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

[Mich the Tester]

Nine pages of argument about 'Mini Cheddars'; I've seen some nonsense on CUK but this really takes the biscuit.

[DirtyDog]

But the rules are completely irrational. If the school aren't prepared to engage in debate at all then what else are parents supposed to do?

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?

[doodab]

It could be the parents are equally pig-headed, and are making a big song and dance about sending their kid in with 'bad' food to prove a point, forcing the school's hand. Hard to imagine in the rarefied air of CUK General that anyone would behave this way, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the parents are dicks and the head got fed up of them.

Not suggesting that's how it went down, just an alternative that doesn't seem implausible.

Which would be fine, if they had sent him in with bad food to prove a point, but they have chosen pretty healthy stuff.

[doodab]

The only way I can see it is that the child kept bringing in unhealthy (by the schools definition which is the only definition which matters in the school) lunches containing items that were explicitly disallowed and, after repeated warnings, continually refused to obey the rules and was punished in accordance with the school's disciplinary policy concerning wilful defiance.

The school are not obliged to back down to someone who just refuses to follow the rules on this, or any other, issue. The more the family refused to do as they were told the more the school would need to dig it's heels in otherwise everyone would see that the rules will be changed for them if they refuse to follow them for long enough.

But the rules are completely irrational. If the school aren't prepared to engage in debate at all then what else are parents supposed to do?

I think the school has a duty, especially as part of the national curriculum involves teaching about nutrition, to actually engage in rational debate about what is and isn't healthy. Enforcing arbitrary diktat in a heavy handed manner sets a very bad example for the kids and undermines what they are supposed to be doing.

[BrilloPad]

Or they're busy, rushed, stressed, have already swapped crisps for mini cheddars and chocolate bar for dairy lee dunkers in an attempt to comply and don't have time to prepare fresh vegetable salad in the morning before school.

Or possibly somewhere in the middle ground.

They would be busy, rushed and stressed due to being hungover, smoking and fiddling with their mobile phones.

Whatever happened to children coming first?

[mudskipper]

It could be the parents are equally pig-headed, and are making a big song and dance about sending their kid in with 'bad' food to prove a point, forcing the school's hand. Hard to imagine in the rarefied air of CUK General that anyone would behave this way, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the parents are dicks and the head got fed up of them.

Not suggesting that's how it went down, just an alternative that doesn't seem implausible.

Or they're busy, rushed, stressed, have already swapped crisps for mini cheddars and chocolate bar for dairy lee dunkers in an attempt to comply and don't have time to prepare fresh vegetable salad in the morning before school.

Or possibly somewhere in the middle ground.

[MyUserName]

It seems obvious that any reasonable person would have used an alternative means to resolve the dispute if such means existed, as suspending a 6 year old is clearly a last resort. The only way I can see it would have got to this stage is if the school were being absolutely pig headed and refusing to listen to any appeal to reason. As it is, they seem to have made something of an error of judgement and bought adverse publicity upon themselves.

The only way I can see it is that the child kept bringing in unhealthy (by the schools definition which is the only definition which matters in the school) lunches containing items that were explicitly disallowed and, after repeated warnings, continually refused to obey the rules and was punished in accordance with the school's disciplinary policy concerning wilful defiance.

The school are not obliged to back down to someone who just refuses to follow the rules on this, or any other, issue. The more the family refused to do as they were told the more the school would need to dig it's heels in otherwise everyone would see that the rules will be changed for them if they refuse to follow them for long enough.

[d000hg]

It seems obvious that any reasonable person would have used an alternative means to resolve the dispute if such means existed, as suspending a 6 year old is clearly a last resort. The only way I can see it would have got to this stage is if the school were being absolutely pig headed and refusing to listen to any appeal to reason. As it is, they seem to have made something of an error of judgement and bought adverse publicity upon themselves.

It could be the parents are equally pig-headed, and are making a big song and dance about sending their kid in with 'bad' food to prove a point, forcing the school's hand. Hard to imagine in the rarefied air of CUK General that anyone would behave this way, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the parents are dicks and the head got fed up of them.

Not suggesting that's how it went down, just an alternative that doesn't seem implausible.

[doodab]

It does not really seem obvious to me, there is no mention of the PTA being asked to review the (slightly overzealous) dietary policy or that the headmaster had discussed it with parents etc. Even if there was absolutely no way that anyone involved in the decision making process could be contacted then the rules are still the rules, refuse to follow them and you will be punished.

It seems obvious that any reasonable person would have used an alternative means to resolve the dispute if such means existed, as suspending a 6 year old is clearly a last resort. The only way I can see it would have got to this stage is if the school were being absolutely pig headed and refusing to listen to any appeal to reason. As it is, they seem to have made something of an error of judgement and bought adverse publicity upon themselves.

[MyUserName]

It's a misguided policy that needs challenging, and it seems fairly obvious that the school doesn't have "appropriate means" for challenging it or they would have addressed it that way rather than resorting to suspension.

It does not really seem obvious to me, there is no mention of the PTA being asked to review the (slightly overzealous) dietary policy or that the headmaster had discussed it with parents etc. Even if there was absolutely no way that anyone involved in the decision making process could be contacted then the rules are still the rules, refuse to follow them and you will be punished.

I have no problem with mini cheddars and they are not banned in my daughter's school, I am pretty sure I have put them in her lunch box before.