The status of the crisp in a young person's diet has been prominent recently in the educational and general press. The number of children who are obese has increased and poor behaviour is often attributed to diet. The variety of crisps has reached new heights. Most of us know eating crisps is unhealthy and yet we continue to be drawn by the richness of the market. Crisps play a part in the daily eating rituals of our pupils and students and teachers. Yet there are conflicting messages coming from schools.
Consider the position of a parent with a child in a high school that encourages the eating of crisps and a younger child in a primary school where crisps are now banned. This is the tale of two crisp policies.
The first crisp policy is located in a local high school known to me that is currently generating funds by way of a tuck shop. The enthusiastic administrator works in partnership with the headteacher ordering the variety of goodies available for the ever hungry 11- to 16-year-olds, who contribute £1,000 a month to the unofficial school fund. Crisps and other such salty snacks are in great demand, the local wholesale company is delighted with the school and the pupils spend less time off site during lesson breaks. A further consequence of the tuck shop is that the school site is a wash of colour, with empty crisp packets and sweet papers covering the ground. The site manager and staff are in revolt. But the shop is making money to subsidise the purchase of computers.
The background to the second crisp policy is rooted in an anti-crisp outburst in the infant department of a small primary school. The outburst was in response to the poor eating habits of the 5- to 7-year-olds that often resulted in a layer of crumbs on the desks, tables and floor. Class teachers had reached the end of their tether and had advised the headteacher that crisps were no longer to be eaten their classrooms. In response, the headteacher created a new anti-crisp policy followed by a letter to all parents and guardians requesting that the food pupils eat at break times should be of the fruit and fibre kind. Crisps are no longer acceptable. The school now looks forward to being a crisp-free zone, classrooms and the playground will no longer be adorned with such litter. In its place will be rotten fruit and there also might be a storage problem between breaks.
The parents of the two children now face a dilemma. One child will need the additional £1 a day to supplement the school coffers, whilst the other will need a bag of groceries each week. The children have also discussed the matter and the younger sibling is now completely against the idea of eating an apple instead of a crisp. The answer could be that they both eat an apple, but the management of children and their rights is not quite that simple. This is set to cause discontentment and sibling rivalry each school morning.
Alternatively, the local authority could preside over a joined up initiative to encourage all pupils and students to eat a healthy snack that could be purchased on the school site so as to raise funds as needed.
· Professor Sonia Blandford is dean of education at Canterbury Christ Church University College. masterclass@cant.ac.uk
