OP you act as if snacks during the school day is some novel pinterest mom of snowflake kids concepts.

A snack break during the day is an idea that is as old as dirt. We had this in the 70s.

We also had recess 2-3x per day.

Everyon did. Snacks and recess.

Kids need full tummies and recess to channel their enregy in order for their minds to learn.

They aren't overweight, middle aged, out of shape dcum women and should not eat like you do. Their needs are different, and what is healthy for you is not healthy for an active growing kid.

Larla's mom is right.

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.

It is a fallacy that 2-3 meals a day is the healthiest way to eat.

Several smaller meals are better and healthier, especially with kids.

I encourage my high school students to bring a snack if they get hungry and eat it in class. It's never been an issue. I don't care if they go get something from a vending machine. It's not stopping class and everyone binging as you imagine. It's more a teenage boy with a ravenous appetite who just grew three inches and had a 20 min lunch 3 hours ago.

My elementary DD has much at 10:40 this year. I'm glad she has a snack in the afternoon.

My best takeaway from "Bringing up Bebe" (an account of an American raising children in Paris) is that the only snack children have there is their "gouter." Served at about four, it's the only non-meal food French children expect. I am raising my daughter similarly and she's a healthy weight, growing well, and happy.

Anonymous wrote:If she fed her kid correctly (Paleo), she wouldn't have to worry.

You have no idea how I feed my child. He is not a sugar/starch stuffer. You guessed wrong.

My son's kindergarten in Arlington did not have snack time. And, of course, none of the grades after that did either, although he did get a snack in extended day.

If she fed her kid correctly (Paleo), she wouldn't have to worry.

ThatBetch wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Read the q only. Not all kids are the same. But it is best if the child just goes to the nurses office for the cheerios or whatever. My child is 12 and we still dont have any 'official' diagnosis about his blood sugar, but they/dr absolutely believe us when we say he'll go down/crash/faint if it happens. So, we never asked to have the class changed, and that is obviously a worried parent you describe. But no, anybody who thinks my kid is the same as theirs is wrong. Especially if they havent carried out a kid in their arms, Which isnt as easy to do once their over 100 pounds. Face it, parents who know their kids would rather the kid have a preemptive snack than either passing out, or worse, having an emotional melt down and then being labeled a problem. For my kid, he can go 2 to 3 hrs, not 4.

That sounds terrifying. I'm so sorry you haven't even been able to find an explanation for it yet, either. I hope that changes for your son and your family, and you find some answers, and ideally some easy solutions.

I don't think all kids are the same, no. I agree with you that kids with special circumstances should have special accommodations rather than expecting the whole class to shift. The point should be to minimize distraction and problems, not draw attention to them, or perhaps make a problem (like a sugar rush/crash, or messes, or jealousy/shame issues, or snack fights...) where none actually existed previously.

Again, I hope you can find some answers. Sounds like you've got a workable strategy in place already, and I hope you continue to have support for same, but I can imagine it's incredibly stressful to not have a name for what you're up against.

I have not read all the responses, but I know my son (1st grader) is better-behaved when he has several snacks throughout the day. That is not to say that he can't go without a snack, but his behavior is certainly better when he's had something to eat! I'm sure it has to do with his blood sugar. He has been this way his whole life. I don't demand anything in class, but I have alerted his teachers that bad behavior might be remedied with a snack.

Anonymous wrote:Read the q only. Not all kids are the same. But it is best if the child just goes to the nurses office for the cheerios or whatever. My child is 12 and we still dont have any 'official' diagnosis about his blood sugar, but they/dr absolutely believe us when we say he'll go down/crash/faint if it happens. So, we never asked to have the class changed, and that is obviously a worried parent you describe. But no, anybody who thinks my kid is the same as theirs is wrong. Especially if they havent carried out a kid in their arms, Which isnt as easy to do once their over 100 pounds. Face it, parents who know their kids would rather the kid have a preemptive snack than either passing out, or worse, having an emotional melt down and then being labeled a problem. For my kid, he can go 2 to 3 hrs, not 4.

That sounds terrifying. I'm so sorry you haven't even been able to find an explanation for it yet, either. I hope that changes for your son and your family, and you find some answers, and ideally some easy solutions.

I don't think all kids are the same, no. I agree with you that kids with special circumstances should have special accommodations rather than expecting the whole class to shift. The point should be to minimize distraction and problems, not draw attention to them, or perhaps make a problem (like a sugar rush/crash, or messes, or jealousy/shame issues, or snack fights...) where none actually existed previously.

Again, I hope you can find some answers. Sounds like you've got a workable strategy in place already, and I hope you continue to have support for same, but I can imagine it's incredibly stressful to not have a name for what you're up against.

Read the q only. Not all kids are the same. But it is best if the child just goes to the nurses office for the cheerios or whatever. My child is 12 and we still dont have any 'official' diagnosis about his blood sugar, but they/dr absolutely believe us when we say he'll go down/crash/faint if it happens. So, we never asked to have the class changed, and that is obviously a worried parent you describe. But no, anybody who thinks my kid is the same as theirs is wrong. Especially if they havent carried out a kid in their arms, Which isnt as easy to do once their over 100 pounds. Face it, parents who know their kids would rather the kid have a preemptive snack than either passing out, or worse, having an emotional melt down and then being labeled a problem. For my kid, he can go 2 to 3 hrs, not 4.

Anonymous wrote:I am with Larla's mom on this one, OP, and think you are probably a bit of a twat. I mean, look at the use of the word "snowflake" in your subject line. Who talks about children that way?

Are you in North Arlington, by any chance? Sounds like it.

At least 90% of DCUM posters who frequent the parenting & school related boards?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boy, OP, I think you sound pretty hangry yourself. Or like your just a shit stirrer and really proud of it. I'm sorry that's your life. Be well.

Seriously. And given you sign in (and the id you've chosen) I am going with the latter.

The ID is merely an acknowledgement that I'm frequently outside the status quo, and usually judged harshly for same. I think I'm allergic to fake "nice" posturing, and it shows. I sign in because I'm okay with owning my words here (and in general). If you're going to think I'm a betch anyway, and you probably would because I'd say to your face the kind of things you'd say about people here behind cover of anonymity, might as well run with it, right? I'm not at all sorry for my life. In fact, I think the world could use a few more women like me.

I do find how much people care, um, let's go with "interesting". Look at how many posts on this thread are about me for posting it. Who GAS what That Betch thinks?! Yet the same people who fault me (and other OPs; this isn't unique) for posting just can't help but post something themselves. You (and all the other "who cares" posters) cared enough to comment. That's fascinating to me, truly. It's one of the things I like most about this site.

So thank you for caring, I guess. I don't feel especially hangry, but if you happen to have any Ring Dings, I'll take one.

I thought this was going to be a thread about kids not needing to have parents plan "team snacks" for one hour soccer games and I was all ready to agree...

Anonymous wrote:

ThatBetch wrote:Assume a 4.5 hour gap between the meal and the end of school (it's less, but for argument's sake...).

Let's say the kids are somewhere around 8.

Reasonable to expect a snack in that case. Not all kids are even going straight home, some may be going to aftercare and waiting longer to eat.

Every aftercare program I k ow of gives the kids a snack when they first get there. That being said, most 8-year-olds would likely be ravenous after not eating for 4.5 hours.

It's a snack for gods sake. This isn't going to make or break anyone's academic career.