'jump' and people will. the gov are the new religion in that they are using fear as a control to get what they want and the best bit is that the public are just letting them.

at one time MP's drank in the same pubs as their voters, now they have their own clubs. yes they are completely disconnected from reality and have no idea in which direction to turn so keep coming up with stupid hair brained ideas.

there have been more laws passed in the past 15 years than there ever has, this is all for public control.

i'll stop now as gov control of the masses get me very very angry.

[flymo]

2 Lines...
2 Lines that say it better than 10 pages of tripe.

:thumbsup: GG

Totally agree, but it wasn't all tripe ;-)

[Owenski]

Totally agree, but it wasn't all tripe ;-)

lol fair enough though it went a little downhill in the middle there. :smt055

[gruntygiggles]

Totally agree, but it wasn't all tripe ;-)

Good job...don't think the kids would enjoy that very much :(

:-)