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

[MyUserName]

WHS. I can't believe how many people think this is fine.

OP, can we have a poll please?

Would you think it was okay to suspend them if they repeatedly and intentionally broke a different school rule?

[MyUserName]

Switch it to what though? The school banned chocolate, sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks. Mini cheddars are none of those things. Perhaps they already switched from crisps to mini cheddars thinking they would be allowed? If mini cheddars aren't allowed what is?

I do not know what the school's policies are or what else was in the lunchbox so I cannot really answer that. For all I know she had nothing but a sack of mini cheddars.

I assumed that they had been warned several times not to put mini cheddars in as the school did not consider them to be appropriate?

[DirtyDog]

I also think that parents have a reasonable expectation that a school will have rules about hours, uniform, and not bringing weapons in. Although I think requesting parents provide healthy packed lunches is also reasonable, micromanaging diet and dishing out suspensions because a particular foodstuff doesn't meet some jumped up little hitler's idea of healthy certainly isn't, especially when they are operating from behind a wall of blissful ignorance.

Parents have no right to expect that their child should be exempt from one particular rule. The parents would have been warned about persistent rule breaking, and continued to break the rules, so they should face sanctions.

The exclusion of a pupil is no light-hearted matter, nor is it an immediate sanction (unless there has been a significant problem).

If you don't want to follow the rules, then you find somewhere that you can send your child where you are allowed to break the rules, or doesn't have rules that you feel you cannot comply with.

[mudskipper]

I also think that parents have a reasonable expectation that a school will have rules about hours, uniform, and not bringing weapons in. Although I think requesting parents provide healthy packed lunches is also reasonable, micromanaging diet and dishing out suspensions because a particular foodstuff doesn't meet some jumped up little hitler's idea of healthy certainly isn't, especially when they are operating from behind a wall of blissful ignorance.

WHS. I can't believe how many people think this is fine.

OP, can we have a poll please?

[doodab]

They were given a suspension because they refused to follow the rules laid down by the school. That is standard practice for repeated infractions.

The parents knew the rules and refused to follow them, how trivial would it have been for the parents to switch the snack? If they wish to appeal the rule they can but they cannot just refuse to follow it without suffering the consequences.

Switch it to what though? The school banned chocolate, sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks. Mini cheddars are none of those things. Perhaps they already switched from crisps to mini cheddars thinking they would be allowed? If mini cheddars aren't allowed what is? It's completely arbitrarty and seems to me like a classic case of some jumped up little hitler teacher throwing their weight around for the sake of it, probably looking for something to blame because they can't keep control of their classrooms. We had one of those at my son's first school, constantly complaining how disruptive he was. Odd that all the problems vanished when he got into a different school that wasn't full of the offspring of chavs.

[MyUserName]

I also think that parents have a reasonable expectation that a school will have rules about hours, uniform, and not bringing weapons in. Although I think requesting parents provide healthy packed lunches is also reasonable, micromanaging diet and dishing out suspensions because a particular foodstuff doesn't meet some jumped up little hitler's idea of healthy certainly isn't, especially when they are operating from behind a wall of blissful ignorance.

They were given a suspension because they refused to follow the rules laid down by the school. That is standard practice for repeated infractions.

The parents knew the rules and refused to follow them, how trivial would it have been for the parents to switch the snack? If they wish to appeal the rule they can but they cannot just refuse to follow it without suffering the consequences.

[doodab]

This is what I was wondering. Are these privately funded schools?

I also think that parents have a reasonable expectation that a school will have rules about hours, uniform, and not bringing weapons in. Although I think requesting parents provide healthy packed lunches is also reasonable, micromanaging diet and dishing out suspensions because a particular foodstuff doesn't meet some jumped up little hitler's idea of healthy certainly isn't, especially when they are operating from behind a wall of blissful ignorance.

[SpontaneousOrder]

And what happens when rules are introduced half way through the child's education? Or if taking the kid out of school isn't an option because it would result in potential legal sanctions?

This is what I was wondering. Are these privately funded schools?

[doodab]

It's the same as a school having a uniform rule, a no knives rules, rules on daily start / end times or whatever - agreeing to those rules is part of the "contract" parents enter into when choosing to send their kids there. You can't then ignore them and expect that it will be fine.

And what happens when rules are introduced half way through the child's education? Or if taking the kid out of school isn't an option because it would result in potential legal sanctions?

[minestrone]

There is no such thing as bad food or junk food, there is only bad diet.

There is so much shockingly bad nutrition advice going about just now, part of that comes from fad diets and the other part is where people are told that foods are either good for you or bad for you. The school seems to be indulging in the latter.

When you have idiots with power it always ends up going bad.