There’s a debate raging among parents of school-age kids, and things are getting ugly.

Is it about No Child Left Behind? No? How about funding for the arts? No again?

Actually, the debate du jour is over some school districts’ policies that ask parents not to send in sugary treats, whether it’s in a lunch or snack or sometimes — gasp — even on that child’s birthday.

In some schools, the policy is to keep allergic and food-sensitive kids from accidentally ingesting something that might harm (or even, in some cases, KILL them). In others, teachers don’t want a bunch of kids jacked up on sugar half the day-then crashing down in the afternoon (fair enough.)

In some districts it’s been hinted that lower-income parents are having a hard time affording birthday treats for the whole class, or working parents may have difficulty finding time to make them. And some schools see reducing sweets as helping to address the growing problem of childhood obesity.

And in most cases, the schools and teachers in question still celebrate the child’s birthday: they sing a birthday song, give the child stickers or other trinkets, let them wear a crown or find another way to make the child feel special.

Regardless, the ban has got a small number of parents fuming. And while it’s possible I’m missing something, I want to sincerely ask: what’s the big deal?

Full disclosure: I love to bake, but with three kids in school and another one hanging on my leg as I mix the batter, sending in snacks and treats has long since ceased to be a fun activity and is now yet another obligation, along with a zillion permission slips and volunteer activities. Thus, a no-treat policy (which my boys’ school does have) is likelier to make me cheer than jeer.

But even if sending my kids to school with a plate of cupcakes filled me with unmitigated joy, I can’t imagine getting upset if I were asked not to. After all, the kids get plenty of treats as it is. I can make them a plate of cookies to eat when they get home. They can invite their entire class over for a party and I can load them up with home-baked cupcakes, brownies and Rice Krispie treats. What’s the big deal if they can’t eat it in school? It’s not as though, instead of getting a cupcake on their birthday, they now have to get poked with pins or are forced to eat brussels sprouts.

Let’s get a grip, shall we? We’re talking about treats, people. Frosted, sprinkled, sugary TREATS. We aren’t depriving kids of water or air or love. All across the country, children are failing to learn to read, developing diabetes, lacking adequate medical care, going hungry, drinking, doing drugs, experimenting with sex, watching music videos that should be rated NC-17, being victimized by bullies and abusers, and inexplicably, returning to fashions I thought we left behind in the ’80s. Can’t we parents find a weightier topic in which to invest our outrage?

Moms, we need to start looking at the big picture here: our child’s “right” to eat a cupcake between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 3:15 p.m. inside the school building, doesn’t trump the teacher’s right to decide how the classroom is managed. Nor does it trump the school district’s right to see a growing problem - namely, that kids eat way too much junk in general - and find one way to make a difference.

Have some school districts gone too far by banning birthday sweets? Maybe. And I suppose parents are well within their rights to make a stink. But I would argue that we’ve all got better things to worry about.

We all give up a bit of power when we put our kids in school, and like it or not, decisions are made for what’s good for the group rather than our own precious offspring. Perhaps instead of complaining about minor annoyances, parents could take that energy and time and spend it reading to the classroom or cutting out construction-paper circles.

Or perhaps they could do what I did, and give the teacher who employs the “no treats” rule a virtual toast. Less sugar in my kids’ systems and less work for me? Now that’s a policy I can get behind.