Your snowflake doesn't need a snack.

[Anonymous]

Is this a classroom mailing list she's complaining on? That's way out of line.

[Anonymous]

I see no problem with snacks. I bet the kids would focus better with a snack. The 3 square meals a day rule came from when farmers had giant tables laden with food (read Farmer Boy to get an idea) for each meal. Most cultures have a tea time or afternoon snack. This isn't a bratty American thing. Some kids (and adults!) do better eating smaller meals more frequently. Just because you and your kids don't fit into that mold doesn't mean it's wrong.

[Anonymous]

Our ES has snack in all grades. Whether it is morning or afternoon snack depends on when lunchtime is that year. If lunch is at 11 and dismissal is 3:30 and kids don't get home until 4, that's a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't comment without knowing the time and length of lunch, age of children, and time school gets out.

+1

Depending on the circumstances it's not unreasonable. From k-2 the kids had snack and everyone seemed happier (I seem to recall lunch could be as early 10:30 or 11:00, or as late as 1:00 or 1:30).

Nope. This is a fallacy. You don't in fact need snacks to survive if you're getting 2-3 meals a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see no problem with snacks. I bet the kids would focus better with a snack. The 3 square meals a day rule came from when farmers had giant tables laden with food (read Farmer Boy to get an idea) for each meal. Most cultures have a tea time or afternoon snack. This isn't a bratty American thing. Some kids (and adults!) do better eating smaller meals more frequently. Just because you and your kids don't fit into that mold doesn't mean it's wrong.

Actually it is a bratty American thing to demands snacks constantly. The tea times and afternoon snacks you mention are for special occasions.

[Anonymous]

My kid's school offers snacktime most of the time. Morning snacktime for the late lunchers and afternoon snacktime for the early lunchers. The kids bring their own non-messy nut-free snack and they eat in the classroom during instruction. While I would never complain to the neighborhood listserv, I do think the kids do better with the snack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no problem with snacks. I bet the kids would focus better with a snack. The 3 square meals a day rule came from when farmers had giant tables laden with food (read Farmer Boy to get an idea) for each meal. Most cultures have a tea time or afternoon snack. This isn't a bratty American thing. Some kids (and adults!) do better eating smaller meals more frequently. Just because you and your kids don't fit into that mold doesn't mean it's wrong.

Actually it is a bratty American thing to demands snacks constantly. The tea times and afternoon snacks you mention are for special occasions.

Yes, afternoon snacks are totally and only an American phenomenon.

How old, OP? My kid's school does snack for kindergarteners, but just for them.

[Anonymous]

Snacks are totally unnecessary if the kids are eating healthy foods for breakfast and lunch. My guess is that most of yours are not and they are just filling up on crap that will leave them hungry later.

[Anonymous]

How old are the kids? How early is lunch? First graders who eat at 10:30 and don't get out until 4:00 need a snack. 5th graders who eat at noon probably don't.

The teacher may also find the kids concentrate better with a snack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't comment without knowing the time and length of lunch, age of children, and time school gets out.

+1

Depending on the circumstances it's not unreasonable. From k-2 the kids had snack and everyone seemed happier (I seem to recall lunch could be as early 10:30 or 11:00, or as late as 1:00 or 1:30).

Agree.

Are we talking ES kids? Preschool (although my preschooler had a snack at 1030ish during a 9 to 12pm preschool).

In FCPS it's normal to have snack time in the classroom in elementary school. Some classes don't have lunch until 120pm while others have lunch as early as 1015am. So, yes, there's snack time build into the afternoon and morning, respectively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no problem with snacks. I bet the kids would focus better with a snack. The 3 square meals a day rule came from when farmers had giant tables laden with food (read Farmer Boy to get an idea) for each meal. Most cultures have a tea time or afternoon snack. This isn't a bratty American thing. Some kids (and adults!) do better eating smaller meals more frequently. Just because you and your kids don't fit into that mold doesn't mean it's wrong.

Actually it is a bratty American thing to demands snacks constantly. The tea times and afternoon snacks you mention are for special occasions.

Hmm, no. In many countries in Europe they eat afternoon snacks daily, including England and Germany.

[Anonymous]

I never cared about snacks as a kid until I moved to a different school in 5th grade. I was going through my big growth spurt and we didn't eat lunch until 12:30 and had recess before lunch. I've never been a breakfast eater and had to be out the door by 8 so by 12:30 I was completely ravenous. I never had any energy for recess because I was starving. It was awful. I think there are circumstances when snacks are appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Snacks are totally unnecessary if the kids are eating healthy foods for breakfast and lunch. My guess is that most of yours are not and they are just filling up on crap that will leave them hungry later.

wth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't comment without knowing the time and length of lunch, age of children, and time school gets out.

+1

Depending on the circumstances it's not unreasonable. From k-2 the kids had snack and everyone seemed happier (I seem to recall lunch could be as early 10:30 or 11:00, or as late as 1:00 or 1:30).

Nope. This is a fallacy. You don't in fact need snacks to survive if you're getting 2-3 meals a day.

You seem to have a comprehension problem. No one said they won't survive. Yes, they will, but they will be hungry. Some schools start at 9:20 and the kids have "lunch" at 10:15. Shockingly, they aren't hungry since they just ate breakfast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't comment without knowing the time and length of lunch, age of children, and time school gets out.

+1

Depending on the circumstances it's not unreasonable. From k-2 the kids had snack and everyone seemed happier (I seem to recall lunch could be as early 10:30 or 11:00, or as late as 1:00 or 1:30).

Nope. This is a fallacy. You don't in fact need snacks to survive if you're getting 2-3 meals a day.

You seem to have a comprehension problem. No one said they won't survive. Yes, they will, but they will be hungry. Some schools start at 9:20 and the kids have "lunch" at 10:15. Shockingly, they aren't hungry since they just ate breakfast.

Yes - this is totally dependent on the lunch times. our school is overcrowded so some kids are eating extra early and some eating extra late. A snack is not unreasonable. And nothing to get your panties in a bunch about.