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

[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.

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.

The teacher did not say she couldn't eat her lunch. The kid refused to eat it any way other than the way she wanted to. Maybe she's not ready for preschool.

[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.

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.

If your kid is going to melt down so much over not getting to eat a cookie before the rest of her lunch, maybe she isn't ready for preschool. There are plenty of daycares out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The teacher did not say she couldn't eat her lunch. The kid refused to eat it any way other than the way she wanted to. Maybe she's not ready for preschool.

DP. Jinx.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If your kid is going to melt down so much over not getting to eat a cookie before the rest of her lunch, maybe she isn't ready for preschool. There are plenty of daycares out there.

If you read the OP, the only thing she wanted to eat the cookie before was yoghurt. Depending what kind of yoghurt the cookie was probably more healthy anyway. But apparently classrooms can only be managed when oatmeal is eaten after yoghurt. Must make it tricky at breakfast.

[Anonymous]

As the parent of a child with severe allergies, the posts on this thread horrify me. My child gets a muffin for breakfast most days which doesn’t have sugar in it, but occasionally has chocolate chips depending which recipie I felt like using that weekend. When some teacher decides that’s “dessert” I really hope I don’t have to fight so my kid can eat their own food.

As well, kids with allergies are told basically from birth that anything Mama/Dada give you is OK for you. Having a teacher who undermines that isn’t safe for young kids— yes the food rules at home for these children are more important than the food rules at school, and honestly that’s probably true for plenty of people other than kids with allergies, kosher, halal, vegan…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If your kid is going to melt down so much over not getting to eat a cookie before the rest of her lunch, maybe she isn't ready for preschool. There are plenty of daycares out there.

If you read the OP, the only thing she wanted to eat the cookie before was yoghurt. Depending what kind of yoghurt the cookie was probably more healthy anyway. But apparently classrooms can only be managed when oatmeal is eaten after yoghurt. Must make it tricky at breakfast.

Did OP write the list of ingredients? Because the teacher has no way to know that it was a “healthy” cookie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As the parent of a child with severe allergies, the posts on this thread horrify me. My child gets a muffin for breakfast most days which doesn’t have sugar in it, but occasionally has chocolate chips depending which recipie I felt like using that weekend. When some teacher decides that’s “dessert” I really hope I don’t have to fight so my kid can eat their own food.

As well, kids with allergies are told basically from birth that anything Mama/Dada give you is OK for you. Having a teacher who undermines that isn’t safe for young kids— yes the food rules at home for these children are more important than the food rules at school, and honestly that’s probably true for plenty of people other than kids with allergies, kosher, halal, vegan…

Maybe you should think about telling the teacher in advance that your child has severe allergies and falls under a medical dietary accommodation. They have forms for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If your kid is going to melt down so much over not getting to eat a cookie before the rest of her lunch, maybe she isn't ready for preschool. There are plenty of daycares out there.

If you read the OP, the only thing she wanted to eat the cookie before was yoghurt. Depending what kind of yoghurt the cookie was probably more healthy anyway. But apparently classrooms can only be managed when oatmeal is eaten after yoghurt. Must make it tricky at breakfast.

Did OP write the list of ingredients? Because the teacher has no way to know that it was a “healthy” cookie.

Which is why people are saying speak to the teacher, but some are saying even explaining the situation would make OP “that parent”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

If your kid is going to melt down so much over not getting to eat a cookie before the rest of her lunch, maybe she isn't ready for preschool. There are plenty of daycares out there.

If you read the OP, the only thing she wanted to eat the cookie before was yoghurt. Depending what kind of yoghurt the cookie was probably more healthy anyway. But apparently classrooms can only be managed when oatmeal is eaten after yoghurt. Must make it tricky at breakfast.

Did OP write the list of ingredients? Because the teacher has no way to know that it was a “healthy” cookie.

Which is why people are saying speak to the teacher, but some are saying even explaining the situation would make OP “that parent”.

I daresay the language of the title of this thread leads some to suspect that OP might not be appropriate in making that approach. It's going to leak out from between those gritted teeth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As the parent of a child with severe allergies, the posts on this thread horrify me. My child gets a muffin for breakfast most days which doesn’t have sugar in it, but occasionally has chocolate chips depending which recipie I felt like using that weekend. When some teacher decides that’s “dessert” I really hope I don’t have to fight so my kid can eat their own food.

As well, kids with allergies are told basically from birth that anything Mama/Dada give you is OK for you. Having a teacher who undermines that isn’t safe for young kids— yes the food rules at home for these children are more important than the food rules at school, and honestly that’s probably true for plenty of people other than kids with allergies, kosher, halal, vegan…

As the parent of a child with severe allergies, you'll be communicating with schools about food for years. But having allergies doesn't mean that your DC should be eating a cookie before her sandwich/main at lunchtime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

The teacher did not say she couldn't eat her lunch. The kid refused to eat it any way other than the way she wanted to. Maybe she's not ready for preschool.

A lot of kids have big feelings at this age, though. If OP wasn't so upset, she probably would see her kid adjust after a few days, and realize this one teacher isn't going to change the child's relationship with food in the long run. It's OP, not the kid, who's not ready to let go of control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are a nightmare, OP.

I'm actually really chill, but don't want 1. my DD hungry at school and 2. me picking up a crabby hungry kid everyday when she had a perfectly good lunch.

Just seeing if this is normal or to be expected. DD is our oldest so we are new to school and I was surprised.

She's in charge of your child. That's not being a dictator. Most people eat dessert last. She assumed you'd want your kid to eat dessert last if you were there to suprevise.

Why would she come home hungry if she ate her food in a different order?

np This dessert sounds healthy. I think op should tell teacher not to micromanage how her dd eats. Doesn't she have enough work ( the teacher)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No vegetables? That's a lot of sugar in a lunch.

MYOB lunch scold ( not op)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At what age does spreading out a selection of foods and letting your child pick what they are going to eat stop? Because most people don't eat meals at a buffet. Most people eat meals like this: appetizer, main course, dessert. So at some point you're doing your DC a disservice to continue letting them act like a toddler learning to eat and not teaching them to eat like everyone else. What point is that? My guess is when they enter school. OP's child is no longer a toddler.

I put everything we are having for dinner on the table. DH and I let our kids choose what they want to eat.

Including dessert?

We don’t usually have dessert

LOL then what is your contribution to this thread, which is about whether preschoolers should be allowed to eat cookies before the sandwich?

I thought the child ate the sandwich. cookies was before yogurt. Maybe drop the yogurt? could have been too much food.

[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.

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.

Or she can keep to her classroom management techniques. Her class, her rules.