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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Mich the Tester]

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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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).