• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

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

Collapse

  • Lost It
    replied
    So. What I have learned from this:

    If you want to take your kids abroad in school term time send them to school with a 6 pack of mini cheddars.

    It's stupid having a healthy eating policy but not fleshing it out to guide parents.

    It's even more stupid to exclude a kif based on a healthy eating policy that doesn't state what the school belives to be a healthy diet. And the reasons for this policy. To then expell is ludicrous.

    This child is one of 4? The mother is still not older than 25. He's 6. Simple arithmetic she was not a school girl bride. So respectable. Her other half has a job.

    Normal parents in other words.

    I have plenty of scars, internal and external to prove I had a "healthy outdoor choldhood" including a scar on my foot from playing "stretch", a broken collarbone from falling out of a tree, a scar on my left index from cutting towards my hand making an "arrer" for my bow, a deformed big toe from toe ending a wet casey, various dislocations, a scar on my skull from being hit by a slate battling another gang on the roofs of the derelict house across the street, every time I fell off my bike it was into a bed of nettles..

    Never harmed me...
    Last edited by Lost It; 6 July 2017, 06:00.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mordac
    replied
    Originally posted by scooterscot View Post
    WHS.

    Our daughter attends a montessori kindergarten here in Munich. The policy is similar no sugary foods or crisps. Fruits yes. Flouting the policy impacts other children not just your own, so it's consideration for all parents.

    Must admit daughter is very well behaved. When relatives visited recently we went out to a nice restaurant in the evening. They were surprised our nearly three year old was sat at the table with us (i.e. not using a baby sister), I thought nothing of it myself. Later they commented how well behaved she was, sat there the whole time like one of us.
    It seems odd to us (in the UK) but you go anywhere in Europe and it seems to be perfectly normal - whole families, young kids included - in restaurants at 10 or 11pm, and not a squeak from the little 'uns. European kids are so much better behaved than our home-grown brats. It's one of the few areas Europe seems to be way ahead.

    Leave a comment:


  • OwlHoot
    replied
    Originally posted by scooterscot View Post
    Parents in Bavaria don't overfeed their children. They also get healthy amount of outdoors, some of which I find a little disturbing.
    What's disturbing about being out of doors? Unless they're into outdoor nudism or something bizarre

    Leave a comment:


  • shaunbhoy
    replied
    Originally posted by mudskipper View Post
    I wondered what had happened to Riley.

    "The following month Riley’s parents Tom Pearson and Natalie Marley won their appeal against their son’s “unlawful” exclusion from Colnbrook C of E, but decided to move Riley anyway in the face of punitive measures imposed by the school."

    Mini-cheddars head resigns from Colnbrook Primary
    I'll bet HE'S cheesed off!

    Leave a comment:


  • mudskipper
    replied
    I wondered what had happened to Riley.

    "The following month Riley’s parents Tom Pearson and Natalie Marley won their appeal against their son’s “unlawful” exclusion from Colnbrook C of E, but decided to move Riley anyway in the face of punitive measures imposed by the school."

    Mini-cheddars head resigns from Colnbrook Primary

    Leave a comment:


  • dude69
    replied
    Originally posted by DirtyDog View Post
    The school has said there were persistent rule breaches. If there weren't, then it's dead easy for the parents to appeal and get the pupils reinstated. Then they can go to the press and show how they were vindicated.

    I suspect that there is more to the case than either of the two Daily Mail articles has reported.
    I wouldn't assume that. They excluded him for violating their healthy eating policy, but that wasn't his behaviour, it was his parents.

    And it went from suspension to expulsion in only a couple of days.

    If you look at exclusion of kids this age, they are violently attacking other kids and teachers:

    'My FIVE-year-old son was expelled because teachers want an easy life' claims mother | UK | News | Daily Express
    The head who expelled Harry Reid says the five-year-old is the naughtiest boy she has ever taught. His mum Debbie insists he is a victim. So who is right? | Mail Online
    Five-year-old girl expelled from school for 'attacking teachers' | Mail Online
    Six-year-old expelled after 'reign of terror' | Education | theguardian.com

    And if you read into the detail, these exclusions take months and follow interventions, meetings with educational psychologists, and all the while learning is being disrupted.

    The Head here is inexperienced and probably thinks he can do what he likes - if you look at the timeline, there's really no other explanation, because there just hasn't been enough time elapsed from 'four day exclusion for eating biscuits' to 'permanent exclusion' to justify any other conclusion.

    Leave a comment:


  • DirtyDog
    replied
    Originally posted by dude69 View Post
    Doesn't sound like it.

    The school has and is required to publish its behaviour policy, which is here:

    http://www.colnbrookprimary.com/bp.pdf

    Nothing in the statement suggests he has breached it.

    Well that specifically excludes the actions of the parents, and again there doesn't appear to be evidence that that's true.
    The school has said there were persistent rule breaches. If there weren't, then it's dead easy for the parents to appeal and get the pupils reinstated. Then they can go to the press and show how they were vindicated.

    I suspect that there is more to the case than either of the two Daily Mail articles has reported.

    Leave a comment:


  • dude69
    replied
    Originally posted by DirtyDog View Post
    You came back after a THREE YEAR absence just to debate this?

    There's dedication to the cause
    well not really. google juice.

    Leave a comment:


  • dude69
    replied
    Originally posted by DirtyDog View Post
    There were persistent breaches of the behaviour policy.
    Doesn't sound like it.

    The school has and is required to publish its behaviour policy, which is here:

    http://www.colnbrookprimary.com/bp.pdf

    Nothing in the statement suggests he has breached it.

    Allowing the pupil to remain at the school would (in the opinion of the head teacher and the governing body) cause serious harm to the education or welfare of the pupil (or others at the school).
    Well that specifically excludes the actions of the parents, and again there doesn't appear to be evidence that that's true.

    Leave a comment:


  • DirtyDog
    replied
    You came back after a THREE YEAR absence just to debate this?

    There's dedication to the cause

    Leave a comment:


  • DirtyDog
    replied
    Originally posted by dude69 View Post
    How does it apply?
    There were persistent breaches of the behaviour policy.

    Allowing the pupil to remain at the school would (in the opinion of the head teacher and the governing body) cause serious harm to the education or welfare of the pupil (or others at the school).

    Leave a comment:


  • dude69
    replied
    Originally posted by DirtyDog View Post
    Since that applies in this case, it's pretty clear why the child was expelled. Whether they have the right to exclude the younger child or not is a different question.
    How does it apply?

    Leave a comment:


  • DirtyDog
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Plus the constant rule breaking and the fact the parents made it clear they will still refuse to comply, and the abuse towards staff and so on and so on.....
    A decision to exclude a pupil permanently should only be taken:
    • in response to a serious breach, or persistent breaches, of the school's behaviour policy; and
    • where allowing the pupil to remain in school would seriously harm the education or welfare of the pupil or others in the school.
    Since that applies in this case, it's pretty clear why the child was expelled. Whether they have the right to exclude the younger child or not is a different question.

    Leave a comment:


  • DirtyDog
    replied
    Originally posted by dude69 View Post
    You obviously don't have the first clue about education.

    An academy is a state school.

    You are thinking of a 'maintained school', which this isn't, it is still however 100% a 'state' school'.
    I thought academies had a different legal approach to exclusions than state schools. One of the first results I got in Google was a link to this Telegraph article, which says
    Academies are independent state schools given complete freedom from local authorities to control their own admissions and exclusions
    Obviously I should have checked further.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladyuk
    replied
    Originally posted by northernladuk View Post
    Plus the constant rule breaking and the fact the parents made it clear they will still refuse to comply, and the abuse towards staff and so on and so on.....
    Where would we be if you got thrown out on your ear every time you were caught with a couple of sausage in your box?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X