School putting child in isolation because parents haven't paid lunch fees

[Bubbinsmakesthree]

Apologies for the DM link, and in case there's another thread on this (couldn't find one, but it's such a mumsnetty topic I can't believe no-one else has started one).

A school has threatened to put a child in isolation for their entire lunchbreak every day until the parents pay the £75 due for the term's school lunches (which are 1 week overdue).

Daily Mail article:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3713583/Superhead-claimed-Britain-s-education-broken-puts-pupils-detention-lunch-restricts-food-parents-failed-pay-school-meals.html

Link to a picture of the letter from the school:

twitter.com/RichardA/status/758941460741758982

WTF are the school playing at? In what possible circumstances is this OK?

Have you asked them whether you should cancel the physio or the grief counselling to pay for the lunches? I'd ask them to choose for you, and if that doesn't make them find funding for your DS then you need to escalate your complaint.

Do not, under any circumstances, cancel anything.

Assortment thats appalling Id do what giraffe says and ask them what you expected to cancel. And expensive school uniform so the kids look smart (and i will bet they will also trot out the excuse its so the difference isnt obvious between the poorer kids and the more well off ones. ) while making you poorer Its Kafkesque.

Jack Monroe has done a good article on it.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/02/school-lunch-punish-children-hunger-food-bank

The head of Michaela has written a piece in the Telegraph defending their lunch policy. She says that in other schools kids can pay for lunch or bring in a packed lunch. If they don't pay for lunch, it's assumed that they have a packed lunch and some children simply don't eat. At her school with the family lunch policy, it ensures that all children eat.

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/08/05/michaela-school-head-in-defence-of-lunch-isolation-for-pupils-wh/

It's a secondary school isn't it? I know at dd's comp they are told to speak to their teacher if they've got no money on their account and no lunch, but if they didn't do that they would go hungry.

There's a bit about this in today's Guardian. Apparently the letter didn't come from the Deputy Head, but from the office staff who signed it in his name. The mother had paid for the dinners, but has now removed her son from the school.

If it had come from the office staff it would have been p.p'd. It wasn't, it was just signed. (and the Guardian have seen proof that the money was paid before the letter was sent)

But regardless of who signed it, the child was subject to a punishment for something outside of his control.

The head claims that they don't impose this policy on those whose parents are "genuinely" poor but only those she claims are refusing to pay. The question, of course, is how she knows who is or is not genuinely hard up - she has no power to make parents produce proof of income, and it would be incredibly intrusive if she tried. And that still leaves the position that she is punishing children for something that is totally out of their control.

I've just been looking at their behaviour policy. Pupils get punished for:

Disrupting others in lessons including whispering. Tough on the kid who doesn't understand something or just wants to borrow a pencil or something.
Persistently not tracking or concentrating. I'm not too clear what "tracking" is, but too bad for the kid with ADHD or sensitivity to noise, or who is feeling ill or in pain and dares to concentrate on that for a couple of minutes rather than the lesson.
Incorrect uniform or equipment - too bad for the kid with dyslexia or similar organisational problems, or the parent who has failed for whatever reason to supply him with the right stuff.
No reading book or poor reading: dyslexics in the doghouse again.
Lateness to school - even when the buses aren't running or parent's car breaks down?

Mostly it translates as: we don't want any nasty children with SEN in our school, thanks.

I notice that consuming non-school food on the premises will result in detention, so there's no way for a child to escape punishment they have ineffective parents.

I also find the insistence on silence quite creepy. Silence in class (ie no questions), silence between lessons in the corridor, getting changed for PE in silence - they even have to be silent on school trips!

IIRC it states in the article that the mother is single and unemployed. Wouldn't she class as "Genuinely" poor if that's the case. Also £75 upfront cost, I wonder if you get refunded if your child isoff sick.

"The question, of course, is how she knows who is or is not genuinely hard up"

Well quite Judy. Seems my DS's school aren't the only ones to spin that line. The fact is, they don't know who is struggling. They don't know what sacrifices are being made to meet their demands of money for this, money for that. The idea that they somehow gleen this through some kind of superior wisdom that allows them powers of divination, well, quite frankly it's arrogant bollocks.

Grrrr.

Anyone got links for the latest reports on that incident? I can't find anything,.,

There are certain expectations in any workplace, yes, but I wouldn't want to work for a company where I'd get a formal warning for being late for work once, speaking to a colleague about non-work things during work hours, forgetting to bring my pen (!) or being distracted in one meeting because I had other serious issues on my mind. Most people would agree that even though it's better not to do these things at work, a manager with zero understanding or flexibility over little things would be a horrible person to work for.

It isn't a choice between this school's cultish devotion to rules and silence, and complete anarchy. There's lots of reasonable middle ground.