Lunchbox suspension..

[JunoMacGuff]

here

It's from a DM article apparently though I refuse to investigate that.

A school have really suspended a child based on his parents actions? And those actions were to give him mini cheddars?

School policies here:

www.colnbrookprimary.com/Policies.html

Can anyone find anything about approved snack foods and mouthy parent policies?

In this instance, why can't the parents just follow the rules?

When we place our children in school (which hopefully is the school of our choice) we are saying we trust the staff to make the best decisions for our children, with their welfare in mind. Otherwise, what else are they doing it for-does anyone seriously think the head is banning certain foods for more cynical reasons?

You may feel he's mis-guided; there are things at my DS's school which i disagree with to differing degrees, but if, as a result of sticking to my principles and being 'bloody minded' I risked him being excluded, I'd suck it up and do what's best for him. I'd pick my battles!

As his parents, they have responsibility for only him in this matter. His education will suffer because his parents are fuckwits (whether you think he should or shouldn't be allowed certain things in his lunchbox is almost not the issue; they have pushed it to this conclusion, and for what? The right to send certain foodstuffs?).

I'd love to know what the other children bring in.
And the school dinner contents.

I'm actually really surprised that they're allowed to permanently exclude a child based on his parents behaviour.

We had a few incidents with a parent at our school who actually punched a and the most the school could do was ban the parent from the premises

we have lost sight of what pod is all about and what constitutes a healthy diet
So much of what is considered a balanced diet is nothing more than fashion and snobbery.
I used to have school dinners. My friends who took a packed lunch would always have something like crisps and a chocolate biscuit (Jacobs club, penguin) but they also always had a piece of fruit. None of them were overweight.
Ppl are busy. I have to make a packed lunch for my DCs daycare.
I often make stuff ("sausage rolls" made with homemade pastry and a filling of seasoned beef mince, or falafel or tortilla.but not all the time.
I'd be so pissed off if someone at school, who frankly knows less than I do about nutrition (not to mention about my life/ DCs/ schedule) made clumsy judgements about my DCs lunch.
I seriously doubt that school dinners are any better than a slightly rubbish packed lunch tbh.
So, while I will be doing my best to adhere to school rules for many reasons, I am not going to be happy about this kind of short sighted, I'll informed policing.

At first I thought that the school are being stupid and the real loser is the poor child.

However, having thought about it a bit more, the parents are the one who have ultimately put the school in a no-win situation.

Schools cannot operate without parental support. They can't enforce discipline and teach effectively if the teachers are being undermined by parents who are sticking two fingers up at the school and deciding which rules they'd like to abide by or not.

Lastly i don't understand what sort of parents would risk their child's education when you can avoid it all by sticking a sandwich and an apple into their lunchbox.

wooo, haven't checked back for a day or two - didn't realise this was still raging.
I seem to have annoyed someone with my use of the word 'snapshot' and because I'm feeling that way out.....snapshop,snapshot,snapshot. Ahh feel better now, sorry sibling don't mean to be an arsehole but sometimes I am childish [wink}

You sound very passionate about healthy eating and I commend you for that BUT what my Ds eats for lunch is such a small glimmer?!? of his lifestyle. It doesn't take into account what he has for breakfast and dinner or our fairly healthy/social attitude to food (no foods banned, but not treat-laden, happy family meals) It doesn't show how active he is - we walk everywhere, he does swimming and street dance. Being relaxed about things and having a healthy mental attitude to things (not just physical)

As for anyone having a pop at those making excuses about fruit/having time - sometimes as a parent you don't do what's the most approved of action but it's convenient/easier/sanity saving and not the end of the world - you make up for it in other ways and usually feel a bit guilty anyway without the added judging. Think we should just give ourselves a break.

Tbh, the parents sound like dicks but as a school you can't have it both ways. You cannot under the pretense of promoting 'healthy eating' police lunchboxes but then be ok with paid for schools not following the same rules and then when it comes to fundraisng/events etc encourage cake-buying - is hypocritical.

I grew up on spam fritters, dalepak beefsteaks and various other 'cool' 80s shit - my medicals seem fine

*paid for school lunches goddammit - it's my relaxed mental attitude you see.

I get the point about unhealthy lunches but he's 6, its not like he can go out and buy some lovely healthy stuff is it? poor kids just being punished because his parents have a bad attitude.

It's a Solomon's baby thing really isn't it? If they were good parents who cared about their child's education even if they were really annoyed and angry about it they wouldn't have behaved the way they did.

They could have taken it up with the council or governers calmly, organized other parents to object and campaign for the rules to be relaxed in a non-aggressive way such as a petition. But going in and shouting the odds and threatening to send the kid in with nothing so he starved was awful.

They must have known that the main person who would be hurt by this was their son by being caught up in the middle of a battle between his school and his parents in a battle.

I mean, come on, is it really worth risking your kids education over a packet of mini cheddars?

The family's name is going to be mud in every school in the area, and wherever this boy goes now he is going to carry a stigma and the teachers are going to be keeping a very close eye on him.

I can understand why they find it annoying, but I don't believe good parents would have behaved the way they did, dragging their poor child through the press and effing and jeffing in the school just because they want to prove a point.

Basically proving a point was more important to them than their kids welfare. None of this will have done him any good and they didn't put him first.

Are the school allowed to exclude a child due to their parents actions? I thought it wasn't allowed.

I think the parents have behaved appalling however I don't think the school has the moral highground. A six year old boy is caught in a battle of wills and ultimately he is the one who loses.

They said it was because the relationship with the parents had irretrievably broken down so presumably they can on those grounds.

Update. The boy has now been expelled.

Update. The boy has now been expelled.

Oh? Why? This clearly isn't anything to do with packed lunches. Do you have a link (or is it the DM - in which case I'd rather not go there)?

If I ran a school and suddenly it was in the media spotlight, I'd look at my website.

The latest newsletter was in November. Discussing the use of standard English in the classroom. Even by teachers

Here in The Independent www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sixyearold-schoolboy-suspended-for-having-mini-cheddars-in-his-lunchbox-has-now-been-expelled-9109722.html

It seems the contact with the media regarding this (as well as parent-school relations) were a factor in the expulsions.

Shouldn't expulsions really be based on the behaviour of the child?

www.parentdish.co.uk/2014/02/05/headteacher-defends-decision-to-exclude-six-year-old-mini-cheddars-boy/

"Today (Tuesday 4 February) the school has taken the decision to permanently exclude a pupil for the following reasons:

• Persistent breaches of school policies.

• During the course of a recent four day exclusion, the pupil's parents made it publicly clear that their child would not be following the school's policy on healthy eating upon their return.

• The parent-school relationship suffering an irretrievable breakdown that would have put two pupils in an unacceptable position. This breakdown was due to misrepresentations in the local and national media that were both wholly inaccurate and grossly misleading, abusive language being used towards staff, and other inappropriate actions being taken that were designed to damage the school's reputation."

I am only an armchair lawyer, but it appears the school has acted illegally.

According to the law:

"A decision to exclude a pupil permanently should only be taken:
•in response to a serious breach,or persistent breaches, of the school's behaviour policy; and
•where allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others in the school"

It doesn't appear that the boy's behaviour was problematic at all.

Head should lose his job.

Holly - are you sure you are looking at the right website. The school's website has a letter about the matter to parents and a translation in Polish on the homepage.

No, there is a link to the newsletter at top right, and it is indeed from November.

Why was the child suspended? Because, the parents, thinking that they would get their own way ran off their mouths in the press about how they weren't going to follow the schools rules. The school took them at their word and could not allow that. The child is then gone from the school. It's called personal responsibility, a concept more people should become acquainted with.

As a governor I am firmly in the camp of follow the rules, if you don't like them become a governor or fuck off.

I'llProvideTheTicketToTheFarSideOfFuckIfYouNeedItTiggaxx

dawntigga, as a governor you also have to follow the rules when it comes to excluding children, or fuck off.

You can't just expel (note: not suspend) kids because parents were rude about you in a newspaper.

Parents should, as a starting point for their behaviour, follow school rules, but never blindly without thought. I imagine they signed up happily to the school's policies previously, but the crackpot head has changed the rules.

All children, in this country, are entitled to an education,regardless of their parent's actions.

A child should not be judged for their parent's actions, full stop. Lunch box contents, provided for by parents, are beyond a child's control.

I surprised that as a school Governor dawntigga you have not taken the above in to account, re. your last comment. The child, as far as we know, broke no rules.

Well done the Head.

Threatening to send your child into school with 'just a banana and some water' and refusing point blank to compromise is neither 'good parenting' nor a good example to set a child. To then follow that by splashing your 6yr old son (complete with hang-dog expression and two packets of cheddars) all over the the gutter press whilst whining about how hard done to you are because someone dared to draw a line in the sand says it all to me.

^ ankle But the child is not guilty of any of those things. The child is the one who is being punished. How can a school think this is right?

dawntigga as a school governor your attitude is shocking - speak about people being power hungry - follow my rules or fuck off? really... is this the way you treat people?