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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[DirtyDog]

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

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.

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).

[doodab]

If the parents were rationally challenging the school's policy then there are ways of doing that. A rational and mature approach would be to challenge the school's policy via the appropriate channels and follow the rules as written in the meantime.

Is it rational and mature to suspend a six year old from school because you don't like his parents choice of packed lunch cheesy biscuit? Really?

If there are ways of challenging the rules, the school should have steered things down that path instead of going nuclear. So either there aren't ways of doing that, or the school has managed the situation really badly. That is my point.

[mudskipper]

But there are two separate issues that keep getting merged.

How the healthy eating policy is determined.
How to handle a child who repeatedly breaks the same rule despite warnings not to.

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

[MyUserName]

But there are two separate issues that keep getting merged.

How the healthy eating policy is determined.
How to handle a child who repeatedly breaks the same rule despite warnings not to.

If the parents were rationally challenging the school's policy then there are ways of doing that. A rational and mature approach would be to challenge the school's policy via the appropriate channels and follow the rules as written in the meantime.

They chose not to do this and got their child suspended. It was not just mini cheddars, they continually sent him in with lunches which broke the school rules.

[doodab]

How do you know that the parents tried to debate with the school? How do you know that the school aren't prepared to enter into a debate?

What steps did the parents take? What steps did the school take?

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

The school has resorted to heavy handed measures, when clearly there is an asymmetry of power. I don't believe that would have happened if they were prepared to enter into a rational debate, as they wouldn't have continued to exist that mini cheddars are unhealthy when they are clearly no less healthy than many other allowed foodstuffs. I'm sure the parents had their part to play as well but really unless there were threats of violence in which case the police should be involved, the school should really have handled this better regardless of how pig headed the parents were.