Regulating schools and mini chedders!

tgotb

My take on this is that the school probably said "Your kids have to obey the rules" and the parents said "No, why should they?"

Once you have the parents telling their kids to disobey any school rule, you have an untenable situation because the school's authority has been undermined and the poor kid doesn't know who to listen to. A sensible parent who disagreed with this rule would tell the kid that it's important that everyone obeys school rules even if they don't necessarily agree with them, but you can have as many mini cheddars as you like when you get home.

Menthel - thanks, looks like interesting reading (have only skimmed so far, will have a proper look this evening).

DonDaddyD

WarrenG 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.

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.

No, the statement from the school did not say that did it? What it said is that the kids had been expelled because the parents went public with their refusal to follow school policy and misrepresentation of the school in the press. It may be the case that the press reports misrepresented the parents intentions and the school has acted up that, which would be wrong. The point is that for the reasons the school has expelled the children the children and the parents haven't actually done anything wrong. The school because it found itself in the press acted out of spite.

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

Actually what we can do is take the points in the statement such as the above 'misrepresenting the school in the public' and point those out as wrong.

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

At the end of a four day suspension the parents were informed their children had been expelled, again I ask what the four year old did wrong? Where was this long drawn out process you speak of. Consider that the Dad said he went to the school expecting to discuss his sons return was told it was cancelled and later told both his children had been expelled.

And I've experience of the expulsion process, you're chatting sh*t to be honest, it is not a long drawn out process and the reasons for the expulsion were frivilous and no, it wasn't me, and yes I was old enough to remember the details and argue the case and help win proceedings against said school.

I bet the other parents at this school are absolutely delighted

An assumption that you cannot substantiate unless you are either a parent with a child at the school, know of some parents who send their kids to that school or are armed with some statements from the other parents.

warreng

I'm not responding to each and every point anymore because I've seen how these things pan out

The last point was flippant - I tried to make a series of serious points and then round if it off with a half-joke in order to show I wasn't that bothered by you being incorrect all the time

If I was having this discussion in a pub with someone I would have pretended I had a prior appointment and make my excuses

menthel

TGOTB wrote:

My take on this is that the school probably said "Your kids have to obey the rules" and the parents said "No, why should they?"

Once you have the parents telling their kids to disobey any school rule, you have an untenable situation because the school's authority has been undermined and the poor kid doesn't know who to listen to. A sensible parent who disagreed with this rule would tell the kid that it's important that everyone obeys school rules even if they don't necessarily agree with them, but you can have as many mini cheddars as you like when you get home.

Menthel - thanks, looks like interesting reading (have only skimmed so far, will have a proper look this evening).

No problem!

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

1) As do you. You are the one who has posted a link to a single newspaper report that in your own words isn't clear. I'm not in this case referring specifically to this article anyway. All I'm getting at is that there is a huge amount of evidence on this one issue alone; that children are not being fed correctly. It's not just about whether or not they are disruptive - I don't want to have to pay for the bloody things to be on dialysis for most of their lives as a result of inflicting type 2 diabetes on themselves.

2) Of course a lack of knowledge about nutrition doesn't necessarily mean you are an irresponsible parent. You are an irresponsible parent when a school gives you guidance on good nutrition and you ignore it.

PS - yes, I am judgemental. Why not? "involving the use or exercise of judgement". I'll go with that. So should you. You posted a thread inviting judgement - but as usual, you don't like it when people don't agree with your judgement.

pinkbikini

DonDaddyD wrote:

Where do I march, who do you write a letter to?
Discuss!

You could try the Board of Governors for the school itself, Ofsted, or the Department of Education.
Why you want to get involved in an argument with the school is beyond me though. Any cause for complaint is surely up to the involved parties, not someone on a forum with no evidence?

Mikey23

@ bompington... Plus one for this. Missus had not seen the story cos she was too busy teaching but her reaction was the same. Anyway let's not let facts spoil a good story...

rjsterry

Thought you might contribute Mikey, after that thread in cake stop a while back.

I think the fact that the parents thought that the way to respond to being told not to put Mini Cheddars in his lunch was to phone the local rag says rather a lot about their priorities.

rick_chasey

Schools do need to chill out though.

There was a 4 year gap between me and my sister and inbetween those years I could already tell the difference.


My sister had to put up with so many more arbitrary and irritating rules, let alone home work ( aged 7 FFs) than me. No crisps, " walk sensibly" <( she got a letter home for not adhering the that, aged 6..), etc.

Just be reasonable. Schools interfering with what food the parents feed the child is just idiotic. It's nothing to do with them. If it's clear the child's diet is affecting their health then they can have a reasonable adult conversation with them. If it is making the child perform badly in class they can do the same.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Schools do need to chill out though.

There was a 4 year gap between me and my sister and inbetween those years I could already tell the difference.


My sister had to put up with so many more arbitrary and irritating rules, let alone home work ( aged 7 FFs) than me. No crisps, " walk sensibly" <( she got a letter home for not adhering the that, aged 6..), etc.

Just be reasonable. Schools interfering with what food the parents feed the child is just idiotic. It's nothing to do with them. If it's clear the child's diet is affecting their health then they can have a reasonable adult conversation with them. If it is making the child perform badly in class they can do the same.

And my 4yo gets weekly homework - it's a good way of getting parents involved in their children's education.

Given that poor diet is not an unusual problem - what with all the overweight kids http://www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/child_obesity - I doubt teachers have the time to have reasonable adult conversations with the parents of 1 in 3 pupils. It is unfortunate that people who do feed their children well are restricted from putting the odd treat in a lunch box, but it's not really a great loss. Is someone seriously claiming a right to Mini Cheddars? I think it is uppity parents who need to chill out.

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

Just be reasonable. Schools interfering with what food the parents feed the child is just idiotic.

That's an idiotic thing to say.

Look at it this way. The school has a policy of requiring healthy lunches for their children. In this case, we have a family who couldn't manage this simple task for the benefit of their childs long term health. Whilst we don't know the whole picture, there doesn't seem to have been any suggestion that there are more examples like this from that school. So we can reasonably assume that the other parents are complying with the rules of the school.

So, if that rule is idiotic, then your assumption can only logically be that had the rule not been there, then all the other children would still have been getting the healthy lunches and none of them would have been giving their children junk food. You may be right but I think that is woefully over optimistic. There is little evidence to suggest that most parents are providing a healthy diet for their children (on the basis that a high proportion of them are fat).

secretsam

DDD - hi again, it's been a while

Two words: anger management

Two more words: Daily Heil. That's what you sound like, that is.

<<RUNS>>

DonDaddyD

Some children are fatter than others. I think it is wrong to pigeon hole all children into an ideal size and force them into achieving this ideal shape by rigidly controlling what they eat and then, in all cases, blaming this purely on the food they eat (my son eats a lot he is smaller than his cousin who eats organic everything). There is nothing wrong with the odd snack and the bottomline is this:

1. The child is not overweight or obese and he doesn't look even remotely unhealthy. The packet of mini cheddars probably isn't doing him harm for there to be such a cause of concern.

So debates about the childs health and diet are misplaced I think. If the parents need a lesson in nutrition then, sure, perhaps the school should give them one, but this strikes of food/diet snobbery IMO.

2. The school expelled the boy and cancelled his brothers place at nursery (which no one will acknowledge, but is, IMO, and even worse spiteful act on the school's part) not because of the contents of his lunch box but because the story made its way into the media. The school claims that it has been misrepresented in the press and the parents made it publicly clear they would not follow the schools policy on healthy eating.

I have three issues with this: (i) If the school has been misrepresented then it is entirely possible that the parents have been misrepresented in the press. (ii) The parents actually didn't break the rules one final time for this action to have taken place, they were reported as going to do so, therefore the school has acted on something it has read in the media and not the actions of the parents. (iii) What did the 4 year old do wrong?

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".

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."

And I think my point earlier still stands. This school expelled one child and cancelled the place of another (who really had nothing to do with this) on the basis of whistleblowing. It sets a precedent, go to the media, go public about the school your child is attending and have his/her place revoked. Does this mean then that should a parent whose child goes to a poorly performing school or they are getting bullied etc and they go 'public' with this are we saying that the school then has a right to punish the child?

No, and the parents aren't completely blameless in this, they should have followed the rules - you could however argue that they perceived the rules as so: mini cheddars, dairylea and yoghurt tubes aren't crisps, chocolates or sweets by definition - and it may be a case that they need educating further.

However, I think the school acted mostly out of spite and should be called to account for it.

rjsterry

Agreed the 4yo didn't do anything wrong. Unfortunately, his parents did by taking a (pretty pointless) dispute with the school over the contents of his lunchbox to the press. How was that ever going to end well? While it's not the fault of the child that his parents have done something so foolish, I can't see how the school can continue to accept him and his brother as pupils while their parents are openly attacking the school.

Also, the school has to set policies based on the general population, not individual pupils. So the fact that one particular child had not become overweight through eating Mini Cheddars does not invalidate the policy. We can all find anecdotal cases of some really skinny kid who ate like a horse or vice versa, but again these do not invalidate the school imposing a few pretty basic requirements on healthy meals. BTW, organic ≠ healthy

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

I can't see how the school can continue to accept him and his brother as pupils while their parents are openly attacking the school.

At work I met with a guy who hurled racial abuse at me.

Why didn't I react? Because I am expected to be professional, when I met his family member I didn't take my anger and frustration out on them, I didn't deny him or the family member the service they are entitled to. A school is no different it is expected to act professionally and not victimise the child because of a dispute with the parents.

And this is in all things, what if the story was that the child/parent was injured and sued the school. What if the child was suspended for missing school due to bulling and inaction from the teachers. These stories went to the press, would the school have the right to expel the child and any and all related family members? You cannot be sacked for whistleblowing at work, that would be an unfair dismissal. The precedent cannot be, go public with a story against your childs school and have them expelled - that's bullying from a position of power.

Also, the school has to set policies based on the general population, not individual pupils. So the fact that one particular child had not become overweight through eating Mini Cheddars does not invalidate the policy. We can all find anecdotal cases of some really skinny kid who ate like a horse or vice versa, but again these do not invalidate the school imposing a few pretty basic requirements on healthy meals. BTW, organic ≠ healthy

I agree, the parents should have followed the rules. They clearly need further educating in nutrition. But that doesn't absolve the school from being wrong also. IMO.

rjsterry

The parents weren't whistleblowing, they were kicking off because they can't cope with being told what to do. There was nothing to blow a whistle about.

To take your example, I'm pretty sure that if that person had persisted in their behaviour, your organisation would have eventually refused to keep dealing with them.

Providing a decent education requires the cooperation and involvement of the child's parents, and theuy have withdrawn that, not the school. Trying to continue teaching the child in spite of his parent's behaviour is untenable - if they rush to the papers over a packet of crisps, what are they going to do when they don't like the homework he has been set, or his school report?

The Rookie

My take
1/ The school implemented a not unreasonable requiring healthy lunches
2/ Parents chose to ignore the rule, despite what appear to be some action to encourage/remind them of the rules
3/ Child suspended to encourage the parents to comply
4/ Parents through toys out of cot, go bleating to press and say they won't comply anyway (that is not whistle blowing as the school have done nothing wrong they are trying to cover up
5/ Child excluded based on the fact the parents have stated publicly they won't comply with the rules. (I can't see what alternative the school had).

Parents fault, if you don't like the rules, either grin and bear it, or contest it in the RIGHT way.

PS Diabetes and dialysis don't go together.