---

What would you do if your child came home from school exhausted, frustrated and actually started crying on your kitchen floor?

You'd probably become quite concerned and demand to know what kind of social or curriculum issue had prompted the stress.

But what if the source of his outburst wasn't from books or classmates? What if it happened because he was hungry?

You could ask Attleboro parent Brenda Furtado how her reaction turned into a frenzy of debate over a 20-minute snack.

"My son came home and his eyes were black. He dropped to the floor and cried. He was just emotionally a wreck," Furtado said, describing the day, a week after the school year started, her son Matthew came home lethargic and irritable. "He said he was tired and hungry," she recalled.

Furtado said her fifth-grade son, who is prone to migraines, was so tired and hungry because he hadn't been able to have a snack during the school day.

That's because snack time at Attleboro middle schools was eliminated this year under Superintendent Pia Durkin's plan to unify policies between the schools and streamline instructional time.

But is the streamlining doing more harm to students than good?

The answer is yes, according to many parents and nutrition experts, who caution that eliminating snack time for early adolescents is a recipe for failure.

In early September, parents of students at Brennan, Wamsutta and Coelho middle schools received letters that outlined school policy changes. The decision to eliminate snack time was among them.

The letter read that snack times during class were taking up too much instructional time and that the school would accommodate children by moving lunch times to earlier in the day.

Since then, parents have become outraged to the point of organizing - with Furtado at the helm of sorts - an effort to have the policy revision overturned.

Durkin, school principals and school committee members have met several times with parents in discussions that have become rather heated, and the controversy has spilled over into the community to the point where local pediatricians have become, as one doctor's secretary put it, "disgusted" from talking about the situation.

Even other area superintendents are cautious to discuss the controversy. Norton Superintendent Patricia Ansay declined to be interviewed for this story, but did say she held an administrative meeting to discuss her district's snack policy and said she is not concerned about distraction problems.

In Norton, students at all grade levels are allowed to have crackers and fruits on their desks.

For parents, the issue is their children's health.

Furtado, who made it clear that her son is allowed to have snacks because of minor medical issues, says disallowing snack time is simply impractical for growing children.

"Taking away snack time is absurd," she said. "We did research on nutritional facts. Kids need three meals and two snacks. They need to refuel."

Typically, a middle school student in Attleboro is out of the house around 7 a.m., meaning most eat breakfast in the neighborhood of 6:15.

With the earliest lunch scheduled at 10:30, that's more than four hours between eating. When they get home from school, around 3 p.m., that's another 4.5 hours between meals.

That's just too long for a growing child to go without food, according to Crystal Johnson, a Southeastern Massachusetts personal trainer and nutrition expert.

"In my professional and personal opinion, that's 100 percent too long," Johnson said. "Kids need to eat more often than adults. Generically, they say five times per day for the average person. They're growing and they need to keep their bodies nourished, as well as their brains."

Durkin's argument is that stopping class for an organized snack time can take up to 20 minutes out of the day, and that students can't afford to lose that learning time.

But Johnson, and countless studies available on the Internet with a quick Google search, counter that children could have a hard time concentrating if they're hungry.

When they don't eat as often as they should, their blood sugar goes down, which affects their ability to pay attention and they will become tired.

"Especially during puberty, when their bodies are growing at a crazy rate," Johnson said. "It's been proven that you have 45 minutes of a solid attention span, and then you start wandering. If you're hungry and your system is down, that's not a good thing."

Andrea Desvergnes, an Attleboro mother of three who does not have a child enrolled at any of the middle schools, yet, said she has become very upset over the snack ban.

She said teachers, who are allowed to have snacks and drinks during class time, should "get over their hangups" about snacks causing distractions.

Students are allowed to have water bottles on their desks.

"They're going to lose more time by the kids daydreaming about food. My kindergartner gets angry when he gets hungry," Desvergnes said. "I don't object to the teachers snacking. But why should they have the right if the kids don't. What's the problem with one 10-minute snack."

Johnson said there's more of a problem without a 10-minute snack. She points out, as did Furtado, that a great number of children dine on sugary cereal at breakfast and that some families might even have to skip breakfast on some days.

With those cereals, children are fueled for about an hour, Johnson said. After that, at around 7:15 a.m., right after school starts, their blood sugar begins to drop.

"They're definitely going to crash," Johnson said. "They need to keep a balance or they're hurting themselves. They won't get as much done."

School officials have argued that children were snacking on unhealthy treats that weren't doing much for them anyway.

Johnson agrees that the children only would benefit from healthy snacks. She suggests lots of fruits and healthy fats, snacks that could be fun for kids.

That would include string cheeses and celery sticks with apple butter or peanut butter.

Another issue is whether children are even able to get the necessary calories their bodies need during a school day.

A typical 9- to 13-year-old girl, who has a moderate level of physical activity, needs 1,600 to 2,000 calories per day and boys need more than that, according to about.com's pediatric Web site.

Furtado says that's almost impossible with a quick morning breakfast, time to eat a sandwich during a students' 20-minute lunch and then an after-school snack and dinner.

Johnson said no one - children or adults - should ever be getting the majority of their calories from any one meal.

"Doctors are saying these kids are not getting the calories they need," Furtado said. "As an adult, I know better and know the signs if I'm going to get a headache, get sick or pass out. Kids don't know what's going on with their bodies. What is it going to take?"