Teacher dictating which parts of daughter's lunch she can eat in which order?

[Anonymous]

Your kid has one bad lunch. It's not worth changing the school's policy over YOUR kid having ONE BAD DAY where they cried because they couldn't eat a not-cookie first.

If you continue like this, your kid is going to want to disappear when you come to school for open house. They will hide the volunteer flyers that come home in their backpacks so you don't show up in the classroom or go on field trips. You are being a tremendous jackass and the harm you will do your child is going to far outweigh any healthy eating habits she may gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your kid has one bad lunch. It's not worth changing the school's policy over YOUR kid having ONE BAD DAY where they cried because they couldn't eat a not-cookie first.

If you continue like this, your kid is going to want to disappear when you come to school for open house. They will hide the volunteer flyers that come home in their backpacks so you don't show up in the classroom or go on field trips. You are being a tremendous jackass and the harm you will do your child is going to far outweigh any healthy eating habits she may gain.

Uhhh OP didn‘t say anything she was checking here first. Other parents did though. If enough parents complain the policy will change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing kids to eat the cookies first or pirate booty, animal cracker first for lunch works if they are at home. They will be hungry 30 or 45 minutes later and want more to eat. It’s all good if it’s your child and you’re handling them at home but when you have a group of kids and you have several who are irritable it can be disruptive to the entire class and not good for that one child.

In a preschool or daycare setting this is not always possible and leads to very irritable and cranky kids. Lunch is short and kids are slow eater so it’s preferable to have them eat their nutritionally dense foods first so they can be full and hopefully not have a sugar crash.

What is confusing to me as a long time DCUM reader is how parents freak out over schools offering chocolate milk and “unhealthy options “at school but are OK with their kids eating cookies for lunch.

Except in this case the kid ended up hungry BECAUSE of this stupid rule. If the teacher hadn’t incorrectly deemed the banana oats a Cookie then kid would not have been hungry. Plenty of daycares and preschools operate just fine without this rule which is teaches wrong attitudes toward foods and is not a good rule.

Yep, gotta cater to the snowflakes.

Anything to make sure my snowflake has a healthy attitude towards food and doesn’t end up like the majority of adults in this country.

This. Supporting a teacher on an unnecessary power trip isn’t more important to me than my child having lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Your kid has one bad lunch. It's not worth changing the school's policy over YOUR kid having ONE BAD DAY where they cried because they couldn't eat a not-cookie first.

If you continue like this, your kid is going to want to disappear when you come to school for open house. They will hide the volunteer flyers that come home in their backpacks so you don't show up in the classroom or go on field trips. You are being a tremendous jackass and the harm you will do your child is going to far outweigh any healthy eating habits she may gain.

Uhhh OP didn‘t say anything she was checking here first. Other parents did though. If enough parents complain the policy will change.

You're right. I stand corrected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing kids to eat the cookies first or pirate booty, animal cracker first for lunch works if they are at home. They will be hungry 30 or 45 minutes later and want more to eat. It’s all good if it’s your child and you’re handling them at home but when you have a group of kids and you have several who are irritable it can be disruptive to the entire class and not good for that one child.

In a preschool or daycare setting this is not always possible and leads to very irritable and cranky kids. Lunch is short and kids are slow eater so it’s preferable to have them eat their nutritionally dense foods first so they can be full and hopefully not have a sugar crash.

What is confusing to me as a long time DCUM reader is how parents freak out over schools offering chocolate milk and “unhealthy options “at school but are OK with their kids eating cookies for lunch.

Except in this case the kid ended up hungry BECAUSE of this stupid rule. If the teacher hadn’t incorrectly deemed the banana oats a Cookie then kid would not have been hungry. Plenty of daycares and preschools operate just fine without this rule which is teaches wrong attitudes toward foods and is not a good rule.

The solution to too short lunchtime is to allot more time to lunch not create unhealthy rules.

Bingo.

OP I wouldn't say anything unless it becomes a habit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing kids to eat the cookies first or pirate booty, animal cracker first for lunch works if they are at home. They will be hungry 30 or 45 minutes later and want more to eat. It’s all good if it’s your child and you’re handling them at home but when you have a group of kids and you have several who are irritable it can be disruptive to the entire class and not good for that one child.

In a preschool or daycare setting this is not always possible and leads to very irritable and cranky kids. Lunch is short and kids are slow eater so it’s preferable to have them eat their nutritionally dense foods first so they can be full and hopefully not have a sugar crash.

What is confusing to me as a long time DCUM reader is how parents freak out over schools offering chocolate milk and “unhealthy options “at school but are OK with their kids eating cookies for lunch.

Except in this case the kid ended up hungry BECAUSE of this stupid rule. If the teacher hadn’t incorrectly deemed the banana oats a Cookie then kid would not have been hungry. Plenty of daycares and preschools operate just fine without this rule which is teaches wrong attitudes toward foods and is not a good rule.

Yep, gotta cater to the snowflakes.

Anything to make sure my snowflake has a healthy attitude towards food and doesn’t end up like the majority of adults in this country.

This. Supporting a teacher on an unnecessary power trip isn’t more important to me than my child having lunch.

You see this as a power trip. That really says it all, doesn't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing kids to eat the cookies first or pirate booty, animal cracker first for lunch works if they are at home. They will be hungry 30 or 45 minutes later and want more to eat. It’s all good if it’s your child and you’re handling them at home but when you have a group of kids and you have several who are irritable it can be disruptive to the entire class and not good for that one child.

In a preschool or daycare setting this is not always possible and leads to very irritable and cranky kids. Lunch is short and kids are slow eater so it’s preferable to have them eat their nutritionally dense foods first so they can be full and hopefully not have a sugar crash.

What is confusing to me as a long time DCUM reader is how parents freak out over schools offering chocolate milk and “unhealthy options “at school but are OK with their kids eating cookies for lunch.

Except in this case the kid ended up hungry BECAUSE of this stupid rule. If the teacher hadn’t incorrectly deemed the banana oats a Cookie then kid would not have been hungry. Plenty of daycares and preschools operate just fine without this rule which is teaches wrong attitudes toward foods and is not a good rule.

Yep, gotta cater to the snowflakes.

Anything to make sure my snowflake has a healthy attitude towards food and doesn’t end up like the majority of adults in this country.

This. Supporting a teacher on an unnecessary power trip isn’t more important to me than my child having lunch.

You see this as a power trip. That really says it all, doesn't it.

Yes, because it has nothing to do with nutrition as established above— it’s all about dictating the order of food which is a really ridiculous thing to consider more important than whether a four year old gets to eat her lunch on a given day. If it’s a genuine misunderstanding the teacher will not police in the future, and if it’s a power trip the teacher will blame the parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing kids to eat the cookies first or pirate booty, animal cracker first for lunch works if they are at home. They will be hungry 30 or 45 minutes later and want more to eat. It’s all good if it’s your child and you’re handling them at home but when you have a group of kids and you have several who are irritable it can be disruptive to the entire class and not good for that one child.

In a preschool or daycare setting this is not always possible and leads to very irritable and cranky kids. Lunch is short and kids are slow eater so it’s preferable to have them eat their nutritionally dense foods first so they can be full and hopefully not have a sugar crash.

What is confusing to me as a long time DCUM reader is how parents freak out over schools offering chocolate milk and “unhealthy options “at school but are OK with their kids eating cookies for lunch.

Except in this case the kid ended up hungry BECAUSE of this stupid rule. If the teacher hadn’t incorrectly deemed the banana oats a Cookie then kid would not have been hungry. Plenty of daycares and preschools operate just fine without this rule which is teaches wrong attitudes toward foods and is not a good rule.

Yep, gotta cater to the snowflakes.

Anything to make sure my snowflake has a healthy attitude towards food and doesn’t end up like the majority of adults in this country.

This. Supporting a teacher on an unnecessary power trip isn’t more important to me than my child having lunch.

You see this as a power trip. That really says it all, doesn't it.

Yes, because it has nothing to do with nutrition as established above— it’s all about dictating the order of food which is a really ridiculous thing to consider more important than whether a four year old gets to eat her lunch on a given day. If it’s a genuine misunderstanding the teacher will not police in the future, and if it’s a power trip the teacher will blame the parent.

No. It's about keeping a swarm of little kids focused on task during a limited timeframe, when they are easily distracted.

From your point of view, a menu item that looked like a banana split sundae, tasted like a banana split sundae, but was actually a fully meal that was cleverly disguised in look, feel, and taste as a desert should not be at all distracting to other kids at the table. Well, guess what -- it is. And that is relevant, too.

[Anonymous]

^^dessert

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing kids to eat the cookies first or pirate booty, animal cracker first for lunch works if they are at home. They will be hungry 30 or 45 minutes later and want more to eat. It’s all good if it’s your child and you’re handling them at home but when you have a group of kids and you have several who are irritable it can be disruptive to the entire class and not good for that one child.

In a preschool or daycare setting this is not always possible and leads to very irritable and cranky kids. Lunch is short and kids are slow eater so it’s preferable to have them eat their nutritionally dense foods first so they can be full and hopefully not have a sugar crash.

What is confusing to me as a long time DCUM reader is how parents freak out over schools offering chocolate milk and “unhealthy options “at school but are OK with their kids eating cookies for lunch.

Except in this case the kid ended up hungry BECAUSE of this stupid rule. If the teacher hadn’t incorrectly deemed the banana oats a Cookie then kid would not have been hungry. Plenty of daycares and preschools operate just fine without this rule which is teaches wrong attitudes toward foods and is not a good rule.

Yep, gotta cater to the snowflakes.

Anything to make sure my snowflake has a healthy attitude towards food and doesn’t end up like the majority of adults in this country.

This. Supporting a teacher on an unnecessary power trip isn’t more important to me than my child having lunch.

You see this as a power trip. That really says it all, doesn't it.

Yes, because it has nothing to do with nutrition as established above— it’s all about dictating the order of food which is a really ridiculous thing to consider more important than whether a four year old gets to eat her lunch on a given day. If it’s a genuine misunderstanding the teacher will not police in the future, and if it’s a power trip the teacher will blame the parent.

No. It's about keeping a swarm of little kids focused on task during a limited timeframe, when they are easily distracted.

From your point of view, a menu item that looked like a banana split sundae, tasted like a banana split sundae, but was actually a fully meal that was cleverly disguised in look, feel, and taste as a desert should not be at all distracting to other kids at the table. Well, guess what -- it is. And that is relevant, too.

If lunches cannot be distracting to other students, the school should insist that everyone get a catered lunch that is identical. Any food has the potential to be distracting. If a teacher can’t cope with the distraction that one child has cheese sticks and one child has grapes teaching is going to be a challenging profession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing kids to eat the cookies first or pirate booty, animal cracker first for lunch works if they are at home. They will be hungry 30 or 45 minutes later and want more to eat. It’s all good if it’s your child and you’re handling them at home but when you have a group of kids and you have several who are irritable it can be disruptive to the entire class and not good for that one child.

In a preschool or daycare setting this is not always possible and leads to very irritable and cranky kids. Lunch is short and kids are slow eater so it’s preferable to have them eat their nutritionally dense foods first so they can be full and hopefully not have a sugar crash.

What is confusing to me as a long time DCUM reader is how parents freak out over schools offering chocolate milk and “unhealthy options “at school but are OK with their kids eating cookies for lunch.

Except in this case the kid ended up hungry BECAUSE of this stupid rule. If the teacher hadn’t incorrectly deemed the banana oats a Cookie then kid would not have been hungry. Plenty of daycares and preschools operate just fine without this rule which is teaches wrong attitudes toward foods and is not a good rule.

Yep, gotta cater to the snowflakes.

Anything to make sure my snowflake has a healthy attitude towards food and doesn’t end up like the majority of adults in this country.

This. Supporting a teacher on an unnecessary power trip isn’t more important to me than my child having lunch.

You see this as a power trip. That really says it all, doesn't it.

+1 Even the title of the thread -- teacher is "dictating" how her DD eats lunch.

Once your kid is in school, the teacher is no longer your employee. FYI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing kids to eat the cookies first or pirate booty, animal cracker first for lunch works if they are at home. They will be hungry 30 or 45 minutes later and want more to eat. It’s all good if it’s your child and you’re handling them at home but when you have a group of kids and you have several who are irritable it can be disruptive to the entire class and not good for that one child.

In a preschool or daycare setting this is not always possible and leads to very irritable and cranky kids. Lunch is short and kids are slow eater so it’s preferable to have them eat their nutritionally dense foods first so they can be full and hopefully not have a sugar crash.

What is confusing to me as a long time DCUM reader is how parents freak out over schools offering chocolate milk and “unhealthy options “at school but are OK with their kids eating cookies for lunch.

Except in this case the kid ended up hungry BECAUSE of this stupid rule. If the teacher hadn’t incorrectly deemed the banana oats a Cookie then kid would not have been hungry. Plenty of daycares and preschools operate just fine without this rule which is teaches wrong attitudes toward foods and is not a good rule.

Yep, gotta cater to the snowflakes.

Anything to make sure my snowflake has a healthy attitude towards food and doesn’t end up like the majority of adults in this country.

This. Supporting a teacher on an unnecessary power trip isn’t more important to me than my child having lunch.

You see this as a power trip. That really says it all, doesn't it.

Yes, because it has nothing to do with nutrition as established above— it’s all about dictating the order of food which is a really ridiculous thing to consider more important than whether a four year old gets to eat her lunch on a given day. If it’s a genuine misunderstanding the teacher will not police in the future, and if it’s a power trip the teacher will blame the parent.

It's classroom management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing kids to eat the cookies first or pirate booty, animal cracker first for lunch works if they are at home. They will be hungry 30 or 45 minutes later and want more to eat. It’s all good if it’s your child and you’re handling them at home but when you have a group of kids and you have several who are irritable it can be disruptive to the entire class and not good for that one child.

In a preschool or daycare setting this is not always possible and leads to very irritable and cranky kids. Lunch is short and kids are slow eater so it’s preferable to have them eat their nutritionally dense foods first so they can be full and hopefully not have a sugar crash.

What is confusing to me as a long time DCUM reader is how parents freak out over schools offering chocolate milk and “unhealthy options “at school but are OK with their kids eating cookies for lunch.

Except in this case the kid ended up hungry BECAUSE of this stupid rule. If the teacher hadn’t incorrectly deemed the banana oats a Cookie then kid would not have been hungry. Plenty of daycares and preschools operate just fine without this rule which is teaches wrong attitudes toward foods and is not a good rule.

Yep, gotta cater to the snowflakes.

Anything to make sure my snowflake has a healthy attitude towards food and doesn’t end up like the majority of adults in this country.

This. Supporting a teacher on an unnecessary power trip isn’t more important to me than my child having lunch.

You see this as a power trip. That really says it all, doesn't it.

Yes, because it has nothing to do with nutrition as established above— it’s all about dictating the order of food which is a really ridiculous thing to consider more important than whether a four year old gets to eat her lunch on a given day. If it’s a genuine misunderstanding the teacher will not police in the future, and if it’s a power trip the teacher will blame the parent.

No. It's about keeping a swarm of little kids focused on task during a limited timeframe, when they are easily distracted.

From your point of view, a menu item that looked like a banana split sundae, tasted like a banana split sundae, but was actually a fully meal that was cleverly disguised in look, feel, and taste as a desert should not be at all distracting to other kids at the table. Well, guess what -- it is. And that is relevant, too.

If lunches cannot be distracting to other students, the school should insist that everyone get a catered lunch that is identical. Any food has the potential to be distracting. If a teacher can’t cope with the distraction that one child has cheese sticks and one child has grapes teaching is going to be a challenging profession.

In middle school some teachers asked that kids not bring in Pringles for snacks because it was a huge distraction.

[Anonymous]

Stop being hyperbolic. Resorting to hyberbole undermines your case. Judgment calls are made at preschools all the time.

Sometimes what category foods appear to belong in is relevant, especially for a short lunch with busy preschoolers. Don't send "baked oatmeals" that look like cookies, and you won't raise this as a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing kids to eat the cookies first or pirate booty, animal cracker first for lunch works if they are at home. They will be hungry 30 or 45 minutes later and want more to eat. It’s all good if it’s your child and you’re handling them at home but when you have a group of kids and you have several who are irritable it can be disruptive to the entire class and not good for that one child.

In a preschool or daycare setting this is not always possible and leads to very irritable and cranky kids. Lunch is short and kids are slow eater so it’s preferable to have them eat their nutritionally dense foods first so they can be full and hopefully not have a sugar crash.

What is confusing to me as a long time DCUM reader is how parents freak out over schools offering chocolate milk and “unhealthy options “at school but are OK with their kids eating cookies for lunch.

Except in this case the kid ended up hungry BECAUSE of this stupid rule. If the teacher hadn’t incorrectly deemed the banana oats a Cookie then kid would not have been hungry. Plenty of daycares and preschools operate just fine without this rule which is teaches wrong attitudes toward foods and is not a good rule.

Yep, gotta cater to the snowflakes.

Anything to make sure my snowflake has a healthy attitude towards food and doesn’t end up like the majority of adults in this country.

This. Supporting a teacher on an unnecessary power trip isn’t more important to me than my child having lunch.

You see this as a power trip. That really says it all, doesn't it.

Yes, because it has nothing to do with nutrition as established above— it’s all about dictating the order of food which is a really ridiculous thing to consider more important than whether a four year old gets to eat her lunch on a given day. If it’s a genuine misunderstanding the teacher will not police in the future, and if it’s a power trip the teacher will blame the parent.

It's classroom management.

Which is important. It’s not more important than a 4 y/o getting to eat the lunch her parents packed for her. So the teacher might need to read more up to date guidance on nutrition, or might need to arrange the seating so the easily distracted children don’t sit near someone whose lunch might interest them, or teach her class about how we are only in charge of our own plates— an important lesson in self regulation. Not expect a kid to go hungry because her healthy food might distract someone sitting near by.