How would you handle it?

Scenario - Child starts KG at a St. Mary's County school. Mom packs his lunch (peanut butter crackers, apples, gold fish (the cracker kind), fruit snacks, and a bottle of water). Teachers aide looks at his lunch and says that it's not adequate, says it's a snack, not a lunch. Takes his lunch and makes him buy a school lunch. School lunch consists of a corn dog and carrots. Cost - son confused, upset that he couldn't eat what mom made him, $2.45 hit to the lunch account.

My opinion is that the aide was severely out of line. Mom spoke to teacher and received an apology and promise that it wouldn't happen again, so we're letting go at that.

Question I have is whether I should push to not have to pay for that lunch. It's not about the amount, that part is inconsequential...it's the principle.

Just curious as to how others would have handled the situation had it been their child.
 

Misfit

Lawful neutral
I'm surprised they allowed peanut butter crackers but, I've had the same problem before. My kids eat clean, by their own choice and it always seems to offend someone somewhere. I wouldn't pay for the lunch because I'd already provided their lunch. Just because someone took it doesn’t make you responsible for it.
 
Scenario - Child starts KG at a St. Mary's County school. Mom packs his lunch (peanut butter crackers, apples, gold fish (the cracker kind), fruit snacks, and a bottle of water). Teachers aide looks at his lunch and says that it's not adequate, says it's a snack, not a lunch. Takes his lunch and makes him buy a school lunch. School lunch consists of a corn dog and carrots. Cost - son confused, upset that he couldn't eat what mom made him, $2.45 hit to the lunch account.

My opinion is that the aide was severely out of line. Mom spoke to teacher and received an apology and promise that it wouldn't happen again, so we're letting go at that.

Question I have is whether I should push to not have to pay for that lunch. It's not about the amount, that part is inconsequential...it's the principle.

Just curious as to how others would have handled the situation had it been their child.

It would be handled all at once- I certainly wouldnt go back asking for the 3 bucks. During my first meeting we would have covered that *I* feed my kid- whether its said lunch in the post - or complete junk or a gourmet meal- its NONE of ANYone's business AND IM NOT paying for the crap you made my kid eat.

The aid must be a fat@ss to say all that was just a snack. She probably eats a whole chicken for breakfast. GD I hate the public schools these days. Rant off.
 
I'm surprised they allowed peanut butter crackers but, I've had the same problem before. My kids eat clean, by their own choice and it always seems to offend someone somewhere. I wouldn't pay for the lunch because I'd already provided their lunch. Just because someone took it doesn’t make you responsible for it.

No peanut Nazi's that I know of yet in SMCPS but I'm sure that's bound to be an issue eventually. Thing is, he is somewhat of a picky eater and likes what he likes. We work hard at home to get him to try new things and for the most part he's getting it, but at school, especially at that age, we try and give him what he likes...My wife participates in the food program for her daycare so she's particular about what kids get served. The lunch she packded is well within the guidelines for the state
 
Just wait until they send your kid home with one of these...:coffee:

robot.jpg
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Oh, did someone call for the Food Nazi? :howdy:

(peanut butter crackers, apples, gold fish (the cracker kind), fruit snacks, and a bottle of water).

Sorry, this is junk, not lunch. The only thing in there that resembles actual food is the apple. And actual goldfish would at least have some protein and nutrients. Not that I'm impressed with the corn dog they gave your son instead....

I'm not trying to offend you, although I'm sure I have, but this is why the government thinks it needs to get involved in what we feed our children. While I wouldn't have taken his lunch away and replaced it (with a corn dog :rolleyes:), I'd have done a slow burn and privately wondered why parents set their children up for health problems later in life. Not to mention the carb crash that will surely come later in the day.

If I were in your shoes, though, I'd have more of a bitch about the replacement "meal". If they're going to criticize you and replace the lunch you sent with your child, it should at the very least be something more nutritious and substantial than what you packed for him. Corn dogs are a treat, not a meal.
 

Misfit

Lawful neutral
Oh, did someone call for the Food Nazi? :howdy:



Sorry, this is junk, not lunch. The only thing in there that resembles actual food is the apple. And actual goldfish would at least have some protein and nutrients. Not that I'm impressed with the corn dog they gave your son instead....

I'm not trying to offend you, although I'm sure I have, but this is why the government thinks it needs to get involved in what we feed our children. While I wouldn't have taken his lunch away and replaced it (with a corn dog :rolleyes:), I'd have done a slow burn and privately wondered why parents set their children up for health problems later in life. Not to mention the carb crash that will surely come later in the day.

If I were in your shoes, though, I'd have more of a bitch about the replacement "meal". If they're going to criticize you and replace the lunch you sent with your child, it should at the very least be something more nutritious and substantial than what you packed for him. Corn dogs are a treat, not a meal.

Daphne is that you? :sarcasm:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
O god, I feel a rant coming on.... :jameo:


You know, I really don't care what parents feed their kids. I mean, I *do*, but at the end of the day it's their kid to feed as they please and I don't have to like it. My issue is the schools feeding kids junk food euphemistically presented as "lunch". It's not the government's job to stuff kids full of tacos and pizza. If parents want to do that, that's their business, but the school should ONLY offer nutritious meal options. If kids won't eat it, that's their problem and the parents can provide them with snack chips and squeeze cheez as they see fit - the government shouldn't do that any more than it should allow that crap with SNAP cards.
 

pelers

Active Member
Content of packed lunch aside, yes, I think you have grounds to refuse to pay for the corndog. I don't have kids in school yet, so I haven't gone over the copious amounts of paperwork I imagine they give you to sign off on, but did you have to sign anything to the effect of "If we deem your child is hungry we shall charge you the price of a school lunch and feed it to your child" ? If you did you may be SOL. If not I'd probably raise a minor stink.
 

mitzi

Well-Known Member
No peanut Nazi's that I know of yet in SMCPS but I'm sure that's bound to be an issue eventually. Thing is, he is somewhat of a picky eater and likes what he likes. We work hard at home to get him to try new things and for the most part he's getting it, but at school, especially at that age, we try and give him what he likes...My wife participates in the food program for her daycare so she's particular about what kids get served. The lunch she packded is well within the guidelines for the state

No offense, but that isn't a very healthy lunch (not that the corn dog is any better). It's nothing but carbs except for the water. How about toughening up and the child eats what you make instead of catering. If he's hungry enough, he'll eat what you prepare. I really don't understand all this catering to the whims of little kids.
 
Oh, did someone call for the Food Nazi? :howdy:



Sorry, this is junk, not lunch. The only thing in there that resembles actual food is the apple. And actual goldfish would at least have some protein and nutrients. Not that I'm impressed with the corn dog they gave your son instead....

I'm not trying to offend you, although I'm sure I have, but this is why the government thinks it needs to get involved in what we feed our children. While I wouldn't have taken his lunch away and replaced it (with a corn dog :rolleyes:), I'd have done a slow burn and privately wondered why parents set their children up for health problems later in life. Not to mention the carb crash that will surely come later in the day.

If I were in your shoes, though, I'd have more of a bitch about the replacement "meal". If they're going to criticize you and replace the lunch you sent with your child, it should at the very least be something more nutritious and substantial than what you packed for him. Corn dogs are a treat, not a meal.

Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment of the healthfulness (is that a word?) of his lunch. You mention having the gov't being involved but his lunch actually conforms to the state guidelines of what is healthy. I get it, we not sending him with brussel sprouts and tofu...but peanut butter - protein; apples - fruit; fruit snacks - vitamins (I know, sugar too); gold fish - ok, you got me there.

My bigger issue with your comments (and nope, not offended at all) is the assumption that I'm doing him a disservice and setting him up for later health problems. He is an incredibly active kid as are my other boys...He's healthy, strong, and anything but the couch potato that seems to be the norm these days. Isn't it up to us to determine what his needs are, and provide what we feel he will eat based on those needs?

Anywho, I do appreciate your opinion.
 
No offense, but that isn't a very healthy lunch (not that the corn dog is any better). It's nothing but carbs except for the water. How about toughening up and the child eats what you make instead of catering. If he's hungry enough, he'll eat what you prepare. I really don't understand all this catering to the whims of little kids.

It's not about toughening up at all. I have three boys, all three have differing tastes and likes and we've raised them all the same way. It isn't about catering to their whims, its about figuring out what works for each one individually. Sometimes that means trade-off and choosing battles.

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider an appropriate, healthy lunch for a 5 y/o?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Isn't it up to us to determine what his needs are,

Absolutely. Like I said, my issue isn't so much what parents feed their children as what the government feeds them. At least the kid belongs to you; he DOESN'T belong to the government. I find it absurd that the aide would take the meal you sent and replace it with something that is of equal or lesser nutritional value. AND THEN HAVE THE NERVE TO CHARGE YOU FOR IT!

:banghead:
 
Absolutely. Like I said, my issue isn't so much what parents feed their children as what the government feeds them. At least the kid belongs to you; he DOESN'T belong to the government. I find it absurd that the aide would take the meal you sent and replace it with something that is of equal or lesser nutritional value. AND THEN HAVE THE NERVE TO CHARGE YOU FOR IT!

:banghead:

:cheers:
 

MMM_donuts

New Member
Apparently corn dogs and carrots...

Right but there should be some sort of reasoning as to why they picked these foods over yours. I can speculate but it would be interesting to know why the aide felt so strongly as to take his lunch away from him.

I agree with the aforementioned of leaving it alone once it's been worked out but I wouldn't blame you for not wanting to pay the lunch money. You'd think an apologetic school official would just take that off your account.
 
Top