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?

The actions of the Head in this case are specifically illegal.

How do you get to be Head without having a basic idea about what you can and can't do?

"It is unlawful to exclude or to increase the severity of an exclusion for a non-disciplinary reason. For example, it would be unlawful to exclude a pupil simply because they have additional needs or a disability that the school feels it is unable to meet, or for a reason such as: academic attainment / ability; the action of a pupil’s parents; or the failure of a pupil to meet specific conditions before they are reinstated. Pupils who repeatedly disobey their teachers’ academic instructions could, however, be subject to exclusion"

I like the fact that the children wear blazers. A good way to make a school better

I also like the school values:

Providing a stable, understanding, caring, Christian environment in which pupils develop self-esteeem, confidence, self-discipline and motivation and are encouraged to have an understanding and respect for cultures other than their own.

Providing an inclusive, broad and balanced curriculum where rich and diverse experiences enable the pupil to see their learning as meaningful, relevant and challenging.

Encouraging everyone to have high expectations, where effective staff development leads to excellent teaching, thus enabling pupils to reach their full potential in all aspects of their development.

Encouraging all in the life of the school to see themselves as part of the wider learning community where, as life-long learners, they develop the skills needed to become independent thinkers with a love for learning.

All these aims are underpinned by six words that everyone in our school works by:

Understanding, Co-operation, Courtesy, Trust, Responsibility and Respect.

"they develop the skills needed to become independent thinkers with a love for learning."

Independent - but don't challenge other people's thinking or ask questions.

Like what's wrong with a Scotch egg?

capsium I see your point but I suspect the school were stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. They needed to enforce this policy to improve and take a step towards getting off special measures and they couldn't do that with these parents claiming special privilege for their child.

It is only a packet of cheddars/sausage roll or whatever but the bigger picture is that these parents were afforded the opportunity to make their point in an intelligent, responsible way and they chose not to. They chose instead to endanger the educational welfare of the entire school by whining to the press after they were told that their continued flouting of a school policy would not be tolerated and that their actions would leave the school no option but suspension of the child.

The school afforded them the courtesy of a meeting to discuss the policy, trusting no doubt that a responsible parent would, in an effort to reach an understanding that respected both the school rules and their right to parent, reach some sort of compromise.

I am firmly in the camp of follow the rules, if you don't like them become a governor or fuck off
I am genuinely shocked and worried that a school governor holds such a draconian and short-sighted view.
I am actually fielding adjectives in my head now.
I hope to goodness you don't hold any such position at a school my children might attend. Your attitude is appalling.

It is possible almost certain that these parents were awkward arses. I imagine there's more to the story than we know.
But. And it's a big but (pee wee Herman)
I think it illustrates the error of not picking your battles something we all talk about when negotiating with others. Some rules are just not worth the hassle.
Is it reasonable to "ban" a cheese biscuit from a packed lunch?
I would say no, it isn't.
The best interests of the child are not being served here. The school (who should, in my view have been the "bigger person") have created a power struggle.

AgaPanthers
"The actions of the Head in this case are specifically illegal."

You don't know that as we only have one side of the story.

This school is an academy and academies do have the reputation of excluding more pupils both temporarily and permanently

Well no, we don't have only one side, Boney. The school have released a long and rather damning (to them!) statement.

www.sloughobserver.co.uk/news/roundup/articles/2014/02/05/97444-headteacher-says-pupil-expelled-for-bringing-in-mini-cheddars-committed-persistent-and-deliberate-breaches-of-healthy-eating-policy/

If they wanted to leave it open, they would say 'We never comment on pupil matters, which are confidential', and then it would be 100% possible that the child was excluded for violence, or anything, but they actually made a long statement.

Specifically:

"Colnbrook CofE Primary School has recently introduced a healthy eating policy across the school"

Ok, but this cannot be possibly be an exclusion matter, since the food is provided by the parents. A six year old does not choose his lunch.

"We have not excluded a pupil for just having mini cheddars in their lunchbox, but where there is a persistent and deliberate breach of school policy, such as bringing in crisps, biscuits, sausage rolls, mini sausages, scotch eggs and similar, and all other avenues have been exhausted, the Governors would expect further action to be taken."

Here they appear to confirm that this was about parental food choices, again not legal grounds for exclusion.

"If we are faced with a situation where a parent threatens to send a pupil into school with insufficient food to sustain them throughout the school day, it is a risk we simply cannot afford to happen."

And again, these are parental actions, not legal grounds for exclusions. The statutory exclusion policy, which the school MUST follow by law, specifically mentions lunch times, and says for instance that if there is a problem with behaviour at lunch time, then the school should investigate whether special lunchtime arrangements can be made.

"Today [Tuesday] the school has taken the decision to permanently exclude a pupil for the following reasons:

• Persistent breaches of school policies."

This is not reassuring, either. They should refer to the school's Behaviour Policy. The fact that they don't specifically refer to this suggests again that they are not following the law.

"- 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."

And they confirm here, that the action was taken for illegal reasons, the parents' behaviour.

"- The parent school relationship suffering an irretrievable breakdown that would have put two pupils in an unacceptable position."

Again, they don't seem to either know or care about the correct exclusion procedures

"This breakdown was due to misrepresentations in the local and national media that were both wholly inaccurate and grossly misleading,"

Again, misrepresentations in the media are absolutely NOT grounds for excluding the child.

" abusive language being used towards staff,"

Abusive language towards staff is a parental thing. If they seriously cannot deal with one or both of the parents, they need to at least attempt to accommodate them, e.g., by banning the father from the premises, if he is the problem.

" and other inappropriate actions being taken that were designed to damage the school’s reputation."

Quite apart from the fact that appears to be in special measures, so it's not clear what kind of reputation they have to uphold, this is again NOT a legal ground for excluding TWO children from the school.

He is clearly unfit to be a Headteacher

aga

They have responded to what was in the press, to what the parents brought in to the open they are not allowed to add further detail to the situation.

To add behaviour to School policies could have a detrimental affect on the child's further education.

Yes you can read a lot in to what the school has written but there is also a lot that hasn't been said and never will be said.

If I where the Head I wouldn't have replied at all.

I agree Aga.

It is quite simple. The school cannot legally expel a child for their parents' actions. If a parent acts illegally they can take action against that parent. However it is legal to feed a child Mini Cheddars. If the child was malnourished Social Services could be informed, but this does not appear to be the case here.

A school's role in encouraging healthy eating should be concerned with educating the child rather than policing lunch boxes. Parents are allowed to provide their children their own choice of food bar malnourishment and neglect. Allowing a child to eat a few Mini Cheddars is not neglect unless this is part of a bigger very unhealthy eating pattern.

I think this example is indicative of a certain amount of hysteria within some schools regarding healthy eating targets.

Boney, I think it would be appropriate for the school to talk in the abstract about its healthy eating policy, it could possibly also talk in very outline terms about the child.

E.g.,

"Colnbrook School has introduced a healthy eating policy, which has been widely welcomed by staff and parents, and has seen improvements in behaviour, concentration and children's energy levels. We regret that this policy has become the subject of misleading and inaccurate reports in the media. We would not comment on individual statements except to say that our policy is fully supported by the overwhelming majority of parents and the board of governors and has had a clear and immediate positive impact on the school since its introduction.

In response to press speculation, we can confirm that a child has been permanently excluded from the school following the school's published exclusion procedures and statutory Exclusion Guidance. As a matter of policy and in the interests of the child, we cannot comment on any aspect of the reasons for an exclusion."

The end.

There is no reason to talk about the school being defamed, or the parents being abusive, because it is immaterial, and damages the school's position if the parents appeal the exclusion.

Absolutely agree with aga and capsium

I think this lunch box policing has got completely out of hand. As if schools dinners are healthy. They're not in a lot of cases.

Aga

Given that a permanent expulsion can (and has been) over turned, I would be very surprised if there wasn't more to this.

As the parents have the backing of the daily mail, they (the mail) could have a field day with this if the school were found to have acted illegally.

I admit that I don't trust anything that the mail publishes.

be interesting to see how this plays out
academies can organise their own independent appeals panels for exclusions

•where allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others in the school

Justification for expulsion right there in my opinion but you're right merci, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

poor kid!

That child will suffer a great deal, suffering a disrupted education, the loss of school friends etc as a direct result of all this willy waving.

I've often thought divorcing parents have overlooked the emotional needs of a child, but never thought it would occur in a school v parent situation. Both parents and HT want their knuckles rapped by SS for emotional abuse of this poor kid imho to ensure it doesn't happen again.

A lot of schools simply confiscate offensive lunch items and ban rude parents from school premises -this seems to work and means things don't escalate to this degree.

I read the story in the Metro, apparently his younger brother has been removed also. Such a shame. Its not the kids fault.

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmetro.co.uk%2F2014%2F02%2F05%2Friley-pearson-schoolboy-expelled-in-lunchbox-row-over-mini-cheddars-4292019%2F&ei=2830UtaDMsiqhAeW8YCwCQ&usg=AFQjCNFpCv4jLJiwuX0LPFcnLGFUKPPtQw&bvm=bv.60799247,d.bGQ

•where allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others in the school

Justification for expulsion right there in my opinion but you're right merci, it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Justification or hysteria? Maybe Mini Cheddars should have a warning label? No don't think so....