I think school heads need reminding of there basic function.
Why do we have laws to force children to attend School, to force irresponsible parents to send there children to school. this means every child will get an education regardless of how thick there parents are, regardless of how little attention they pay to there child's education. that's why we have the laws to protect the children.
Have they forgot this, they have now unnecessarily stained these children's characters. expulsion should be the absolute last resort, not something they should do lightly.
Schools have many policies and if a child causes a lot of disruption or refuses to obey authority then fine, give them warnings and expel them if needed.
If HT can expel children for such trivial matters it makes you wonder what the next trivial
expulsion will be over. poor kids are not sent to school in a decent uniform or something.
Re your BIB - it really is. Hence why it is so unlikely that the case as presented is way off the full story.
If it is as presented, this HT won't last long in role. That's a fact.
That seems to be something many people are missing - the permanent exclusion had not only be the final decision by the HT, but also the governors. We've had some very good 'legal eagle' posts in this thread - and given that that is HTs and governors bread and butter, well...
Of course it is a shame when children end up in such a situation needlessly as a result of the parents making such very unwarranted actions... but as well as the welfare of the whole school, it seems likely the HT etc have realised the two children involved aren't exactly having their welfare considered as a priority here. Can there really be any doubt that they have a better chance elsewhere?
Incidentally, kids with an expulsion on their record aren't judged by teaching staff in the way people presume - especially primary children! A certain wariness of course, but sadly poor parenting is all too common a factor - and most teachers know better than most how much children are impacted by that aspect which will never be a choice for them.
I think school heads need reminding of there basic function.
Why do we have laws to force children to attend School, to force irresponsible parents to send there children to school. this means every child will get an education regardless of how thick there parents are, regardless of how little attention they pay to there child's education. that's why we have the laws to protect the children.
Have they forgot this, they have now unnecessarily stained these children's characters.
expulsion should be the absolute last resort, not something they should do lightly.
Schools have many policies and if a child causes a lot of disruption or refuses to obey authority then fine, give them warnings and expel them if needed.
If HT can expel children for such trivial matters it makes you wonder what the next trivial
expulsion will be over. poor kids are not sent to school in a decent uniform or something.
I wonder if next some school will tell parents what time to put there kids to bed.
Mini cheddars aren't unhealthy. Kind of hard to ban mini cheddars as an unhealthy option when every "healthy" primary school menu i've seen has some form of cake and custard on it.
When statements like this are made, it only reinforces my opinion that actually enforcing parents to think about what they are putting into their children's lunch boxes isn't just a good idea, it's a necessity.
Mini cheddars are an unhealthy snack. They are high in salt and artificial flavourings, have little fibre content and over half their calorific value comes from FAT. They are OK as an occasional treat, they are not OK as a lunch time staple.
And yes on the face of it school dinners appear little better, but only if you judge them against comparable items bought ready-made from Iceland. If you actually look at the recipes and ingredient lists of the freshly-made-every-day school dinners they are very suitable for the age group they are prepared for. A little uninspiring perhaps, but not unhealthy.
We create fat cells when we take in more fat than we can dispose of. Children may not be overweight at 6 or 10 or 15, but they can still have developed more fat cells than is going to be healthy for them as they grow into adulthood. It's not all about the fat on your bottom, but the fat in your bloodstream and surrounding your organs. Some of the skinniest people can have fat issues.
When statements like this are made, it only reinforces my opinion that actually enforcing parents to think about what they are putting into their children's lunch boxes isn't just a good idea, it's a necessity.
Wether they are unhealthy or not depends on the rest of your diet and banning mini cheddars whilst possibly at the same time serving sponge cake and custard that contains 3 times as much fat and 15 times as much sugar seems a bit stupid.
That kids packed lunch contains less fat and sugar than almost all of the school menu dinners i saw.
Re your BIB - it really is. Hence why it is so unlikely that the case as presented is way off the full story.
If it is as presented, this HT won't last long in role. That's a fact.
That seems to be something many people are missing - the permanent exclusion had not only be the final decision by the HT, but also the governors. We've had some very good 'legal eagle' posts in this thread - and given that that is HTs and governors bread and butter, well...
Of course it is a shame when children end up in such a situation needlessly as a result of the parents making such very unwarranted actions... but as well as the welfare of the whole school, it seems likely the HT etc have realised the two children involved aren't exactly having their welfare considered as a priority here. Can there really be any doubt that they have a better chance elsewhere?
Incidentally, kids with an expulsion on their record aren't judged by teaching staff in the way people presume - especially primary children! A certain wariness of course, but sadly poor parenting is all too common a factor - and most teachers know better than most how much children are impacted by that aspect which will never be a choice for them.
It's not so much about being judged by other schools and therefore limiting there chances of another place locally, i was thinking this could pop to haunt the children for years. how does it look if people don't know the full facts.
gossip, he was expelled from school when he was a kid etc.
Would you be happy as a parent if you were told your child was hanging round with another boy who had been expelled from school in the last few years.
Wether they are unhealthy or not depends on the rest of your diet and banning mini cheddars whilst possibly at the same time serving sponge cake and custard that contains 3 times as much fat and 15 times as much sugar seems a bit stupid.
That kids packed lunch contains less fat and sugar than almost all of the school menu dinners i saw.
And it isn't the parents who need lecturing.
Even if the custard was made with whole milk (and I don't believe they use more than semi-skimmed in schools, nowadays), that only contains 4% fat as opposed to the MCs which contain 43% fat. There is no comparison.
Bearing in mind that the recipes and ingredient lists that make up school dinners are designed by nutritionists for the appropriate age group, it is easy on paper to decry them, but harder in reality.
ETA: I do agree that an occasional bag of cheddars will do no one any harm if they eat an otherwise healthy diet.
Even if the custard was made with whole milk (and I don't believe they use more than semi-skimmed in schools, nowadays), that only contains 4% fat as opposed to the MCs which contain 43% fat. There is no comparison.
Bearing in mind that the recipes and ingredient lists that make up school dinners are designed by nutritionists for the appropriate age group, it is easy on paper to decry them, but harder in reality.
Whats hard about it? there is a sponge cake and custard option on one of the "healthy" menus that has more fat and sugar in it than everything in his lunchbox combined.
Whats hard about it? there is a sponge cake and custard option on one of the "healthy" menus that has more fat and sugar in it than everything in his lunchbox combined.
Really? Care to give me the breakdown of nutritional content for his lunch box then?
When statements like this are made, it only reinforces my opinion that actually enforcing parents to think about what they are putting into their children's lunch boxes isn't just a good idea, it's a necessity.
Mini cheddars are an unhealthy snack. They are high in salt and artificial flavourings, have little fibre content and over half their calorific value comes from FAT. They are OK as an occasional treat, they are not OK as a lunch time staple.
And yes on the face of it school dinners appear little better, but only if you judge them against comparable items bought ready-made from Iceland. If you actually look at the recipes and ingredient lists of the freshly-made-every-day school dinners they are very suitable for the age group they are prepared for. A little uninspiring perhaps, but not unhealthy.
We create fat cells when we take in more fat than we can dispose of. Children may not be overweight at 6 or 10 or 15, but they can still have developed more fat cells than is going to be healthy for them as they grow into adulthood. It's not all about the fat on your bottom, but the fat in your bloodstream and surrounding your organs. Some of the skinniest people can have fat issues.
Smokey ... You can't just make stuff up to suit your argument you know. Mini cheddars are FREE from artificial colours, favours and MSG. There are 131 calories in a packet. O.6 g is salt. They are made using a blend of sunflower and veg oil and are oven baked.
Who says the child concerned has them more frequently than as an "occasional treat" ?
Smokey ... You can't just make stuff up to suit your argument you know. Mini cheddars are FREE from artificial colours, favours and MSG. There are 131 calories in a packet. O.6 g is salt. They are made using a blend of sunflower and veg oil and are oven baked.
Who says the child concerned has them more frequently than as an "occasional treat" ?
A bread roll has 151 calories.
I think that getting away from the content fat salt and calorie wise, how much does a bag of cheddars fill a child up?
A main course and pudding and custard may have the same amount or more fats etc, but the child will be fuller for longer and less likely to want to 'snack' more.
Smokey ... You can't just make stuff up to suit your argument you know. Mini cheddars are FREE from artificial colours, favours and MSG. There are 131 calories in a packet. O.6 g is salt. They are made using a blend of sunflower and veg oil and are oven baked.
Who says the child concerned has them more frequently than as an "occasional treat" ?
A bread roll has 151 calories.
How many people calorie count?
I dont calorie count I just eatvwhat I want and like.
Smokey ... You can't just make stuff up to suit your argument you know. Mini cheddars are FREE from artificial colours, favours and MSG. There are 131 calories in a packet. O.6 g is salt. They are made using a blend of sunflower and veg oil and are oven baked.
Who says the child concerned has them more frequently than as an "occasional treat" ?
A bread roll has 151 calories.
What type of bread roll? Is it white, brown, seeded? What proportion of those calories come from fat?
The answers to those questions will be relevant to the nutritional value and your cheddars, despite having fewer calories overall, have most of their calories come from fat, which does not make for a healthier alternative. And by the way, two thirds of the fat content is from saturated fats and vegetable oil is the most chemically altered oil you can ingest. It is NOT healthy - you are being conned if you believe the manufacterer's blurb.
But ultimately the criteria for expulsion, sadly through the actions of the parents, has been met. And lets face it, ultimately this school will benefit from this whole sorry episode, and such parents, not being part of their community. It's a shame for the children, but the 'greater good' and all that...
Has it? Given that this is something that can be reviewed by Governors and possibly the courts... Put it this way, the Head may think it was satisfied. However, anything that has the potential to be reviewed by a court - watch out! Please note, the 'watch out' is aimed in the direction of those who make the relevant decisions and who may be called upon to review them before they would necessarily go before a court.
The two-limbed test set out in paragraph 15 of the current guidance, which I believe is the criteria in issue:
15. 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.
As an example of why it's good to 'watch out' - the decision to have the semicolon immediately followed by the word 'and' would result in both of the limbs having to be satisfied. You wouldn't be able to get away with it for very long if you read the above as being an 'either/or' test following how the courts have interpreted statutory guidance in the past where the word 'and' is used between 'considerations' (as I'll term them). The courts can be very strict on statutory interpretation and equally can focus on issues that may seem quite minor when reviewing decisions.
A potential sticking point is that the 'breaches' limb is limited to breaches of the school's behaviour policy. You can see the school's particular behaviour policy and it is silent on whether the Healthy Eating policy is incorporated. It also doesn't have any real clear and catch-all 'any failure to follow any policy of the school will result in...' provision.
Paragraph 8 of the policy mentions behaviour that could bring the school's reputation into disrepute, and I acknowledge that this is in a paragraph about behaviour outside of school. However, the paragraph must be read in context and that paragraph is clear in its focus on the behaviour being that of the child/pupil. I gather that the perceived damage to the school's reputation, which the Head was concerned about, was very much concerned with the story going to the press. I doubt that either pupil contacted the press personally.
A lot of the reasoning seems to meet up with 'actions of the parents' somewhere along the path. The Head supposedly authored the policy - he may have been the author of self-imposed limitations.
I personally think this particular case is very blurred. One example - yes, you could say that the pupil posing in school uniform for press articles, which identify the pupil as being one of the school, could potentially be 'outside of school behaviour' that 'could adversely affect the reputation of the school.' However, given the age of the pupil (and don't forget, the younger brother, who we didn't see in the photographs) it's also easy to say all of the press coverage, photos and otherwise, was mainly attributable to actions of the parents. Is it reasonable to decide that the pupil was responsible for the story going to the press?
Numerous posts have highlighted that the school website doesn't publish the Healthy Eating policy. We can acknowledge the website makes reference to the website being something of a work in progress, but as has been shown it's not impossible for new content to be added to it (e.g. the press releases). If the behaviour policy published has been revised since, one would think it would have been prudent to have published it online as soon as it had been revised. That could be said to be an example of good practice in covering one's own...
On the face of the policy as published, it doesn't appear that the Healthy Eating policy is incorporated into the behaviour policy. The behaviour policy is also worded very much as being focused on the behaviour of the pupil. There is therefore potential to suggest that the Head has been stretching the policies to meet situations that are not covered by them.
I dare say I expect all of the policies are being hurriedly revised as we've all been posting away.
The two-limbed test for statutory guidance for exclusions mentioned in paragraph 15 is also subject to the sort of things mentioned in paragraph 5 of the same guidance from the Secretary of State, a lot of which was referred to in earlier posts.
May I also extend a special thank you to Taglet, who made a very good and cogent discussion of relevant Articles of the European Convention of Human Rights earlier in the thread:
5. Any decision of a school, including exclusion, must be made in line with the principles of
administrative law, i.e. that it is: lawful (with respect to the legislation relating directly to
exclusions and a school’s wider legal duties, including the European Convention of Human
Rights); rational; reasonable; fair; and proportionate.
Even in turning around a 'sink' school, the methods used and decisions made - unpopular and controversial ones too - would still have to be in line with the same principles mentioned above.
Otherwise, you really won't be doing much to sway the arguments referring to Academies as being akin to 'banana republics.'
There are sensible ways to challenge and there are IDIOT ways to do it. Those include persistent attention seeking rule breaking. USING YOUR KIDS, and going to the press.
The chaps a POLTROON. Okay?
And I don't care if his kids were expelled.
Perhaps at the next school, he'll think he might have to behave like a sensible adult.
Has it? Given that this is something that can be reviewed by Governors and possibly the courts... Put it this way, the Head may think it was satisfied. However, anything that has the potential to be reviewed by a court - watch out! Please note, the 'watch out' is aimed in the direction of those who make the relevant decisions and who may be called upon to review them before they would necessarily go before a court.
The two-limbed test set out in paragraph 15 of the current guidance, which I believe is the criteria in issue:
15. 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.
As an example of why it's good to 'watch out' - the decision to have the semicolon immediately followed by the word 'and' would result in both of the limbs having to be satisfied. You wouldn't be able to get away with it for very long if you read the above as being an 'either/or' test following how the courts have interpreted statutory guidance in the past where the word 'and' is used between 'considerations' (as I'll term them). The courts can be very strict on statutory interpretation and equally can focus on issues that may seem quite minor when reviewing decisions.
A potential sticking point is that the 'breaches' limb is limited to breaches of the school's behaviour policy. You can see the school's particular behaviour policy and it is silent on whether the Healthy Eating policy is incorporated. It also doesn't have any real clear and catch-all 'any failure to follow any policy of the school will result in...' provision.
Paragraph 8 of the policy mentions behaviour that could bring the school's reputation into disrepute, and I acknowledge that this is in a paragraph about behaviour outside of school. However, the paragraph must be read in context and that paragraph is clear in its focus on the behaviour being that of the child/pupil. I gather that the perceived damage to the school's reputation, which the Head was concerned about, was very much concerned with the story going to the press. I doubt that either pupil contacted the press personally.
A lot of the reasoning seems to meet up with 'actions of the parents' somewhere along the path. The Head supposedly authored the policy - he may have been the author of self-imposed limitations.
I personally think this particular case is very blurred. One example - yes, you could say that the pupil posing in school uniform for press articles, which identify the pupil as being one of the school, could potentially be 'outside of school behaviour' that 'could adversely affect the reputation of the school.' However, given the age of the pupil (and don't forget, the younger brother, who we didn't see in the photographs) it's also easy to say all of the press coverage, photos and otherwise, was mainly attributable to actions of the parents. Is it reasonable to decide that the pupil was responsible for the story going to the press?
Numerous posts have highlighted that the school website doesn't publish the Healthy Eating policy. We can acknowledge the website makes reference to the website being something of a work in progress, but as has been shown it's not impossible for new content to be added to it (e.g. the press releases). If the behaviour policy published has been revised since, one would think it would have been prudent to have published it online as soon as it had been revised. That could be said to be an example of good practice in covering one's own...
On the face of the policy as published, it doesn't appear that the Healthy Eating policy is incorporated into the behaviour policy. The behaviour policy is also worded very much as being focused on the behaviour of the pupil. There is therefore potential to suggest that the Head has been stretching the policies to meet situations that are not covered by them.
I dare say I expect all of the policies are being hurriedly revised as we've all been posting away.
The two-limbed test for statutory guidance for exclusions mentioned in paragraph 15 is also subject to the sort of things mentioned in paragraph 5 of the same guidance from the Secretary of State, a lot of which was referred to in earlier posts.
May I also extend a special thank you to Taglet, who made a very good and cogent discussion of relevant Articles of the European Convention of Human Rights earlier in the thread:
5. Any decision of a school, including exclusion, must be made in line with the principles of
administrative law, i.e. that it is: lawful (with respect to the legislation relating directly to
exclusions and a school’s wider legal duties, including the European Convention of Human
Rights); rational; reasonable; fair; and proportionate.
Even in turning around a 'sink' school, the methods used and decisions made - unpopular and controversial ones too - would still have to be in line with the same principles mentioned above.
Otherwise, you really won't be doing much to sway the arguments referring to Academies as being akin to 'banana republics.'
At last a bit of common sense. it's amazing how many people are willing to be dictated too by these people. not only that, to allow there child's future to be harmed by them.
If I wanted to send my kids to school with a bag of mini cheddars or a pack of crisps i do not have to answer to anyone, it's the whole lunch box that has to be considered.
Drag me into school if I send them with a packet of crisps and a bag of mini cheddars and that's it as that's completely unacceptable, a salad or pasta etc +a pct of mini cheddars is fine, if this shown to be wrong, just take the mini Cheddars off the child. I will be peeved but it's not the end of the world.
The world today seems so complicated, 60 odd pages arguing over a pckt of mini cheddars.
That is not the point, it's how far that school can go to enforce there policy that is in question. if a school can expel a child over something that most people consider trivial. then we have lost the plot.
At last a bit of common sense. it's amazing how many people are willing to be dictated too by jumped up little Hitlers. not only that, to allow there child's future to be harmed by these people.
If I wanted to send my kids to school with a bag of mini cheddars or a pack of crisps i do not have to answer to anyone, it's the whole lunch box that has to be considered.
Drag me into school if I send them with a packet of crisps and a bag of mini cheddars and that's it as that's completely unacceptable, a salad or pasta etc +a pct of mini cheddars is fine, if this shown to be wrong, just take the mini Cheddars off the child. I will be peeved but it's not the end of the world.
The world today seems so complicated, 50 odd pages arguing over a pckt of mini cheddars.
That is not the point, it's how far that school can go to enforce there policy that is in question. if a school can expel a child over something that most people consider trivial. then we have lost the plot.
BIB...Exactly, the children would not have been expelled over a bag of Mini Cheddars.
Be serious. In that other thread you have a video even I wouldn't dispute the validity of, but here, with so many gaping holes, you make so many assumptions.
I asked you what your feelings on teachers are... I could quote you, but was hoping to maybe get an honest bit of self-reflection as to how you can possibly justify the huge difference you've demonstrated in application of you 'deducing powers'. We all have prejudices. I wasn't asking you to do a total U turn on your opinion here, but just maybe to explain whether you think your approach here, on regarding the police officer, is the one you stand by... still waiting.
I'd genuinely like to share the other side (and I have tried to get people thinking about that who may not have had reason to in their life) - not to 'win' - because I am still open to the possibility of this HT being totally in the wrong. But based on trying to look at this objectively.
I've mentioned many a time that had this been about a hair do I'd very probably have been on a different side of the fence.
:
You should be open to the possibility of the head being wrong, because the only thing we know is that he expelled the child over a dispute relating to food policy. According to the expulsion guidelines that shouldn't happen.
I'm not sure why you keep going back to a thread that has no comparison. We have a video that starts and stops. Stuff happened before and after that. The content of the video related to what happened before, and we don't know the details, but because of what is being said, it is not a shot in the dark to suggest the man involved may have been driving.
You are suggesting something else happened here, contrary to what the school has published, but can give no clue what that may be, based on what we do know. That is the difference.
What do my feelings about teachers matter? I know loads of teachers, and have teachers as friends. I know most teachers try to do a good job, but I also know some are lazy and incompetent, same as everyone else. I cant possibly generalise on what I think of teachers, because such generalisations are stupid.
I can have feelings about this head though, and what he's done. I don't judge all other teachers on his actions.
No, there was scotch eggs and sausage rolls. The kid should be sent to prison, never mind expelled.
Or maybe the Headteacher was just trying to put a stop to the bad behaviour whilst the child was at the Mini Cheddar stage, before he progressed to the even more sinful stage of 'Full Sized Cheddar' bad behaviour?
Maybe the school's rules go too far, but if there are some, parents should stick to them. However, expulsion of the boy is a punishment for him,not for children, while at this age only parents are responsible for it.
What type of bread roll? Is it white, brown, seeded? What proportion of those calories come from fat?
The answers to those questions will be relevant to the nutritional value and your cheddars, despite having fewer calories overall, have most of their calories come from fat, which does not make for a healthier alternative. And by the way, two thirds of the fat content is from saturated fats and vegetable oil is the most chemically altered oil you can ingest. It is NOT healthy - you are being conned if you believe the manufacterer's blurb.
I picked a readily available middle of the range brand .... Kingsmill white. We don't eat bread at all by the way.
Comments
Re your BIB - it really is. Hence why it is so unlikely that the case as presented is way off the full story.
If it is as presented, this HT won't last long in role. That's a fact.
That seems to be something many people are missing - the permanent exclusion had not only be the final decision by the HT, but also the governors. We've had some very good 'legal eagle' posts in this thread - and given that that is HTs and governors bread and butter, well...
Of course it is a shame when children end up in such a situation needlessly as a result of the parents making such very unwarranted actions... but as well as the welfare of the whole school, it seems likely the HT etc have realised the two children involved aren't exactly having their welfare considered as a priority here. Can there really be any doubt that they have a better chance elsewhere?
Incidentally, kids with an expulsion on their record aren't judged by teaching staff in the way people presume - especially primary children! A certain wariness of course, but sadly poor parenting is all too common a factor - and most teachers know better than most how much children are impacted by that aspect which will never be a choice for them.
I wonder if next some school will tell parents what time to put there kids to bed.
When statements like this are made, it only reinforces my opinion that actually enforcing parents to think about what they are putting into their children's lunch boxes isn't just a good idea, it's a necessity.
Mini cheddars are an unhealthy snack. They are high in salt and artificial flavourings, have little fibre content and over half their calorific value comes from FAT. They are OK as an occasional treat, they are not OK as a lunch time staple.
And yes on the face of it school dinners appear little better, but only if you judge them against comparable items bought ready-made from Iceland. If you actually look at the recipes and ingredient lists of the freshly-made-every-day school dinners they are very suitable for the age group they are prepared for. A little uninspiring perhaps, but not unhealthy.
We create fat cells when we take in more fat than we can dispose of. Children may not be overweight at 6 or 10 or 15, but they can still have developed more fat cells than is going to be healthy for them as they grow into adulthood. It's not all about the fat on your bottom, but the fat in your bloodstream and surrounding your organs. Some of the skinniest people can have fat issues.
Wether they are unhealthy or not depends on the rest of your diet and banning mini cheddars whilst possibly at the same time serving sponge cake and custard that contains 3 times as much fat and 15 times as much sugar seems a bit stupid.
That kids packed lunch contains less fat and sugar than almost all of the school menu dinners i saw.
And it isn't the parents who need lecturing.
gossip, he was expelled from school when he was a kid etc.
Would you be happy as a parent if you were told your child was hanging round with another boy who had been expelled from school in the last few years.
Even if the custard was made with whole milk (and I don't believe they use more than semi-skimmed in schools, nowadays), that only contains 4% fat as opposed to the MCs which contain 43% fat. There is no comparison.
Bearing in mind that the recipes and ingredient lists that make up school dinners are designed by nutritionists for the appropriate age group, it is easy on paper to decry them, but harder in reality.
ETA: I do agree that an occasional bag of cheddars will do no one any harm if they eat an otherwise healthy diet.
Whats hard about it? there is a sponge cake and custard option on one of the "healthy" menus that has more fat and sugar in it than everything in his lunchbox combined.
Really? Care to give me the breakdown of nutritional content for his lunch box then?
apple, ham sandwich, mini cheddars - 13.5g fat - 17.3g sugar
Healthy chocolate crunch and custard - 19.7g fat - 12.9g of sugar
2/3rds of the sugar in his lunchbox comes from the apple.
Smokey ... You can't just make stuff up to suit your argument you know. Mini cheddars are FREE from artificial colours, favours and MSG. There are 131 calories in a packet. O.6 g is salt. They are made using a blend of sunflower and veg oil and are oven baked.
Who says the child concerned has them more frequently than as an "occasional treat" ?
A bread roll has 151 calories.
I think that getting away from the content fat salt and calorie wise, how much does a bag of cheddars fill a child up?
A main course and pudding and custard may have the same amount or more fats etc, but the child will be fuller for longer and less likely to want to 'snack' more.
How many people calorie count?
I dont calorie count I just eatvwhat I want and like.
What type of bread roll? Is it white, brown, seeded? What proportion of those calories come from fat?
The answers to those questions will be relevant to the nutritional value and your cheddars, despite having fewer calories overall, have most of their calories come from fat, which does not make for a healthier alternative. And by the way, two thirds of the fat content is from saturated fats and vegetable oil is the most chemically altered oil you can ingest. It is NOT healthy - you are being conned if you believe the manufacterer's blurb.
Has it? Given that this is something that can be reviewed by Governors and possibly the courts... Put it this way, the Head may think it was satisfied. However, anything that has the potential to be reviewed by a court - watch out! Please note, the 'watch out' is aimed in the direction of those who make the relevant decisions and who may be called upon to review them before they would necessarily go before a court.
The two-limbed test set out in paragraph 15 of the current guidance, which I believe is the criteria in issue:
15. 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.
As an example of why it's good to 'watch out' - the decision to have the semicolon immediately followed by the word 'and' would result in both of the limbs having to be satisfied. You wouldn't be able to get away with it for very long if you read the above as being an 'either/or' test following how the courts have interpreted statutory guidance in the past where the word 'and' is used between 'considerations' (as I'll term them). The courts can be very strict on statutory interpretation and equally can focus on issues that may seem quite minor when reviewing decisions.
A potential sticking point is that the 'breaches' limb is limited to breaches of the school's behaviour policy. You can see the school's particular behaviour policy and it is silent on whether the Healthy Eating policy is incorporated. It also doesn't have any real clear and catch-all 'any failure to follow any policy of the school will result in...' provision.
Paragraph 8 of the policy mentions behaviour that could bring the school's reputation into disrepute, and I acknowledge that this is in a paragraph about behaviour outside of school. However, the paragraph must be read in context and that paragraph is clear in its focus on the behaviour being that of the child/pupil. I gather that the perceived damage to the school's reputation, which the Head was concerned about, was very much concerned with the story going to the press. I doubt that either pupil contacted the press personally.
A lot of the reasoning seems to meet up with 'actions of the parents' somewhere along the path. The Head supposedly authored the policy - he may have been the author of self-imposed limitations.
I personally think this particular case is very blurred. One example - yes, you could say that the pupil posing in school uniform for press articles, which identify the pupil as being one of the school, could potentially be 'outside of school behaviour' that 'could adversely affect the reputation of the school.' However, given the age of the pupil (and don't forget, the younger brother, who we didn't see in the photographs) it's also easy to say all of the press coverage, photos and otherwise, was mainly attributable to actions of the parents. Is it reasonable to decide that the pupil was responsible for the story going to the press?
Numerous posts have highlighted that the school website doesn't publish the Healthy Eating policy. We can acknowledge the website makes reference to the website being something of a work in progress, but as has been shown it's not impossible for new content to be added to it (e.g. the press releases). If the behaviour policy published has been revised since, one would think it would have been prudent to have published it online as soon as it had been revised. That could be said to be an example of good practice in covering one's own...
On the face of the policy as published, it doesn't appear that the Healthy Eating policy is incorporated into the behaviour policy. The behaviour policy is also worded very much as being focused on the behaviour of the pupil. There is therefore potential to suggest that the Head has been stretching the policies to meet situations that are not covered by them.
I dare say I expect all of the policies are being hurriedly revised as we've all been posting away.
The two-limbed test for statutory guidance for exclusions mentioned in paragraph 15 is also subject to the sort of things mentioned in paragraph 5 of the same guidance from the Secretary of State, a lot of which was referred to in earlier posts.
May I also extend a special thank you to Taglet, who made a very good and cogent discussion of relevant Articles of the European Convention of Human Rights earlier in the thread:
5. Any decision of a school, including exclusion, must be made in line with the principles of
administrative law, i.e. that it is: lawful (with respect to the legislation relating directly to
exclusions and a school’s wider legal duties, including the European Convention of Human
Rights); rational; reasonable; fair; and proportionate.
Even in turning around a 'sink' school, the methods used and decisions made - unpopular and controversial ones too - would still have to be in line with the same principles mentioned above.
Otherwise, you really won't be doing much to sway the arguments referring to Academies as being akin to 'banana republics.'
If that had been his lunchbox this thread may have gone a completely different way.
Thats what they say he had in the petition. If you go by what they say in the dailymail it looks like this
sandwich,yoghurt tube,dairylea dunkers, mini cheddars
21.9 fat 19.1g sugar
Super healthy chocolate crunch
19.7g fat 12.9g of sugar
Are you a teacher?
If I wanted to send my kids to school with a bag of mini cheddars or a pack of crisps i do not have to answer to anyone, it's the whole lunch box that has to be considered.
Drag me into school if I send them with a packet of crisps and a bag of mini cheddars and that's it as that's completely unacceptable, a salad or pasta etc +a pct of mini cheddars is fine, if this shown to be wrong, just take the mini Cheddars off the child. I will be peeved but it's not the end of the world.
The world today seems so complicated, 60 odd pages arguing over a pckt of mini cheddars.
That is not the point, it's how far that school can go to enforce there policy that is in question. if a school can expel a child over something that most people consider trivial. then we have lost the plot.
BIB...Exactly, the children would not have been expelled over a bag of Mini Cheddars.
You should be open to the possibility of the head being wrong, because the only thing we know is that he expelled the child over a dispute relating to food policy. According to the expulsion guidelines that shouldn't happen.
I'm not sure why you keep going back to a thread that has no comparison. We have a video that starts and stops. Stuff happened before and after that. The content of the video related to what happened before, and we don't know the details, but because of what is being said, it is not a shot in the dark to suggest the man involved may have been driving.
You are suggesting something else happened here, contrary to what the school has published, but can give no clue what that may be, based on what we do know. That is the difference.
What do my feelings about teachers matter? I know loads of teachers, and have teachers as friends. I know most teachers try to do a good job, but I also know some are lazy and incompetent, same as everyone else. I cant possibly generalise on what I think of teachers, because such generalisations are stupid.
I can have feelings about this head though, and what he's done. I don't judge all other teachers on his actions.
No, there was scotch eggs and sausage rolls. The kid should be sent to prison, never mind expelled.
Or maybe the Headteacher was just trying to put a stop to the bad behaviour whilst the child was at the Mini Cheddar stage, before he progressed to the even more sinful stage of 'Full Sized Cheddar' bad behaviour?
I picked a readily available middle of the range brand .... Kingsmill white. We don't eat bread at all by the way.
Tarred and feathered I say!!! That'll teach 'em.:D:D