Regulating schools and mini chedders!

DonDaddyD

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 09722.html

A school expelled a boy for having mini chedders in his lunch box. OK, I say to myself, that's not right but then they expel his brother from nursery for what seems like no reason but spite and I find myself outraged, filled with anger and wanting to sharpen my pitchfork.

Where do I march, who do you write a letter to? Then it dawns on me, in the NHS there is Monitor, the CQC, Chief Inspector of Hospitals and the Health Secretary amongts many bodies and people charged with scrutinizing the quality of service, monitoring conduct and being ever present should a complaint be serious enough that it must extend beyond that healthcare service/Trust.

Who regulates, monitors and scrutinizes schools for their performance. What organisation sets, monitors and holds to account schools to a set of standards and is empowered should a Headteacher go power mad and decided to expel everyone with the last name Smith?

And since when did schools gain the power to dictate what is in a packedlunch and expell a child because he has Cheese and Onion Walkers as oppose to Kettle Chips? Expelling his brother from nursery is disgracefully spiteful.

Discuss!

jamesco

The child was expelled because of the breakdown in the relationship between the school and the parents. Basically, the parents were absolute pr!cks to the staff as well as refusing to provide a lunch that meets the school's standards. Can't see what else the school could do...

notsoblue

What kind of a name is "Riley"?

Sorry, came off a bit Katie Hopkins there. Though given DDD is Bikeradar's Matthew Wright, it may have been an appropriate response.

rubertoe

DDD,

I take it you will be home schooling mini DDD?

veronese68

Ofsted?
Our kids are not allowed anything with nuts in school in case of other kids with allergies. The primary school wouldn't allow all sorts of things including crisps, chocolate bars and such like. I objected to that as my kids were clearly far from obese and walked to school. Maybe doing more sports in schools and encouraging competition would be better, not keeping them indoors if there was a little bit of rain at break time might help them too. I object to the banning of some food stuffs from kids that are clearly healthy and eat a balanced diet. I guess they bring in blanket bans because it's easier for them and stops any accusations of victimisation.

walkingbootweather

Sounds crackers to me :roll:

DonDaddyD

jamesco wrote:

The child was expelled because of the breakdown in the relationship between the school and the parents. Basically, the parents were absolute pr!cks to the staff as well as refusing to provide a lunch that meets the school's standards. Can't see what else the school could do...

Can you provide any links to information that details the breakdown in relationship between school and parent? How were the parents pricks to the staff?

rubertoe wrote:

DDD,

I take it you will be home schooling mini DDD?

Not sure how that is relevant...

Veronese68 wrote:

Ofsted?
Our kids are not allowed anything with nuts in school in case of other kids with allergies. The primary school wouldn't allow all sorts of things including crisps, chocolate bars and such like. I objected to that as my kids were clearly far from obese and walked to school. Maybe doing more sports in schools and encouraging competition would be better, not keeping them indoors if there was a little bit of rain at break time might help them too. I object to the banning of some food stuffs from kids that are clearly healthy and eat a balanced diet. I guess they bring in blanket bans because it's easier for them and stops any accusations of victimisation.

I agree.

jamesco

DonDaddyD wrote:

Can you provide any links to information that details the breakdown in relationship between school and parent? How were the parents pricks to the staff?

Sure, from the article you linked to

It also said the decision was taken because of "the parent school relationship suffering an irretrievable breakdown that would have put [the] two pupils in an unacceptable position".

The school said: "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."

My school had rules forbidding junk food. It's for a good reason and is no more of an issue than the rules about haircuts and uniforms. Nothing to get abusive about, and certainly not with the people responsible for educating one's offspring.

secretsam

Veronese68 wrote:

Ofsted?
Our kids are not allowed anything with nuts in school in case of other kids with allergies. The primary school wouldn't allow all sorts of things including crisps, chocolate bars and such like. I objected to that as my kids were clearly far from obese and walked to school. Maybe doing more sports in schools and encouraging competition would be better, not keeping them indoors if there was a little bit of rain at break time might help them too. I object to the banning of some food stuffs from kids that are clearly healthy and eat a balanced diet. I guess they bring in blanket bans because it's easier for them and stops any accusations of victimisation.

My kids aren't allowed chocolate 'n' that, but nuts are OK at their junior school - I guess they just take the view that if the child's aged 7+, they should know that nuts = danger. Seems a sensible approach. Am sure that a lot of this "intolerance" stuff is not properly diagnosed, ie it's just some ninny Mummy/Daddy thinking that their ickle precious is "special".

PS: apols to genuine Coeliacs sufferers, etc

veronese68

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree.

That's a worry.
Having said all of that you do have to play the game and conform to an extent. We did have disagreements with the primary school over more important things, like teaching. You have to pick your battles. If the parents were abusive to the staff I'd say that is unacceptable behaviour and I can understand the school wouldn't want their children. If the school was embarrassed because the parents spoke to the press about what was happening so they excluded the kids I'd say that is completely wrong, not least because they have made matters worse.

mtb-idle

There's always two sides to the story and I'm sure the decision was taken more on the abusive language etc. than the mini cheddars that the press have picked up on in a man bitten by snake versus man bites snake kinda way they always do.

Should the school be able to dictate what's in a lunch box? IMHO that's a big NO. All part of the ever-expanding nanny state that governs everything we do, eat or even think now.

FWIW my wife works in a school office. She organised a school trip recently and was WFH when I spotted a spreadsheet on the screen that detailed the kids and their various allergies, phobias, whatever.

They went from the sublime to the ridiculous but out of about 200 kids I would say that 175 of them had something noted alongside their name.

What's wrong with kids nowadays should be the real question. We appear to be breeding a bunch of state-dependent phobia obsessed wimps.

walkingbootweather

MTB-Idle wrote:

What's wrong with kids nowadays should be the real question. We appear to be breeding a bunch of state-dependent phobia obsessed wimps.

Probably all the e-numbers in cheesy snacks init

mtb-idle

walkingbootweather wrote:

MTB-Idle wrote:

What's wrong with kids nowadays should be the real question. We appear to be breeding a bunch of state-dependent phobia obsessed wimps.

Probably all the e-numbers in cheesy snacks init

I see what you did there

cookeeemonster

basically too many kids today are fat and/or unhealthy due to a terrible diet and lack of exercise - which does affect their education as well as their future health.

The parents are 100% the problem here, good on the school for taking a stand and trying to get the point across to their kid that junk food = bad.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

And since when did schools gain the power to dictate what is in a packedlunch and expell a child because he has Cheese and Onion Walkers as oppose to Kettle Chips? Expelling his brother from nursery is disgracefully spiteful.

Discuss!

Hmmm, where is the reference to Kettle chips somehow being OK as opposed to Walkers not? Not making up the facts to suit your argument by any chance?

Anyway, in answer to your question. Schools gained the power to dictate what is in a packed lunch when parents ceased behaving like adults and deserving the trust to make the right decision without unpleasant rules being foisted on them. Maybe if the parents had been made to eat properly when they went toschool they wouldn't be feeding their own children junk now. And why do you still persist in believing that the media just report the basic facts without putting a sensationalist spin on it?

tgotb

Veronese68 wrote:

Maybe doing more sports in schools and encouraging competition would be better, not keeping them indoors if there was a little bit of rain at break time might help them too.

Competition? In school? Are you out of your mind? Next you'll be suggesting a grading system that reveals you how your kids are doing relative to their classmates :shock:

Competition has no place in the modern education system; plenty of time to learn all about that when you emerge, blinking, into the real world at the age of 18...

Paulie W

Many kids will eat 5 and possibly 10 meals a week at school so it makes perfect sense for those schools to be involved in decisions about what those kids are eating. There's a debate to be had as to whether the school should be limiting what children have in their lunchbox - no crisps, biscuits or soft drinks fair enough maybe but what about salty, sugary white bread or yoghurts crammed with sugar? - or perhaps using a reward system for those who have healthy lunches - I've heard about this in action and younger kids seem really motivated to score points for being 'healthy'.

mtb-idle

rubertoe wrote:

DDD,

I take it you will be home schooling mini DDD?

Hopefully not given his spelling of cheddar (although that's another thing that doesn't seem to matter nowadays) :roll:

EDIT: Unless of course Don is training mini-Dee to be an MTB'er and thought he was describing him as a mini-shredder :shock:

mtb-idle

Paulie W wrote:

Many kids will eat 5 and possibly 10 meals a week at school so it makes perfect sense for those schools to be involved in decisions about what those kids are eating. There's a debate to be had as to whether the school should be limiting what children have in their lunchbox - no crisps, biscuits or soft drinks fair enough maybe but what about salty, sugary white bread or yoghurts crammed with sugar? - or perhaps using a reward system for those who have healthy lunches - I've heard about this in action and younger kids seem really motivated to score points for being 'healthy'.

it's nothing to do with the school :evil:

Paulie W

MTB-Idle wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Many kids will eat 5 and possibly 10 meals a week at school so it makes perfect sense for those schools to be involved in decisions about what those kids are eating. There's a debate to be had as to whether the school should be limiting what children have in their lunchbox - no crisps, biscuits or soft drinks fair enough maybe but what about salty, sugary white bread or yoghurts crammed with sugar? - or perhaps using a reward system for those who have healthy lunches - I've heard about this in action and younger kids seem really motivated to score points for being 'healthy'.

it's nothing to do with the school :evil:

Oh, I forgot school's have no role in education...

mtb-idle

we'll agree to disagree on that one

rolf_f

MTB-Idle wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Many kids will eat 5 and possibly 10 meals a week at school so it makes perfect sense for those schools to be involved in decisions about what those kids are eating. There's a debate to be had as to whether the school should be limiting what children have in their lunchbox - no crisps, biscuits or soft drinks fair enough maybe but what about salty, sugary white bread or yoghurts crammed with sugar? - or perhaps using a reward system for those who have healthy lunches - I've heard about this in action and younger kids seem really motivated to score points for being 'healthy'.

it's nothing to do with the school :evil:

It's the school that has to put up with the childs post lunch sugar rush. If you don't want the school determining what the child eats then the answer is simple - you can home school them. Nobodies denying anyone any choice.

According to government guidelines, school meals must be balanced and have fruit, vegetables, bread, cereal and meat, poultry or oily fish. Fizzy drinks, crisps, chocolate or sweets in school meals are ruled out.

"We as a family believe that Riley is taking a well balanced lunch to school and that no rules have been broken. "
Riley's mother, Natalie Mardle, said his lunch usually consists of a sandwich, yoghurt tube, Dairylea Dunkers cheese spread snack, a packet of Mini Cheddars, and water.

Yep - the Mardles are doing a great job there. No need for any intervention at all..... :roll:

mtb-idle

my kids are 22 and 20 and I ain't about to have any more: I dont give a monkey's chuff what goes on in school.

I'm just wondering whether the parents are responsible for anything anymore or does the state do everything now?

rolf_f

MTB-Idle wrote:

I'm just wondering whether the parents are responsible for anything anymore or does the state do everything now?

That's the point - clearly the parents are not responsible. Somebody/something has to be responsible and if the parents aren't, who is?

PBo

MTB-Idle wrote:

my kids are 22 and 20 and I ain't about to have any more: I dont give a monkey's chuff what goes on in school.

I'm just wondering whether the parents are responsible for anything anymore or does the state do everything now?

Yes, parents are responsible for going into school and blaming them for all the problems their child has....

edited to remove greengrocers' apostrophe!!

rjsterry

Rolf F wrote:

MTB-Idle wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Many kids will eat 5 and possibly 10 meals a week at school so it makes perfect sense for those schools to be involved in decisions about what those kids are eating. There's a debate to be had as to whether the school should be limiting what children have in their lunchbox - no crisps, biscuits or soft drinks fair enough maybe but what about salty, sugary white bread or yoghurts crammed with sugar? - or perhaps using a reward system for those who have healthy lunches - I've heard about this in action and younger kids seem really motivated to score points for being 'healthy'.

it's nothing to do with the school :evil:

It's the school that has to put up with the childs post lunch sugar rush. If you don't want the school determining what the child eats then the answer is simple - you can home school them. Nobodies denying anyone any choice.

I think the general aim of the restrictions, which appear to be common to most schools, is fine. However, the list of prohibited foodstuffs does seem a little simplistic to say the least. The finer points of nutrition are maybe a bit much for primary school, at least in the early years when habits are set, so it then needs to be parents or teachers taking the lead. I don't imagine teachers have taken this on because they have a space in their diaries, so that would suggest that not enough parents are teaching their children to eat well. Not a revelatory conclusion if you look at stats for the diet of the overall population.

menthel

Two things:

1) Sugar rushes do not exist- it has been studied and in fact shown that it is the parent's perception of a sugar load and their childs behaviour that made this myth general accepted. The child's behavoiur won't change!

2) I really fancy a packet of mini cheddars.

notsoblue

menthel wrote:

1) Sugar rushes do not exist- it has been studied and in fact shown that it is the parent's perception of a sugar load and their childs behaviour that made this myth general accepted. The child's behavoiur won't change!

Really? Low blood sugar isn't a thing that effects behaviour?

mtb-idle

Why are the parents clearly not responsible?

rjsterry

menthel wrote:

Two things:

1) Sugar rushes do not exist- it has been studied and in fact shown that it is the parent's perception of a sugar load and their childs behaviour that made this myth general accepted. The child's behavoiur won't change!

2) I really fancy a packet of mini cheddars.

But post-prandial sleepiness does exist. It's easier to teach children who are alert.

tgotb

menthel wrote:

1) Sugar rushes do not exist- it has been studied and in fact shown that it is the parent's perception of a sugar load and their childs behaviour that made this myth general accepted. The child's behavoiur won't change!

Evidence, please? Anecdotal experience is that my own concentration levels are highly dependent on what and when I eat, and that significant amounts of sugar have a negative impact. My kids' behaviour is also consistent with this (like dogs, they tend to be much happier when exercised).

I'm prepared to entertain the possibility that this is all psychosomatic, but only if you can provide evidence to the contrary (eg link to peer reviewed study, or even a report in a reputable publication based on such a study.)