A lot of guesses there to be honest. If the child was happy to eat the stuff on the healthy list, why wouldn't they just put that in the pack up?
You still cant get the grasp of why should schools be able to dictate what a child eats, and then be able to exert this level of punishment over them.
No other school does it.
Not guesses. The parents SAID that their child ate healthy fruit at home - so sending them with the cheddars etc. was a deliberate and unnecessary act.
if i had children at this school i`d be inclined to take them out and enrol them somewhere sensible.
Me too, the head teacher is coming across as a power crazed idiot. Sure. ban peanuts for safety reasons. Sure, have guidelines and encourage healthy eating. Excluding kids for eating a packet of mini cheddars is just silly.
But is it the child who is disobeying the rules, or is it the action of the parents? and what is the reason for excluding the other brother? again is it the actions of the parents?
This is last resort. The children are very young, so of course it's 'not their fault'. However, the parents are responsible for the child's food and therefore the consequences of refusing to comply with what seem to be perfectly reasonable requests.
The parent can't constantly call 'responsibility' and then resort to 'not the child's fault' when things don't go the way that they want.
Besides the relationship between school and home has been destroyed and it would be much better for the family to go to another school.
if i had children at this school i`d be inclined to take them out and enrol them somewhere sensible.
I agree. If the parents had such a massive issue with giving their child a healthy alternative to cheddars or scotch eggs in their lunch box they'd have gone somewhere else long before having an extended row with the school and using their child publicly to get their own way.
I agree. If the parents had such a massive issue with giving their child a healthy alternative to cheddars or scotch eggs in their lunch box they'd have gone somewhere else long before having an extended row with the school and using their child publicly to get their own way.
i wouldn`t have sent mine with illicit items as i didn`t feed them that sort of food at meal times. i would take them out because i strongly disagree with the sins of parents being visited upon the children.
If the parents took this to judicial review, the school wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
The food policy is a guideline, not a law. There is no policy that says a child not complying with the guidelines should be expelled, and tortfeasors post clearly states a child should not be punished for the actions of the parents, who probably have good reason to be unhappy with the school anyway.
God I hope nobody encourages them to do that. The law would soon be changed the same way countless others have that go against Tory "Ideals" and agenda.
Whilst adults are expected to be responsible for themselves, the school is responsible for the child while it's at the school.
If the school has a 'healthy eating' policy then this can be compromised by those who refuse to abide by it, and that's not fair on the rest of the kids.
Now, if someone insisted on bringing in very smelly hot food and it annoyed the other staff, they would be told not to do it - first unofficially, then officially, then they would be properly warned and then they would get the SACK, if they continued to be unreasonable about it.
And it would be for persistent non compliance of an instruction.
(It would also show that they were selfish, insensitive, stubborn and unnecessarily combatative).
You can make up as many scenarios as you like, but this school is wrong. Expulsion for what is in a pack up is wrong in this case. There are no other cases, so we have to rely on this.
Schools are not responsible for what a child eats, and in this case, there is no evidence the child was in danger.
This is a case of over reaction, and a misrepresentation of guidelines. There is no policy to expel in these circumstances, and the school have stretched a policy to fit.
Not guesses. The parents SAID that their child ate healthy fruit at home - so sending them with the cheddars etc. was a deliberate and unnecessary act.
If they eat fruit at home, why are the school so concerned about it? Clearly this has nothing to do with health issues, and everything to do with imposing power.
How long does it take him to eat his fruit at home? Does he need sitting over to do it? Would he eat it at school?
Me too, the head teacher is coming across as a power crazed idiot. Sure. ban peanuts for safety reasons. Sure, have guidelines and encourage healthy eating. Excluding kids for eating a packet of mini cheddars is just silly.
i`ve had dealings with power tripping teachers before, they are not uncommon.
This is last resort. The children are very young, so of course it's 'not their fault'. However, the parents are responsible for the child's food and therefore the consequences of refusing to comply with what seem to be perfectly reasonable requests.
The parent can't constantly call 'responsibility' and then resort to 'not the child's fault' when things don't go the way that they want.
Besides the relationship between school and home has been destroyed and it would be much better for the family to go to another school.
I agree. If the parents had such a massive issue with giving their child a healthy alternative to cheddars or scotch eggs in their lunch box they'd have gone somewhere else long before having an extended row with the school and using their child publicly to get their own way.
Presumably you would not allow this child back into any school unless he only had food from the healthy list.
That begs the question about what kids at other schools do. If this is all in the name of health, and this action is justified, all kids not complying should be expelled.
God I hope nobody encourages them to do that. The law would soon be changed the same way countless others have that go against Tory "Ideals" and agenda.
I don't think any Govt would back what this head did in the slightest.
You can make up as many scenarios as you like, but this school is wrong. Expulsion for what is in a pack up is wrong in this case. There are no other cases, so we have to rely on this.
Schools are not responsible for what a child eats, and in this case, there is no evidence the child was in danger.
This is a case of over reaction, and a misrepresentation of guidelines. There is no policy to expel in these circumstances, and the school have stretched a policy to fit.
You can thrash around as much as you want and keep insisting that it's all about the 'pack up', when it's not.
It's about persistent and deliberate flouting of the policy, for no real reason except chest beating and attention seeking.
And being prepared to lie and use the child to trash the school.
The relationship between school and parent is destroyed, untenable, and yet that parent still doesn't just sensibly sort out another school, and take the child elsewhere.
You can thrash around as much as you want and keep insisting that it's all about the 'pack up', when it's not.
It's about persistent and deliberate flouting of the policy, for no real reason except chest beating and attention seeking.
And being prepared to lie and use the child to trash the school.
The relationship between school and parent is destroyed, untenable, and yet that parent still doesn't just sensibly sort out another school, and take the child elsewhere.
No publicity in that.
The publicity came when the child had been suspended. I suspect the shock of such an over reaction led to that.
You refuse to comment on the wider implementation of this policy. Why are other schools not taking this extreme view? Did the Govt intend this kind of action when they introduced it?
Gosh, so many people with heart felt opinions against this school without knowing the full facts.
It reads like a perfect storm to incite misguided effrontery against schools/teachers/authority. For instance, you have the evil nasty head teacher whose only goal is to yield power over parents and children, against which you have the sweet innocent child and his plucky hard working parents who only want the best out of life. Even though most people, through personal experience, know that things are rarely so black and white they are perfectly able, if not positively willing, to accept that it is in this case.
A school is unable to expel a child on a whim so clearly there is more to this case than has been reported. However, some posters are so blinkered that they can’t see past this and either have the arrogance to assume that the school should release all the information they have on this case or to suggest that the parents take it further as obviously the school have been acting illegally.
Many have simply jumped to the conclusion that the head teacher is indeed the evil nasty villain of the piece without, for a minute, giving consideration to the possibility that the parents might actually be involved here as well. Given the hoops that a school (not just the head teacher) has to jump through before permanently excluding a pupil the reality is that there is more to this than has been reported.
The mantra of ‘why hasn’t this happened elsewhere’ is actually quite pertinent here as well. Maybe, just maybe, the difference in this case is the parents and not the school. Surely, if it was the school than there would be quite a few of the other parents coming forward to complain to the papers, after all if it’s not in the press it doesn’t exist according to some.
It staggers belief that certain posters jump to such conclusions based on so little knowledge. God forbid they ever find themselves in a position of authority.
A school is unable to expel a child on a whim so clearly there is more to this case than has been reported
This keeps coming up even though it's a complete red herring...there's more to the case than the HEADLINE, but there's no reason at all to believe the facts have not been sufficiently reported. Most reasonable people are aware this has not resulted from one instance of the wrong kind of biscuits being in a lunch box. It has been made quite clear that is has been ongoing and the parents reaction/behaviour regarding this have contributed to the school's ultimate decision. But that doesn't change the fact that it should never have been such an issue in the first place.
Gosh, so many people with heart felt opinions against this school without knowing the full facts.
It reads like a perfect storm to incite misguided effrontery against schools/teachers/authority. For instance, you have the evil nasty head teacher whose only goal is to yield power over parents and children, against which you have the sweet innocent child and his plucky hard working parents who only want the best out of life. Even though most people, through personal experience, know that things are rarely so black and white they are perfectly able, if not positively willing, to accept that it is in this case.
A school is unable to expel a child on a whim so clearly there is more to this case than has been reported. However, some posters are so blinkered that they can’t see past this and either have the arrogance to assume that the school should release all the information they have on this case or to suggest that the parents take it further as obviously the school have been acting illegally.
Many have simply jumped to the conclusion that the head teacher is indeed the evil nasty villain of the piece without, for a minute, giving consideration to the possibility that the parents might actually be involved here as well. Given the hoops that a school (not just the head teacher) has to jump through before permanently excluding a pupil the reality is that there is more to this than has been reported.
The mantra of ‘why hasn’t this happened elsewhere’ is actually quite pertinent here as well. Maybe, just maybe, the difference in this case is the parents and not the school. Surely, if it was the school than there would be quite a few of the other parents coming forward to complain to the papers, after all if it’s not in the press it doesn’t exist according to some.
It staggers belief that certain posters jump to such conclusions based on so little knowledge. God forbid they ever find themselves in a position of authority.
Please tell us the true story then.
The whole thing, as confirmed by the school, was about food policy.
The whole thing, as confirmed by the school, was about food policy.
They also have mentioned abusive behaviour which seems to have slipped your mind.
Neither you nor I are privy to the full facts surrounding this case and it is arrogance in the extreme to expect the school to lay them before us given that this is a private matter. However, to condemn the school and the head teacher using information purely gathered from the press is pretty low.
They also have mentioned abusive behaviour which seems to have slipped your mind.
Neither you nor I are privy to the full facts surrounding this case and it is arrogance in the extreme to expect the school to lay them before us given that this is a private matter. However, to condemn the school and the head teacher using information purely gathered from the press is pretty low.
It does sound as though the parents reactions went to an abusive stage, and I don't defend that, but the whole thing was caused by the school stamping down on something it didn't need to.
All we can comment on is what we do know, and to suggest it was something else, without any knowledge of what that is is as irresponsible as any accusation you make.
What else do you think it was about, based on what we do know, that suggests the whole thing is about healthy eating policy.
They also have mentioned abusive behaviour which seems to have slipped your mind.
Neither you nor I are privy to the full facts surrounding this case and it is arrogance in the extreme to expect the school to lay them before us given that this is a private matter. However, to condemn the school and the head teacher using information purely gathered from the press is pretty low.
The 6 year old and his sibling displayed abusive behaviour? Where that reported?
So private in fact, that the school saw fit to make the most ambiguous of comments to the press and then hide behind confidentiality!
I ask this question again, given that the published letter was addressed only to the parents and, considering the wording used, spelled out the reasons for the exclusion and subsequent expulsion, WHY were these other reasons that MUST exist, not eluded to, why was there no mention of anything other than the lack of support for the healthy eating policy...don't you find it a bit strange that a confidential letter would not refer to these mysterious yet so crucial hidden facts?
I really think the important fact here is this decision was taken by the lads parents. they gave him permission to take the snack into school so if the school has a problem they should take it up with the parents. how come the lads education is so vital that his parents are not allowed to take their children on holiday during school term without going through all sorts of red tape and fines. soon as the school have a problem the lads education doesn't seem that important,
I wonder if that's one of the factors in giving the lad 4 days, they dont want the family taking him on holiday, that one day is so vital to his education.
I wonder if that's one of the factors in giving the lad 4 days, they dont want the family taking him on holiday, that one day is so vital to his education.
Its permanent now, the HT has expelled the boy and his sibling.
This keeps coming up even though it's a complete red herring...there's more to the case than the HEADLINE, but there's no reason at all to believe the facts have not been sufficiently reported. Most reasonable people are aware this has not resulted from one instance of the wrong kind of biscuits being in a lunch box. It has been made quite clear that is has been ongoing and the parents reaction/behaviour regarding this have contributed to the school's ultimate decision. But that doesn't change the fact that it should never have been such an issue in the first place.
You say ongoing, but the policy was only introduced mid January, so about 3 weeks.
Yes there could be more to it as well, or you would think there was.
I'm guessing that the mini chedder cheese isn't the only incident that has happened. No way would a school expel a child or suspend them without letters home and meeting with the head. Also the rules have been in place for a while so the parents CHOSE to send their child there knowing the school rules.
Yes I think it's a stupid school rule but I wouldn't flout it if I chose to send my child there in the first place, also no other parents have complained from the school rules. This makes me wonder if the story the parents are saying is the truth
Comments
Not guesses. The parents SAID that their child ate healthy fruit at home - so sending them with the cheddars etc. was a deliberate and unnecessary act.
Me too, the head teacher is coming across as a power crazed idiot. Sure. ban peanuts for safety reasons. Sure, have guidelines and encourage healthy eating. Excluding kids for eating a packet of mini cheddars is just silly.
This is last resort. The children are very young, so of course it's 'not their fault'. However, the parents are responsible for the child's food and therefore the consequences of refusing to comply with what seem to be perfectly reasonable requests.
The parent can't constantly call 'responsibility' and then resort to 'not the child's fault' when things don't go the way that they want.
Besides the relationship between school and home has been destroyed and it would be much better for the family to go to another school.
I agree. If the parents had such a massive issue with giving their child a healthy alternative to cheddars or scotch eggs in their lunch box they'd have gone somewhere else long before having an extended row with the school and using their child publicly to get their own way.
God I hope nobody encourages them to do that. The law would soon be changed the same way countless others have that go against Tory "Ideals" and agenda.
You can make up as many scenarios as you like, but this school is wrong. Expulsion for what is in a pack up is wrong in this case. There are no other cases, so we have to rely on this.
Schools are not responsible for what a child eats, and in this case, there is no evidence the child was in danger.
This is a case of over reaction, and a misrepresentation of guidelines. There is no policy to expel in these circumstances, and the school have stretched a policy to fit.
If they eat fruit at home, why are the school so concerned about it? Clearly this has nothing to do with health issues, and everything to do with imposing power.
How long does it take him to eat his fruit at home? Does he need sitting over to do it? Would he eat it at school?
i`ve had dealings with power tripping teachers before, they are not uncommon.
Presumably you would not allow this child back into any school unless he only had food from the healthy list.
That begs the question about what kids at other schools do. If this is all in the name of health, and this action is justified, all kids not complying should be expelled.
I don't think any Govt would back what this head did in the slightest.
You can thrash around as much as you want and keep insisting that it's all about the 'pack up', when it's not.
It's about persistent and deliberate flouting of the policy, for no real reason except chest beating and attention seeking.
And being prepared to lie and use the child to trash the school.
The relationship between school and parent is destroyed, untenable, and yet that parent still doesn't just sensibly sort out another school, and take the child elsewhere.
No publicity in that.
The publicity came when the child had been suspended. I suspect the shock of such an over reaction led to that.
You refuse to comment on the wider implementation of this policy. Why are other schools not taking this extreme view? Did the Govt intend this kind of action when they introduced it?
It reads like a perfect storm to incite misguided effrontery against schools/teachers/authority. For instance, you have the evil nasty head teacher whose only goal is to yield power over parents and children, against which you have the sweet innocent child and his plucky hard working parents who only want the best out of life. Even though most people, through personal experience, know that things are rarely so black and white they are perfectly able, if not positively willing, to accept that it is in this case.
A school is unable to expel a child on a whim so clearly there is more to this case than has been reported. However, some posters are so blinkered that they can’t see past this and either have the arrogance to assume that the school should release all the information they have on this case or to suggest that the parents take it further as obviously the school have been acting illegally.
Many have simply jumped to the conclusion that the head teacher is indeed the evil nasty villain of the piece without, for a minute, giving consideration to the possibility that the parents might actually be involved here as well. Given the hoops that a school (not just the head teacher) has to jump through before permanently excluding a pupil the reality is that there is more to this than has been reported.
The mantra of ‘why hasn’t this happened elsewhere’ is actually quite pertinent here as well. Maybe, just maybe, the difference in this case is the parents and not the school. Surely, if it was the school than there would be quite a few of the other parents coming forward to complain to the papers, after all if it’s not in the press it doesn’t exist according to some.
It staggers belief that certain posters jump to such conclusions based on so little knowledge. God forbid they ever find themselves in a position of authority.
Please tell us the true story then.
The whole thing, as confirmed by the school, was about food policy.
They also have mentioned abusive behaviour which seems to have slipped your mind.
Neither you nor I are privy to the full facts surrounding this case and it is arrogance in the extreme to expect the school to lay them before us given that this is a private matter. However, to condemn the school and the head teacher using information purely gathered from the press is pretty low.
Excellent posts.
It does sound as though the parents reactions went to an abusive stage, and I don't defend that, but the whole thing was caused by the school stamping down on something it didn't need to.
All we can comment on is what we do know, and to suggest it was something else, without any knowledge of what that is is as irresponsible as any accusation you make.
What else do you think it was about, based on what we do know, that suggests the whole thing is about healthy eating policy.
The 6 year old and his sibling displayed abusive behaviour? Where that reported?
So private in fact, that the school saw fit to make the most ambiguous of comments to the press and then hide behind confidentiality!
I ask this question again, given that the published letter was addressed only to the parents and, considering the wording used, spelled out the reasons for the exclusion and subsequent expulsion, WHY were these other reasons that MUST exist, not eluded to, why was there no mention of anything other than the lack of support for the healthy eating policy...don't you find it a bit strange that a confidential letter would not refer to these mysterious yet so crucial hidden facts?
I wonder if that's one of the factors in giving the lad 4 days, they dont want the family taking him on holiday, that one day is so vital to his education.
Its permanent now, the HT has expelled the boy and his sibling.
You say ongoing, but the policy was only introduced mid January, so about 3 weeks.
Yes there could be more to it as well, or you would think there was.
People should stand up to people who are on a power trip,as if people dont it will make power trip people thinking they push there power even more>:(
Yes I think it's a stupid school rule but I wouldn't flout it if I chose to send my child there in the first place, also no other parents have complained from the school rules. This makes me wonder if the story the parents are saying is the truth