Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To expect school to communicate a nut allergy?

113 replies

BelindaBlinked · 19/09/2017 16:09

Prepared to be told IABU.
DC was reprimanded for bringing almonds in his lunchbox to school today as a child in his class has a nut allergy.
Not bringing nuts in is fine by me, but AIBU to think they should let us parents know first? How am I meant to know if they don't say? Or do you always assume someone might be allergic so steer clear?

OP posts:
SardinesAreSwimming · 19/09/2017 20:06

Your child did something that could have killed another child.

He should expect an extemely severe punishment. Very poor behaviour.

I expect the child and their parents are terrified now, poor things.

ThatsWotSheSaid · 19/09/2017 20:21

Those of you with kids with nut allergies are pine nuts and cashew nuts okay? I asked at my children's school today and no one knew. The kids like pasta pesto for lunch but obviously I don't want to risk other children.

SardinesAreSwimming · 19/09/2017 20:24

No. Definitely not cashew

Ragusa · 19/09/2017 20:34

You mentioned the head was looking for another school and you felt you didn't have much choice.

That is absolute nonsense and very very bad practice on the part of the head. To get your son to leave they would have to permanently exclude him. There is literally no other way. And they will not want to do that because a) it looks bad on them and b) they are opening themselves up to serious challenge excluding a very young child with SEND, diagnosed or no. I'd contact IPSEA. The school needs a rocket under its arse by the sound of things.

thatdearoctopus · 19/09/2017 21:06

As statements are no longer issued, it's not technically correct for posters to suggest the child "needs statementing," even if the term is still used for past cases. Whatever, it is still extremely difficult to obtain, despite the number of MNers who seem to suggest it as something one can demand, just like that.

LegoNinjago · 19/09/2017 21:59

"Your child did something that could have killed another child.
He should expect an extemely severe punishment. Very poor behaviour."

This^

Ploppie4 · 19/09/2017 22:02

My DC's schools are not nut free.

misdee · 19/09/2017 22:08

@ThatsWotSheSaid No, no nuts at all are allowed. So pesto containing cashews is a no

JonSnowsWife · 19/09/2017 22:11

that don't be so pedantic over my wording. I'm chatting on Mumsnet, not drafting the next Oxford English DictionaryHmm

captain has already said it's perfectly find to use that term still.

OP. The school was right to be strict with him about this given the severity of the consequences had the girl eaten it/them. They're not right on the exclusion.
Do please take captains helpful advice. Hope he gets the support he needs soon.

JonSnowsWife · 19/09/2017 22:11

*fine not find.

thatdearoctopus · 19/09/2017 22:28

It's not your wording I was objecting to, but the assumption that one can readily expect/demand a statement/EHCP when they are extremely difficult to come by. My school has 450 pupils in it, with many children with AN of quite severe degree and the Senco hasn't got a hope of getting anything for them at all. When Statements were still being actioned, I think we had 2 children who were eventually granted them, and both not until yr 3 or 4. It was very challenging all round.

Sashkin · 19/09/2017 22:58

Lego this is a six year old. They have no understanding of the seriousness of allergies, unlike the 13yr olds in your story. This particular 6yr old also has SN. It's pretty ridiculous to punish him when he doesn't understand what he's done wrong. Far better to educate the whole class.

pringlecat · 19/09/2017 23:19

OP, your child tried to kill another child. I don't think you're the one who should be upset! Whether or not your child has (un)diagnosed SEN, your child has proven to be a very real danger to others. The lunchtime ban around food is not an over reaction!

GahBuggerit · 20/09/2017 06:16

Oh don't be so fucking ridiculous ops child hasn't tried to kill anyone ffs

Proven to be a danger? For doing something reasonably normal - pushing boundaries a bit? No, no attempted murder happened here.

Original poster
BelindaBlinked · 20/09/2017 07:16

Bloody hell Pringle, you're harsh!

I wasn't defending his behaviour anyway, I was trying to figure out if the school had reacted appropriately in response.

Thanks again to those with helpful advice and support Flowers

OP posts:
misdee · 20/09/2017 07:21

Actually If he had offered my nut allergic daughter nuts and then kept going on trying to get her to eat one he would be trying to kill her. It's not an over reaction.

And year 3 are 7-8 year olds. Not 6. My daughter has always been very aware of the seriousness of her allergies and this would be a very upsetting situation for the other child involved.

BarbarianMum · 20/09/2017 08:08

misdee what a crock. If someone had offered ds1 a peanut in Y3 he'd have said "no thanks" and moved away - same if they'd offered to share food. He'd not have been upset unless they'd physically tried to force it into his mouth.
OP's son was just minding his own business and eating his lunch.
And if the school has a highly allergic child at school they should remind parents not to send nuts in regularly.

thatdearoctopus · 20/09/2017 08:38

OP's son was just minding his own business and eating his lunch.

And you know this how? By reading the OP's posts? Where she said he "encouraged" the allergic child to try nuts?

Lots of minimising going on here, and people jumping on his (undiagnosed) SN as being an excuse for a naughty act that could have had serious repercussions. At one point the OP said she acknowledged his poor behaviour, but seems now to be quibbling about the sanction because it's inconvenient for her to collect him at lunchtime. And I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying that the school has not informed parents of its nut policy.

Original poster
BelindaBlinked · 20/09/2017 08:41

Again, I'm not asking to discuss his actions. It was poor behaviour but my question was about how to deal with the behaviour.
It's not just inconvenient, as PP have pointed out it is illegal, it doesn't teach him anything and it's completely different to what we had agreed at a meeting an hour beforehand.

Also I don't really care if you buy the nut thing. I've scoured their website and it is not on there. I've checked back through past emailed newsletters and there is no mention of it.

OP posts:
thatdearoctopus · 20/09/2017 08:45

But is it illegal? When did the law change - because it certainly was allowed a few years back.

Original poster
BelindaBlinked · 20/09/2017 09:36

I don't know when it changed but this is very clear.

I've spoken with the head now and cleared things up. We've managed to agree on a more appropriate way of dealing with his behaviour. He also agreed their policy on nuts was not clear and will send a letter out.

OP posts:
GahBuggerit · 20/09/2017 09:40

Good stuff OP. Glad they have seen sense.

LegoNinjago · 20/09/2017 13:31

GahBuggerit
"Needs a talking to yes but I'd think any real punishment is a bit off, especially if they knew about her allergy and still allow her to be put at risk."

Really?? What do you expect parents of allergic child to do? To homeschool her? Just because someone, in OP words, with "undiagnosed SN who doesn't respect boundaries and will just push and push" thought it'll be fun to see what full blown allergic reaction looks like?

Agree, lots of minimising going on here.
School is absolutely right to exclude him at lunchtimes

GahBuggerit · 20/09/2017 13:36

I clearly meant the school putting the child at risk, obviously I wouldnt suggest the parents are doing that by sending her to school, thats as stupid as the suggestion that OP's child attempted murder Hmm

As has been proven, the school cannot exclude this child at lunchtimes, so they are absolutely wrong.