Reply to: If a child persistently breaks school rules, should they be excluded?

[BoredBloke]

I'd say that teh child should be excluded. The kid should have realised that the mini chedders were banned, disposed of them and gone out and sourdced a suitble replacement. Are there no supermarkets within say 3 miles that this 6 year old could have walked to in order to get food that adheres to the schools guidlines. What a little tulip - expell the child from all schools, forever and steralise the parents!

Surely schools have better things to worry about than kids eating mini chedders. If that is so high up on their radar then I think it must be assumed that Gove and the Tories have the school system running so well that they can waste their valuable time and resources in this pointless and way over the top manner.

[mudskipper]

Does it make a difference if the child is six, one of three, to an unmarried mother, who at 24 is pregnant with a fourth child? The value of their house is unknown, so you'll have to just guess that they are on benefits.

"Miss Mardle, who lives with Riley’s father, airport worker Tom Pearson..."

So - a stable relationship and he's got a job.

[SimonMac]

This is a tough one as I suppose its technically the parents who are breaking the rules as I doubt may six year olds make their own lunch, and the child is suffering for it.

[evilagent]

Does it make a difference if the child is six, one of three, to an unmarried mother, who at 24 is pregnant with a fourth child? The value of their house is unknown, so you'll have to just guess that they are on benefits.

Does the above affect in any way the parameters that they can control, or forces they are at the whim of?

Can never find the sarcasm font when I need it most.

[DirtyDog]

PS: the last poll option refers to breaking rules with AndyW behind the bike sheds.
Has policy changed, or should it read "AndyWs mum"?

The first Andyw poll option was just Andyw when AtW did it.

[DirtyDog]

But, just to be on the safe side, sterilise the child before puberty.

Does it make a difference if the child is six, one of three, to an unmarried mother, who at 24 is pregnant with a fourth child? The value of their house is unknown, so you'll have to just guess that they are on benefits.

[evilagent]

If the breaking of rules is within the childs power to control, then yes.
Eg, behaviour within school.

If the childs rule-breaking is merely at the whim of external forces, ie, parents mealtime decisions, lateness in class due to public transport, etc, then no, since the child cannot be culpable.

But, just to be on the safe side, sterilise the child before puberty.

PS: the last poll option refers to breaking rules with AndyW behind the bike sheds.
Has policy changed, or should it read "AndyWs mum"?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Oops, brain fart. Normal procedure in General is just to throw any of these terms into an argument at irregular intervals, regardless of what they mean though

I've done that before - 'absurdum' makes it seem like that's the fallacy. I realised quite a while later.

[d000hg]

That's not reductio ad absurdum.

**Edit**
For clarity - you're describing a straw man.
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly legitimate logical argument to make. A straw man is a logical fallacy.

Oops, brain fart. Normal procedure in General is just to throw any of these terms into an argument at irregular intervals, regardless of what they mean though

[DirtyDog]

So do you think it is appropriate to punish a child for being given the wrong lunch by its parents?

And if so, can you think of better punishments than the one meted out?

Sadly, the child ends up taking some responsibility for the actions of the parents.

When I (infrequently) make lunch for my kids, I ask them what they want in their packed lunches, and they tell me. If the school asked me not to include mini cheddars, I would be sure not to include them. If the school asked me not to include chocolate (which I don't anyway), then I would be sure not to include it. If the school asked my kids not to bring them again, then they would ask me not to send something into school which is going to get them "done".

If the school has asked the parents not to do something (in line with the school policy), then to keep doing it and expect that you can go bleating to the Daily Mail about how unfair life is doesn't sit well with me.

You obviously think it's appropriate that when parents deliberately ignore the school rules, that's OK - that's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but it's one that I disagree with you on.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Nice bit of manoeuvring, asking a slightly different question to what we were discussing, in order to bias responses and make supporting one side of the argument seem farcical. It's called reductio ad absurdum and is a cheap tactic used by politicians and climate debaters.

That's not reductio ad absurdum.

**Edit**
For clarity - you're describing a straw man.
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly legitimate logical argument to make. A straw man is a logical fallacy.

[Spacecadet]

The child didn't break the rules - the parents did. There are many better ways of dealing with it - confiscate the forbidden snack and provide the child with fruit instead (bill the parents for the fruit if you must).

I think the real point here is that it is arguably a school's role to encourage healthy eating, but it's not its role to enforce it.

What is the point of rules if they are not enforced

How about something different like a uniform breach. The child is repeatedly told off for not wearing a tie. Parents are informed but they reply that they don't think that their child needs to wear a tie.
If the school was to back down then the message being given is that wearing a tie doesn't matter and the school won't enforce the rule.
If the school doesn't back down and the parents continually refuse to comply then more and more drastic action will be required.

[mudskipper]

It's the school's role to enforce school policy. If there is one family which does not conform to the school policy then appropriate sanctions should be applied, in line with the school disciplinary policy.

Why should school not enforce their policies?

So do you think it is appropriate to punish a child for being given the wrong lunch by its parents?

And if so, can you think of better punishments than the one meted out?

[d000hg]

Nice bit of manoeuvring, asking a slightly different question to what we were discussing, in order to bias responses and make supporting one side of the argument seem farcical. It's called reductio ad absurdum and is a cheap tactic used by politicians and climate debaters.

[DirtyDog]

The child didn't break the rules - the parents did. There are many better ways of dealing with it - confiscate the forbidden snack and provide the child with fruit instead (bill the parents for the fruit if you must).

I think the real point here is that it is arguably a school's role to encourage healthy eating, but it's not its role to enforce it.

It's the school's role to enforce school policy. If there is one family which does not conform to the school policy then appropriate sanctions should be applied, in line with the school disciplinary policy.

Why should school not enforce their policies?