To think the school has a point about packed lunches

[Rebeccaslicker]

I'm not sure about banning parents from the premises, but is it a bad thing to say no chocolate, sugary drinks etc in a primary school lunch?? (My DD is only 2, so I haven't had the lunchbox decisions yet, v interested in people's views!)

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/now-mum-48-banned-school-1108690.amp

@isittheholidaysyet
Clarks do these
www.clarks.co.uk/c/Lilfolk-Bel-Infant/p/26126614

Thanks peri that is exactly what I want.
Why didn't Clarks show me those last time I was in there?

We are also struggling with the uniform at ds1 school. They wear a proper buttoned up shirt and tie. He has really poor motor skills and just can’t do his buttons up. The Moyer skills have been picked up by the teachers as he still can’t hold a pen and he can’t do the games which strengthen them. They are getting pissed off wirh us and saying can we teach him to get dressed ever morning as they can’t help him anymore. But we do. We spend an hour each morning with him sobbing ‘I just can’t do it mummy’. He’s starting to hate school because of shirts. But when he started he loved it and was so enthusiastic.

Obviously when we chose the school it was almost a whole year before and we thought he would develop in that year. But he hasn’t.

I noticed all the other schools have polo shirts and sweatshirts for R and yr1 but not his. It just seems like hard work for the sake of it. I want him to love learning and not be put off by things like buttons.

Of course we will carry on working on it. But it is frustrating that they think we aren’t.

We go to M&S for shoes. They're excellent, last and they do at least one t bar version every season. I don't go anywhere else.

Sorry @isitthe meant to tag you.

Thanks putyour
I think I'll research better next time. After three DS's, DD is proving hard work! (And she has awkward feet!)

Phrases like 'type of parent' and 'pandering to' are used to shut down legitimate disagreement with draconian school rules.

Actually when it came to feeding and clothing my DCs I did know better than their schools.

I knew what they had eaten for breakfast, I knew what they would/wouldnt eat and drink, I knew what they were having for dinner.

I knew how far they had to walk to school, what clothes they were comfortable in, what clothes they could manage themselves.

That doesnt make me a 'type of parent' it makes me a parent. Recognising my knowledge of my specialist subject (my DCs) isnt pandering to me it is respecting me.

Relax the rules, deal with the genuine child welfare issues. Dont alienate parents.

MrsKoala
Is it worth speaking to the SENDCo?
We have a strict uniform but we have a range of options and alternatives for studnets with additional needs.
E.g. one of my students wears his pe kit all the time instead of the formal uniform and blazer because of sensory issues.
Another has velcro shoes because of dexterity issues which make laces difficult.
Another has a pair of smarter black trainers to allow for their specialist insoles.

We are secondary but that shouldn't make a difference
Phrases like 'type of parent' and 'pandering to' are used to shut down legitimate disagreement with draconian school rules.
Not at all. And only people who are those parents who think rules don't apply to their child / have an issue with school make that claim. (Usually people also say 'eeh you can't ever criticise teachers on mumsnet' and other such bollocks)

I am all for parents raising issues with school. I make all the time in the world for parents with queries or concerns. I help fight their corner when needed. At times I have told SLT wheni think they have been unfair or unreasonable.

However I don't suffer fools gladly, won't get into circular conversations with people who won't kit their child out in our very reasonable uniform because thry personally think uniform doesn't matter and then pretend as if somehow sending their kid in wearing trainers or skinny trousers is some political statemebt to 'the man/authority' rather than being an obnoxious PITA.
Equally, i'm not going to negotiate and pander to parents who clearly have some deep seated issue with rules and like to consider themselves on a one person crusade against 'draconian rules' which all too often is anything they personally don't like.

There is a reason 'those parents' exists as a phrase and it doesn't refer to reasonable parents raising concerns in a reasonable manner.

Unfortunately Maisy some schools have the phrase "we can't make exceptions or everyone would want it" regardless of SEN or disabilities on loop. Even if something is stated in an ed psych report some schools are un-movable.

AlexanderHamilton
We use that phrase but as in 'no your daughter can't keep her acrylic nails on til after her aunty's party. If we made an exception for her then we'd be inundated with requests'. It's true. We don't make exemptions and we certainly don't do it because Timmy's mam has been in being aggressive and argumentative because the think he should wear his £70 branded trainers.

But we don't count SEND or disability as an exception. We view it as a reasonable adjustment.

If I was a parent of a SEND child in a school where the school refused reasonable adjustments then I would be going through every channel on earth to get that resolved.

In ds's case it was a refusal to give him a time out pass, a place to go when he was feeling sensory overload, permission to eat somewhere other than the dining room & a lighter homework load for example alternate maths questions (slow processing meant 90 mins homework turned into 2-3 hours) to name just a few issues. They begrudgingly allowed him to have plain pasta withiutvtye sauce (as long as the belligerent lunchtime server was not on duty)

And in junior school there was no leeway at all with regards to food which meant he ate just vegetables or plain rice or a philadelphia & crackers & nothing else every single day.

AlexanderHamilton
That is spectacularly crappy of them.

I get that some parents/students try it on (I'm thinking about the middle class brand of anxiety sweeping my school where students catch anxiety from their peer and they are so anxious they can't attend lessons they don't like because there's people in there but they are more than happy to make a big entrance 15 mins into my lesson saying 'Mrs Pops. I'm in the support unit for my ANXIETY. Can i havr some work?' or when they see a video clip on they suddenly feel well enough to stay when the option is be in class with a video of doing comprehension in the support base.)

But what you describe is a school refusing perfectly reasonable adjustments. That is outrageous.

We gave up fighting & he now goes to a lovely supportive school closer to my parents house.

Phrases like 'type of parent' and 'pandering to' are used to shut down legitimate disagreement with draconian school rules.

Not at all. And only people who are those parents who think rules don't apply to their child / have an issue with school make that claim.

There you go again. I say that you are trying to shut down argument against some school rules by claiming that the people who object to certain rules are all troublemakers/dont think that the rules apply to them.

I objected to the introduction of a new type of uniform. I still made sure that my DCs wore it. Not because I thought the uniform rule was good but because my DCs were precisely the ones who would be made an example of (well behaved, polite).

Fortunately their primary school didnt introduce any sort of lunch box policy. The Deputy Head suggested it at a governors' meeting but was told quite clearly that this was not something we would support.

There you go again. I say that you are trying to shut down argument against some school rules by claiming that the people who object to certain rules are all troublemakers/dont think that the rules apply to them.
Sigh. No I'm not.

I'm saying that 'those parents' is not a phrase used to describe reasonable people raising reasonable concerns in a reasonable manner.

People who are 'those parents' are unreasonable, tend to think rules don't apply to them or their children, tend to be rude and aggressive to staff, tend to be utterly unsupportive and then tend to blame the school for anytging and everything they dislike.

But please, do explain to me how me saying there are:

1. Reasonable people raising reasonable concerns in a reasonable

1. 'Those parents' who are rude, obnoxious and think rules don't apply to them and their children

Means I am shutting down critcism or branding anyonr who complains a troublemaker. Englighten me because i sure as hell can see a difference between those 2 groups. Can't you?

Maisy your reply to my comment about use of certain phrases to shut down argument was that the only people who make that claim are people who dont think the rules apply to them or have issues with school. It's in the two sentences of yours which I quoted.

You say that your school's uniform is reasonable but reasonableness is subjective. What may seem perfectly reasonable to you may be totally unreasonable to someone else and that view is just as legitimate as yours especially if the person objecting has to buy the uniform or wear it.

Mathanxiety and Gnome - everything you say resonates with me.

Having experienced the school system in the UK and in other countries it's really made me realise some of the failings of the UK system. I'm quite relieved my children are not part of it.

Relax the rules, deal with the genuine child welfare issues. Dont alienate parents.

Our schools are doing this and it works. You don't have to homeschool in the forest.

Maisy
The problem with the terms you use and the assumptions behind them is that you can easily decide that people raising concerns you think are not reasonable are therefore troublemakers. Or you think parents need a certain accent and demeanour before you will take them seriously.

Overall, your attitude is 'Ask nicely and then I might consider thinking about it'.

This is the attitude that alienates a lot of people from engagement with schools. If schools are truly determined to get parents engaged (many, many studies show that this is key to student performance) then schools need to stop playing silly power games and start figuring out how to get parents onside.
Maisy
It's not a child welfare issue if mam decides that the uniform says black leather school shoes and she choses to buy a pair of £70 black trainers and then complain when her child is sanctioned.
That's just clear defiance and a sign that the parent will do fuck all to support their child at school
This ^^ is what I mean by power games, engaging in trench warfare that can never be won. This sort of behaviour is beneath the dignity of schools. Schools put up unnecessary hurdles and want parents to jump them, 'just because...' If they won't, then they have failed the test. It is the opposite of productive engagement.

The conclusion you draw from the scenario is upside down and inside out. You are partners with the parents, not the sergeant major roaring orders and brooking no defiance. It is a partnership of equals.

You really do sound like the very worst type of parent my friends and family who are teachers have to deal with, Isitthe. So sure you must know best.... Why does anyone bother having school rules or learning how to teach? I mean, if every parent knows best for every child, what's the point?

Get off your high horse Rebbeca, it's legs have buckled. Have you looked at any of the statements being made by the World Economic Forum this week about education. These world experts on what children will need to know in the rapidly changing world they will come of age in. These people who run countries, who run businesses larger than countries, who run the Big fucking Hadron Collider, who are creating the technologies that are about to change the world - soon. They have never been so clear in stating that schools of the sort touted by you and others on here, will not and can not prepare our children for the near future. They are sending our children on the exact opposite path of where they will need to be. The WEF has made it plain this week that educational strategies need to change direction immediately.

Even now the biggest threat to employment is automation rather than globalisation. In 5, 10, 20 years that will be true on a scale that's almost impossible to imagine outside of in a hard science fiction novel. Everyone who pays attention to what's happening knows we are on the brink of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Farming, food production, waste management, driving, flying, cleaning will me largely automated. And while we may not yet be on the cusp of the Technological Singularity, advances in AI mean that before too long even many of the career paths that were traditionally safe from automation will be lost to it. Much of law, medicine and research as we currently know it will be done by AI. So many career paths will disappear along with the more mundane jobs.

This isn't some conspiracy nut fantasy. It's not some sci-fi geek hard-on. It's the real world where people like Jack Ma, Minouche Shafik, and Fabiola Gionotti have gotten together to make it clear to the world that the way our children are educated will not prepare them for the world ahead.

Rebeccaslicker Sun 28-Jan-18 11:17:57
Gnome - because appearances matter. The kids are representing the school. Just as one day they'll have to dress appropriately for jobs and interviews

What is really happening here is that the school fancies itself in the same league as schools with famous uniforms like Eton. The students have to pander to the school's notions about itself.

Dressing appropriately for an interview and for a job is something hundreds of thousands of Americans fresh out of the education system manage daily even though they most likely never wore a uniform in their lives. Those whose jobs require a uniform manage to wear it. Those whose jobs require clothing in a style that fits well with the general tone of the workplace also manage it. They even manage the minefield known as casual Fridays.

Do you really believe your child isn't a representative of the school? What about taking pride in being part of a community? Does only your family count? How very narrow.
What is narrow here is the schools' insistence on style over substance. Uniforms are used to plaster over many deep-seated issues in UK schools.

My DCs went to a high school with no uniform, just guidelines about attire that focused on respect for others. Obviously, students arrived in a wide variety of clothing, but for the most part the informal 'uniform' was jeans/sweatpants/leggings in the cold weather and shorts when it was hot, with weather appropriate footwear and outerwear. When students are allowed to choose what to wear to school they pay attention to the weather forecast and dress appropriately for conditions. Teachers were required to dress 'professionally', meaning suits, smart casual clothing, no jeans, no sneakers. They modeled professionalism in more ways than just what they wore.

The community and most families in it valued creativity, independence, individuality, respect for others, diversity, inclusion, and a thoughtful, questioning approach to the status quo. Through freedom of choice when it came to their attire and comportment, the students represented the values of the community and of their families, and their own developing values.

Values need to be shared throughout the community. No single institution or group in a community gets to decide what the values are. Democracy is a concept that involves more than just the right to vote. It involves various community institutions actively listening to the constituents or clients or populations they serve.

If an institution has dismissed the possibility that it exists to serve a community and claims it is actually the other way round, that is a huge pity.
I agree there needs to be ways to engage with those parents and help them improve chances for their kids.
... However it is not the job of a school to do that.
How is that silly proposition moving anyone forward?

Overall, your attitude is 'Ask nicely and then I might consider thinking about it'.
This is the attitude that alienates a lot of people from engagement with schools

My attitude is be a reasonable, polite human being and peoplr will speak back to you like a polite human being. If expecting people to be polite and reasonable alienates people then those people clearly have no hope.

If someone chooses to be argumentative, intimidating, goes out and buys clearly non uniform items and then kicks off at school then they are not reasonable. Thesr are also thr parents who tell their chikd they can wear jewellery, dye their hair blue, not attend detentions, not do homework and call up saying 'dc won't be in detention becUse they were just'. They are also often the ones who tell their child 'i went to that school and it was shit when i was there and it's shit now. I didn't need my gcses and ive done just fine'.

Or in one case, parent adament that her child's hoody and trainers were a fundamental human right decided i deserved to be physically assaulted by their teenager because I had thr audacity to remind him to take his coat off. Apparently the coat didn't matter either. (No rule that her precious DS didn't like mattered).

Schools and parents are a partnership. Part of that partnership is when you send yout child to a school, you follow the uniform, support the rules and if you need to raise an issue or concern (whatever that may be) then you do it in a way that is polite and reasonable - not take the view 'i don't wnat to do i'm not going to' and then complain when school say no.

How is that silly proposition moving anyone forward?
It's not silly at all.
Because we are trained to be TEACHERS.
We trained to TEACH.
We did our training teaching CHILDREN.

And every time specialist services are slashed and put under 'schools will sort it' what happens is people who need the most help don't get it.

E.g. We are not mental health specialists (although increasingly are expected to be as CAMHS is stretched and cut back). We are nowhere close to being as good as our CAMHS colleagues and what kids need are mental health specialists, not well meaning teachers with good intentions who've had another thing put in for them to do.

E.g. We are not social workers. We are not parent support workers. We are not family liaison workers. We are teachers. If a family needs targeted support, we afe not trained in doing that.

Equally, the more all these other services get cut and chunks get thrown to schools to.sort of deal with, the less money is there to actually educate childreb. It also sends yhe message that those vital services were never really that essentially anyway because schools will do it for less money (but at a cost to education).

I'm not saying people don't need that help. I am.saying that it should not be the jobs of schools to do it. I trained to TEACH and that's what I'm good at. Schools are there to educate children, not fix every problem in society.

My attitude is be a reasonable, polite human being and peoplr will speak back to you like a polite human being
This explains it. My school isn't run by those polite types. As asking anything politely is treated like a personal attack. For example when I was called in for a meeting over one of my dcs absence, I very nicely said I was a bit confused as dc had one day ill all year (and no lates either) I got pretty much shouted at that their records were correct - turns out they'd included consultant appointments which were not meant to have been. From what I found out, I was not the first person that week to have had a similar meeting with a similar outcome, and it may well be that other parents weren't as polite as I was, but their manner was not a reflection back of how I talked to them. This sadly is typical from them.

Schools are there to educate children, not fix every problem in society.

Indeed.

I'm so glad my kids are at a school where you can wear what you like and eat what your parents give you, and the teachers get to focus on teaching rather than policing things that should not be under their remit.