Six-year-old schoolboy suspended for having Mini Cheddars in his lunchbox

[DirtyDog]

Which rule (if the policy is 'no sweets, crisps or fizzy drinks') has been broken?

As doodab pointed out yesterday, the policy isn't published on the school website. Do you know what the policy says?

The website says to ring and ask for a copy of any policies you want - I provided the number yesterday, as doodab said that he would like to read the policy. Maybe he can provide more details of what the policy actually says in regards of what foods are allowed and whether there are any guidelines for disciplinary action in there.

[doodab]

Is that mentioned in another article - I haven't looked anywhere else for information on the story, but I couldn't see anything in the original article which says that they have had any meeting.

4th paragraph.

But after a meeting with head teacher Jeremy Meek, Riley’s parents were told that they had been “continuously breaking school rules” and were sent a letter saying that the child would be suspended from Wednesday until Monday.

If there was only one meeting, and the parents asked for more discussion and were refused, then they have a choice. Either:

a) accept the policy is in place and conform to what the school asks
b) move the child to a school where the policies aren't as strict
c) ignore the policy and accept the consequences
d) ignore the policy and then complain about the consequences.

In this case, they chose the last one.

Ultimately, it comes down to what can a school do to enforce policy that one particular child / parent / family doesn't agree with. The danger for the school is that if you let standards slip on something as "minor" as this, where do you draw the line? If one family decides that they don't like the school uniform and haircut policy, should they be allowed to ignore that policy - it's a fairly minor thing. If one family decides that they don't like the school policy on parents swearing in the playground, should they be allowed to ignore that policy - it's a fairly minor thing. If one family disagrees with the school definition of bullying, should they be allowed to ignore the policy - it's a minor thing. If some families choose to ignore the school's absence policy and take their children out of school during term time, should they be allowed to ignore the policy - it's a minor thing, which could be argued only impacts their child (it doesn't, but that's how some parents would argue it).

That is pure straw man. Those are all reasonable policies. Banning arbitrary foodstuffs on "health" grounds without reference to their nutritional value isn't reasonable, especially when the school is required to teach about nutrition. If they had a no parents in jeans policy, that would be unreasonable too and I'd expect parents to tell them where to stick it.

[mudskipper]

As doodab pointed out yesterday, the policy isn't published on the school website. Do you know what the policy says?

From the article:

"The school, near Slough, had implemented a healthy eating plan from the beginning of term, which asked parents to provide a balanced meal and refrain from giving their children chocolate, sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks."

I haven't personally verified the facts.

[Mich the Tester]

Have the others got the letter from the HeadNazi?

The Wail has.

Boy, six, suspended from school for four days after he was found to have a packet of Mini Cheddars in his lunchbox | Mail Online

I see the Wail has resorted to the 'glum faced photo shoot' style of reporting again.

[mudskipper]

I see the Wail has resorted to the 'glum faced photo shoot' style of reporting again.

He's not the most attractive kid. I've changed my mind - guilty as charged. Throw him out of mainstream schooling and give him an early leg up for the life of delinquency that his visage promises.

[cailin maith]

He's not the most attractive kid. I've changed my mind - guilty as charged. Throw him out of mainstream schooling and give him an early leg up for the life of delinquency that his visage promises.

Katie Hopkins.... is that you?

[DirtyDog]

From the article:

"The school, near Slough, had implemented a healthy eating plan from the beginning of term, which asked parents to provide a balanced meal and refrain from giving their children chocolate, sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks."

I haven't personally verified the facts.

I suspect that the policy contains more information than one line of "provide a balanced meal and refrain from giving their children chocolate, sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks"

[DirtyDog]

That is pure straw man. Those are all reasonable policies. Banning arbitrary foodstuffs on "health" grounds without reference to their nutritional value isn't reasonable, especially when the school is required to teach about nutrition. If they had a no parents in jeans policy, that would be unreasonable too and I'd expect parents to tell them where to stick it.

So, because you think a policy is unreasonable, parents should be free to ignore the rule and there be no consequences.

Obviously most of the parents think that the new policy is reasonable, or there would be more than one family complaining about it.

The parents are free to tell the school to stick it. I absolutely agree with their rights to do that. However, to tell the school to stick it and not expect any repercussions of that is foolhardy.

[DirtyDog]

They had a meeting with the teachers. According to the schools own procedure there would have been several such attempts at contact.

Reading the Mail article and pictures of the letter from the school, they had a meeting with senior staff. Staff explained the policy. Dad said that he would send the child to school with just a banana and water. School explained that was not a healthy lunch. School asked whether they would send him to school with a healthy lunch, and Dad replies "You will have to wait and see". Parents obviously then didn't send a healthy lunch, so school excluded the child because his parents put him in a position where he kept breaking the school rules.

If I tell my children not to do something or there will be a punishment involved, and they continue to do the same thing, they get punished. There is clearly an asymmetry of power here, but if there is no punishment, there is no incentive to do the right thing in the future. The only difference here is that the parents in the news have the ability to take their child out of that environment and move him anywhere else that will take him.

[d000hg]

How boring this thread is becoming.

You know, mini-cheddars are all well and good but I much prefer



I really liked the crinkle-cut mini-cheddars, but I haven't seen them for ages.