Regulating schools and mini chedders!

2

Comments

  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    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!

    Really? I find a short term lift and longer term slump after eating chocolate. I'm a bit cynical about the claims of sports nutrition companies but I tend to think there is something in it. Whatever you term it, surely the point is that you want the children to be eating the stuff that gives a longer, controlled release of energy?
    Faster than a tent.......
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    edited February 2014
    MTB-Idle wrote:
    Why are the parents clearly not responsible?

    Because:
    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.

    Being responsible means being responsible. If you are irresponsible then, by definition, you are not being responsible. Just because you stick a badge on someone saying that they are responsible doesn't actually mean that they are.

    The horrified indignation of parents that somebody else also has a say in their childrens upbringing is all very well but they seem to forget that the rest of us have to live on the same planet as their ghastly, overweight, badly behaved offspring so we'd rather have some less incompetent parenting involved in their upbringing as well.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • mpatts
    mpatts Posts: 1,010
    FWC goes to a fee paying school. They all eat school dinners. Problem solved.
    Insert bike here:
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    Rolf F wrote:
    MTB-Idle wrote:
    Why are the parents clearly not responsible?

    Because:
    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.

    Being responsible means being responsible. If you are irresponsible then, by definition, you are not being responsible. Just because you stick a badge on someone saying that they are responsible doesn't actually mean that they are.

    I think suggesting that giving the child the lunch described is irresponsible is stretching it. OK, it's not perfectly balanced; there's too much snacky stuff but it could be a lot worse. The issue in this case relates to the parents refusing to follow the school's rules - you could argue that the school would have been better having a dialogue about content rather than saying that is not allowed. Maybe they did.
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    mpatts wrote:
    FWC goes to a fee paying school. They all eat school dinners. Problem solved.

    Maybe, but we looked at an independent school which provided school dinners 50s style! Plenty of fried foods, steak and kidney pie, lots of heavy puddings. Hardly a lesson in health eating though better than a pack of mini cheddars and proper food.
  • rolf_f
    rolf_f Posts: 16,015
    edited February 2014
    Paulie W wrote:
    I think suggesting that giving the child the lunch described is irresponsible is stretching it. OK, it's not perfectly balanced; there's too much snacky stuff but it could be a lot worse. The issue in this case relates to the parents refusing to follow the school's rules - you could argue that the school would have been better having a dialogue about content rather than saying that is not allowed. Maybe they did.

    No, it's not disasterous but it's hardly the balanced diet expected (much depends on what the 'sandwich' consists of - I'm not wildly optimistic that it is chicken and rocket salad with a light dressing on wholegrain bread!) - and it's clearly as good as it gets from that lot otherwise they'd have listed a better lunch. And your last point is really the key issue - I'm sure it was discussed. This is media reporting of a contentious issue; you can bet that the spin is heavily weighted in favour of the 'oppressed parent'.
    Faster than a tent.......
  • menthel
    menthel Posts: 2,484
    rjsterry wrote:
    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.

    Yep. Full on physiological reaction causes that.
    RIP commute...
    Sometimes seen bimbling around on a purple Fratello Disc or black and red Aprire Vincenza.
  • jamesco
    jamesco Posts: 687
    Paulie W wrote:
    I think suggesting that giving the child the lunch described is irresponsible is stretching it. OK, it's not perfectly balanced; there's too much snacky stuff but it could be a lot worse.

    If it was: jam sandwich, yoghurt tube, Dairylea Dunkers cheese spread snack, a packet of Mini Cheddars, and water, it'd look pretty bad, eh? Anyway, no fruit, not even a banana, is baffling.

    Gotta feel sorry for the kid - he'll be the one suffering for the parents' bloody-mindedness.
  • menthel
    menthel Posts: 2,484
    TGOTB wrote:
    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.)

    I will have to find the paper later but it is there in its full peer reviewed, published glory. I am supposed to be reading more relevant data at work at the moment! ;)
    RIP commute...
    Sometimes seen bimbling around on a purple Fratello Disc or black and red Aprire Vincenza.
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    Rolf F wrote:
    Paulie W wrote:
    I think suggesting that giving the child the lunch described is irresponsible is stretching it. OK, it's not perfectly balanced; there's too much snacky stuff but it could be a lot worse. The issue in this case relates to the parents refusing to follow the school's rules - you could argue that the school would have been better having a dialogue about content rather than saying that is not allowed. Maybe they did.

    No, it's not disasterous but it's hardly the balanced diet expected (much depends on what the 'sandwich' consists of - I'm not wildly optimistic that it is chicken and rocket salad with a light dressing on wholegrain bread!) - and it's clearly as good as it gets from that lot otherwise they'd have listed a better lunch. And your last point is really the key issue - I'm sure it was discussed. This is media reporting of a contentious issue; you can bet that the spin is heavily weighted in favour of the 'oppressed parent'.

    I wouldnt always assume that the school has acted in the expected and reasonable fashion.

    And 'this lot'? No spin being put on it by you either right!
  • tgotb
    tgotb Posts: 4,714
    menthel wrote:
    I will have to find the paper later but it is there in its full peer reviewed, published glory. I am supposed to be reading more relevant data at work at the moment! ;)
    Yes please, when you get a chance - genuinely interested.
    Pannier, 120rpm.
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    jamesco wrote:
    Paulie W wrote:
    I think suggesting that giving the child the lunch described is irresponsible is stretching it. OK, it's not perfectly balanced; there's too much snacky stuff but it could be a lot worse.

    If it was: jam sandwich, yoghurt tube, Dairylea Dunkers cheese spread snack, a packet of Mini Cheddars, and water, it'd look pretty bad, eh? Anyway, no fruit, not even a banana, is baffling.

    Gotta feel sorry for the kid - he'll be the one suffering for the parents' bloody-mindedness.

    It's possible of course that the kid wont touch fruit with a barge pole or that he goes into meltdown if he doesnt get his dunkers and his cheddars. Which is not to say that the kid should be automatically given what he wants. It's interesting though that some posters have decided what these parents are 'like'.
  • hegyestomi
    hegyestomi Posts: 504
    I can see the the lunchbox given isn't the most nutritious but I think is just about OK. What the main problem here is the parents put their belief of appropriateness ahead of the children's interest. Mini cheddars aren't good for you and if the school ask you take it out then just do it.If you have a problem with it then challenge it while you obey the rules.
    Why putting the poor kiddos into a situation like that? Is it because the ego is more important than the kids?
  • mpatts
    mpatts Posts: 1,010
    Paulie W wrote:
    mpatts wrote:
    FWC goes to a fee paying school. They all eat school dinners. Problem solved.

    Maybe, but we looked at an independent school which provided school dinners 50s style! Plenty of fried foods, steak and kidney pie, lots of heavy puddings. Hardly a lesson in health eating though better than a pack of mini cheddars and proper food.

    I'll scan the menu when I get the chance - all I can remember is it's pasta bake for tea tonight.
    Insert bike here:
  • menthel
    menthel Posts: 2,484
    TGOTB wrote:
    menthel wrote:
    I will have to find the paper later but it is there in its full peer reviewed, published glory. I am supposed to be reading more relevant data at work at the moment! ;)
    Yes please, when you get a chance - genuinely interested.

    Work avoidance in full swing!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7963081

    This is the study I was thinking of with regards parental perception.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8052458

    Looks at sugar and aspartame (a bloody horribe substance in my opinion). There is plenty more out there on the subject.

    The only thing shown to cause hyperactivity in children are certain food colourings but only in certain children. It's a murky old subject as it is on that borderline between subjective and objective measurement and we are not very good as a scientific community in measuring these things. Just look at psychaitric pharmaceuticals!

    (Just a disclosure- I spend most of my days looking at evidence based medicine, clinical trials and dealing with people trying to pull the wool over my eyes so they can make money!)
    RIP commute...
    Sometimes seen bimbling around on a purple Fratello Disc or black and red Aprire Vincenza.
  • menthel
    menthel Posts: 2,484
    And a nice JAMA published meta-analysis too!

    http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... eid=391812
    RIP commute...
    Sometimes seen bimbling around on a purple Fratello Disc or black and red Aprire Vincenza.
  • davmaggs
    davmaggs Posts: 1,008
    I really don't think that this child was expelled because of a snack. There's no chance it would have been signed off by the governors and those concerned about being sued.

    On a related note, a lot of people are assuming that parents know best about everything and importantly that a decision made by one parent has no impact on anyone else because each child is somehow a separate unit from others in the school.

    Any teacher will tell you that some parents are barely functioning as adults themselves and that their decisions can be appalling and at times damaging.

    On my point about children not being isolated units; You''ll always find that parent who thinks its appropriate to give a £400 iphone to an eight year or dress them like an adults on a night out in Magaluf etc etc. Schools are pressure cookers of peer pressure and trends, and one parent's idiocy actually impacts on all the other kids so schools try to mitigate this by having rules like uniform to head of the conflicts that this will cause.
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Rolf F wrote:
    MTB-Idle wrote:
    Why are the parents clearly not responsible?

    Because:
    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.

    Being responsible means being responsible. If you are irresponsible then, by definition, you are not being responsible. Just because you stick a badge on someone saying that they are responsible doesn't actually mean that they are.

    The horrified indignation of parents that somebody else also has a say in their childrens upbringing is all very well but they seem to forget that the rest of us have to live on the same planet as their ghastly, overweight, badly behaved offspring so we'd rather have some less incompetent parenting involved in their upbringing as well.
    Judgemental much?

    1. Its not clear or has been stated that the child is disruptive in anyway, any assertion that he is based on reports of his parents behaviour is an assumption at best. Basically its your own prejudice that has come to that conclusion, I can name many people whose parents are good/bad/fat/skinny and the kids are the complete opposite.

    2. Having a lack of knowledge about the nutritional value of some food types doesn't mean you are a irresponsible parent.

    Some people need to get over themselves.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • warreng
    warreng Posts: 535
    He clearly hasn't been expelled for having a cheesy-based comestible in his luncheon receptacle

    I should imagine that that was one of the problems that the school has had with this child and his parents however it's probably a better story to blame liberal-nanny-statist-guardianreading teachers telling us what to do - so that's what the paper ran with

    Oh yes, and some parents need telling because not all of them know what's best for their kids. And I really, really hate this "teachers can't tell us what to do" attitude.
    2015 Cervelo S3
    2016 Santa Cruz 5010
    2016 Genesis Croix de Fer
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    edited February 2014
    I don't think neither the school or the parents have put the children first in this situation.

    What did the four year old do to have his place at nursery terminated as well?

    Now, I admit that when I first came to this story I was filled with outrage towards the school and I still think the school has handled the situation poorly. However, the school has rules and watching/listening to your parents openly defy them can instill a certain amount of defiance in a child.

    At the same time, if there are no immediate safety issues I don't think schools should dictate what food should be in a lunchbox. Advise on nutrion and the effects of different foodtypes but draw the line there. Also, does the list of banned food take into account other cultures? I could name a ton of food that I had that wouldn't make the list of banned foods but are less healthy than mini chedders.

    We don't know how the child was behaving, whether he was energetic, hyperactive, disruptive and/or overweight. That's just assumptions people are making born from prejudices they have against dfferent aspects of society. Equally we don't know what the parents are truly like as people.

    What I do know is that two children are without a school and there is something terribly wrong in that.


    Editted:

    Hardly overwieght, I think people forget how innocent children can be.
    Suspension-School-Eating-Mini-Cheddars.jpg
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • warreng
    warreng Posts: 535
    I'm going to be judgemental

    He looks like a right little sod and needs a good hiding
    2015 Cervelo S3
    2016 Santa Cruz 5010
    2016 Genesis Croix de Fer
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Furthermore:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 09722.html
    In a statement the school said a pupil had been permanently excluded because "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".

    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."

    Both the 6 year old and the 4 year old were expelled not because of the food but because the parents whistleblew on the school publicly.

    Now I cannot confirm whether the parents did use abusive language against the parents, however the parents aren't responsible for misrepresentations in the press and should be free to say whatever they want about the school, so what is being said here. Kid goes to school, school is shockingly poor, parents go public, kid gets expelled and that's right is it?

    Seems spiteful to me.
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Furthermore:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 09722.html
    In a statement the school said a pupil had been permanently excluded because "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".

    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."

    Both the 6 year old and the 4 year old were expelled not because of the food but because the parents whistleblew on the school publicly.

    Now I cannot confirm whether the parents did use abusive language against the parents, however the parents aren't responsible for misrepresentations in the press and should be free to say whatever they want about the school, so what is being said here. Kid goes to school, school is shockingly poor, parents go public, kid gets expelled and that's right is it?

    Seems spiteful to me.

    Where are you getting the 'shockingly poor' bit from?!
  • warreng
    warreng Posts: 535
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Furthermore:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 09722.html
    In a statement the school said a pupil had been permanently excluded because "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".

    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."

    Both the 6 year old and the 4 year old were expelled not because of the food but because the parents whistleblew on the school publicly.

    Now I cannot confirm whether the parents did use abusive language against the parents, however the parents aren't responsible for misrepresentations in the press and should be free to say whatever they want about the school, so what is being said here. Kid goes to school, school is shockingly poor, parents go public, kid gets expelled and that's right is it?

    Seems spiteful to me.

    Both the 6 year old and the 4 year old were expelled not because of the food but because the parents whistleblew on the school publicly. That's not what is said. I'll interpret it a different way for you. The school were pushed and pushed by these parents into a corner where this action had to be taken.

    Now I cannot confirm whether the parents did use abusive language against the parents, Well, if you can't confirm that, you certainly can't confirm anything else in the report. You can't pick and choose segments of a statement, twist them to fit your perception and beliefs and then call it fact

    Schools do not and cannot expel children for frivolous reasons - it's the end of a very long and drawn out process of which the parents will be fully involved with. This will not be a shock to the parents that it has ended up this way

    I bet the other parents at this school are absolutely delighted
    2015 Cervelo S3
    2016 Santa Cruz 5010
    2016 Genesis Croix de Fer
  • warreng
    warreng Posts: 535
    And furthermore I absolutely bloody love mini-cheddars
    2015 Cervelo S3
    2016 Santa Cruz 5010
    2016 Genesis Croix de Fer
  • DonDaddyD
    DonDaddyD Posts: 12,689
    Paulie W wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Furthermore:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 09722.html
    In a statement the school said a pupil had been permanently excluded because "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".

    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."

    Both the 6 year old and the 4 year old were expelled not because of the food but because the parents whistleblew on the school publicly.

    Now I cannot confirm whether the parents did use abusive language against the parents, however the parents aren't responsible for misrepresentations in the press and should be free to say whatever they want about the school, so what is being said here. Kid goes to school, school is shockingly poor, parents go public, kid gets expelled and that's right is it?

    Seems spiteful to me.

    Where are you getting the 'shockingly poor' bit from?!
    No, my point: is it now the practice that if a parent, whose child goes to school, complains about said school publicly for poor performance, teaching, poor decisions, kid is getting bullied or generally being 'shockingly poor' they run the risk of having their kid expelled?
    Food Chain number = 4

    A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game
  • notsoblue
    notsoblue Posts: 5,756
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    No, my point: is it now the practice that if a parent, whose child goes to school, complains about said school publicly for poor performance, teaching, poor decisions, kid is getting bullied or generally being 'shockingly poor' they run the risk of having their kid expelled?
    Theres little evidence that this what happened though.
    FCN 4 PX SL Pro SRAM Red
    FCN 8 Scott Sportster '05
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    No, my point: is it now the practice that if a parent, whose child goes to school, complains about said school publicly for poor performance, teaching, poor decisions, kid is getting bullied or generally being 'shockingly poor' they run the risk of having their kid expelled?
    "No" is the correct answer in this case. You seem to have made up your mind at first skimming through of the news, and everything else is being interpreted entirely in the light of your prejudices.
    I will try and say it again: schools try staggeringly hard not to expel kids. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this case (and neither you, I, nor anyone else not directly involved know what they are) schools simply don't just expel kids casually for any reason at all. You should see the kind of paperwork, hoop-jumping and back-covering it takes just to give a kid detention these days.
  • warreng
    warreng Posts: 535
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Paulie W wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Furthermore:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 09722.html
    In a statement the school said a pupil had been permanently excluded because "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".

    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."

    Both the 6 year old and the 4 year old were expelled not because of the food but because the parents whistleblew on the school publicly.

    Now I cannot confirm whether the parents did use abusive language against the parents, however the parents aren't responsible for misrepresentations in the press and should be free to say whatever they want about the school, so what is being said here. Kid goes to school, school is shockingly poor, parents go public, kid gets expelled and that's right is it?

    Seems spiteful to me.

    Where are you getting the 'shockingly poor' bit from?!
    No, my point: is it now the practice that if a parent, whose child goes to school, complains about said school publicly for poor performance, teaching, poor decisions, kid is getting bullied or generally being 'shockingly poor' they run the risk of having their kid expelled?

    What's that got to do with this story? That's not mentioned anywhere - you've made that up
    2015 Cervelo S3
    2016 Santa Cruz 5010
    2016 Genesis Croix de Fer
  • Paulie W
    Paulie W Posts: 1,492
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Paulie W wrote:
    DonDaddyD wrote:
    Furthermore:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 09722.html
    In a statement the school said a pupil had been permanently excluded because "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".

    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."

    Both the 6 year old and the 4 year old were expelled not because of the food but because the parents whistleblew on the school publicly.

    Now I cannot confirm whether the parents did use abusive language against the parents, however the parents aren't responsible for misrepresentations in the press and should be free to say whatever they want about the school, so what is being said here. Kid goes to school, school is shockingly poor, parents go public, kid gets expelled and that's right is it?

    Seems spiteful to me.

    Where are you getting the 'shockingly poor' bit from?!
    No, my point: is it now the practice that if a parent, whose child goes to school, complains about said school publicly for poor performance, teaching, poor decisions, kid is getting bullied or generally being 'shockingly poor' they run the risk of having their kid expelled?

    That's a pretty narrow interpretation of the story in the press.

Categories