I dont find it strange at all, most people are sheep and follow the herd never thinking or complaining for themselves and just happy to accept what the majority of people do.
IMO schools should not be able to exclude or expel children who want to eat peanut butter sandwiches, scotch eggs or crisps in their lunchboxes, schools should mind their own business and get on with teaching, they dont pay the parents food bills and its none of their business.
They certainly have and its pathetic that more people dont stand up to them on such petty issues which affect us all as families or dont have the power to stop them being so interfering , meddlesome and controlling.
Personally feel that unless the school are providing lunch free of charge they cannot reasonably try to enforce what the kids eat. I also think that what is and isn't healthy food is very hard to categorise e.g a slice of cheese and tomato pizza may be healthier than a peanut butter sandwich on white bread and a packet of cheddars may actually contain less fat/sugar than some cereal bars. However, that said, it became harder and harder for me to send my kids to school with a healthy lunch box as they got older because they would see what was in other kids packed lunches and start demanding that so they were the same as everyone else. No easy answers really.
They certainly have and its pathetic that more people dont stand up to them on such petty issues which affect us all as families or dont have the power to stop them being so interfering , meddlesome and controlling.
In this instance, with a 'healthy Eating Policy', do you think it is so bad to argue against?
In this instance, with a 'healthy Eating Policy', do you think it is so bad to argue against?
Yes I do, it doesnt matter what the policy is or how well meaning its not their place to bring in policies except those relating to education not diet. What they think about what children eat should not be their business, should not be anyones business unless said child is starving or malnourished in which case its down to social services but still isnt the schools place to ban a child , this is not in the best interests of the child as it removes them from their friendship groups and is about the Head of the school getting the upper hand. My point is no parent should have to be at loggerheads with the Head over what their children eat in the first place its not the schools business and if it is the schools business due to rules or laws then its pathetic
Well reading back, it seems to some that it's the principle and parental responsibility, rather than cheese biscuits that is fuelling the discussion.
No school has the right to check/approve a child's lunchbox seems to be the argument, yet when one poster removed cheese biscuits from the discussion and replaced them with a lump of lard ,it seems teachers suddenly do have the right to check what a child is eating,are they meant know if it's cheese biscuits or a lump of lard telepathically? or are they allowed to look into a lunchbox? seems it's just a question of where the line is drawn.Some draw it under a pack of cheddars and some draw it under lumps of lard...
In this instance, with a 'healthy Eating Policy', do you think it is so bad to argue against?
If your work place introduced a healthy Eating Policy would you just accept it ,or still bringing what you liked. I would still bringing the food i'd like to eat i not be told what ever,
I read the bullet points at the bottom of the letter which in my mind could well refer to other things, food may well have been the core reason, excuse the unintended pun, but other things may well have surrounded it.
I hate to think of any child being excluded Dearmrman, it's normally the last thing any school would want for a child especially that age, sadly it has just happened with us but for very different reasons. It's a terribly sad situation especially if you have tried everything to avoid it. I can tell you that to make this decision a Head should abide by the legal aspects of such and would have to consult with the relevant bodies too, I believe that an Academy still has to via way of Governors but is not answerable to the Local Education Department but still answerable to the Government Education Department, I will stand corrected if I have any of that wrong.
I agree with you that if the parents swearing (unless this has been persistent too) was just one reason then it would have been an option to refuse the parents to enter the school grounds and maybe arrange for the child/children to be picked up at the gate and dropped back to the parent/s at the gate. We once did this for an aggressive parent who kicked off for a pathetic reason!
No they shouldn't have turned a blind eye to it, I believe that now more than ever we have to look at better eating options for our children, this is about constant processed foods and foods with high volumes of sugars, salts and fats. Surely education is for life and should include the option to at least give healthier food a go to improve a child's health in life?
the menu you link to me is representative of many primary schools, Im always amazed that its so 'sugary', the veg is the really sweet starchy veg (peas sweetcorn and baked beans) and the puds are sugar heavy. I do wonder how these menus fit with what the 'guidelines' are.
He is of an age that is learning how to react to rules.
Absolutely, and imagine if it had been peer pressure that would have finally changed his diet.
The new policy, when the first story came out was only about 2 weeks old. Over time with the other children being praised and given sticker for their lunches, for Riley (although I dont agree with removing food) to have the 'offending' items removed and then given to his parents at the end of every day, over time you would have got change by default. By the time there are more of the workshops, fun days about fruit and veg, he will have been feeling different and put pressure on his parents not to give him these things and wanting to fit with the other children.
If its not about him learning how to interact with the rules then by default its about what his parents permit him to have or not.
Well reading back, it seems to some that it's the principle and parental responsibility, rather than cheese biscuits that is fuelling the discussion.
No school has the right to check/approve a child's lunchbox seems to be the argument, yet when one poster removed cheese biscuits from the discussion and replaced them with a lump of lard ,it seems teachers suddenly do have the right to check what a child is eating,are they meant know if it's cheese biscuits or a lump of lard telepathically? or are they allowed to look into a lunchbox? seems it's just a question of where the line is drawn.Some draw it under a pack of cheddars and some draw it under lumps of lard...
I specifically said that teachers dont 'inspect' what children are eating and shouldnt do although they may do in some schools. Children eat in communal areas, everyone can see what they are eating so the dinner ladies see what children are eating, whether they are struggling or already finished and if they go against the 'rules' they will inform the teaching staff.
As I said, I worked with children with offending behaviour who were not yet under YOT and as part of this put together a 'healthy eating pack' long before all this stuff came in (I should have copyrighted it) because of the links with behaviour, mood, concentration and food. BUT those were children specifically identified by their schools and other agencies as having anti social and/or offending behaviour. My work concentrated on what parents get out of changing diets, small changes, what to ADD to diet not what to take away, how to make it fun. It was very successful in terms of the diet changes.
I dont find it strange at all, most people are sheep and follow the herd never thinking or complaining for themselves and just happy to accept what the majority of people do.
IMO schools should not be able to exclude or expel children who want to eat peanut butter sandwiches, scotch eggs or crisps in their lunchboxes, schools should mind their own business and get on with teaching, they dont pay the parents food bills and its none of their business.
There should not be food policies in the school rules then parents couldnt be accused of breaking the school rules, the parents should not be forced to take their kids to another school and be inconvenienced in anyway, they have every right to object.
Schools should not be allowed to alter school policies without the Government debating it this would stop individual schools bringing in petty new rules. It should be the same rule right across the whole country or not at all.
The debate has been ongoing for many years with both Governments that is why vending machines were banned or required to be stocked with healthier options such as milk, water etc. What we have now in respect of 'some' packed lunch boxes is a kind of portable vending machine!
the menu you link to me is representative of many primary schools, Im always amazed that its so 'sugary', the veg is the really sweet starchy veg (peas sweetcorn and baked beans) and the puds are sugar heavy. I do wonder how these menus fit with what the 'guidelines' are.
As somebody else has pointed out portion size come into it too Tia, our staff eat our school dinners now and I can honestly say that they are healthy, not boring and the vegetarian options are brilliant, that is from an avid meat lover I've been trying to get time to have a proper chat with our chef and will do at some point.
With the greatest respect can you actually try and read my post rather than resort to insults. Neither you nor I have seen the letter to the parents regarding the permanent exclusion. The partial letter you keep referring to relates to the temporary exclusion, but don’t let this get in the way of your righteous indignation.
It is those condemning the school without the full evidence I oppose. I have never said that I am in receipt of all the evidence and have suggested that without the full facts to hand it is not reasonable to jump to any conclusion. For some reason you read into this that I will support this school no matter what which suggests quite a bit about your bias in this instance.
Who is insulting...is the belief that someone is on the wind up to be considered an insult on DS now?!?
Oh I read your post, and I maintain that you are harping on about other reasons for which there is no evidence! The reasons for the permanent exclusion will be no different as the letter published is very clear, excluded because of lack of parent support for healthy eating policy while consideration is given to permanent exclusion. Do you really believe it possible that the reasons for expulsion are going to be different? The reason may be different in the HTs head ie 'so they went to the press, right I'll show em who's boss!' but the official reasons will not have changed.
I was reading in this mornings paper that the EU are trying to stop kids taking cheese and yoghourt in their packed lunches. Kids will be starving soon!!:D:D
Maybe some supporter of this HT could come up with what they DO consider is a suitable packed lunch for a child.
No fizzy drink, no crisps or cheddars, no biscuits, no scotch eggs or mini sausages. We're no longer allowed to send in stuff like healthy homemade soup so what do we have left
Bottle of water
Piece of fruit
Yoghourt (for the time being)
Sandwich
Yum!!!!:D:D
As somebody else has pointed out portion size come into it too Tia, our staff eat our school dinners now and I can honestly say that they are healthy, not boring and the vegetarian options are brilliant, that is from an avid meat lover I've been trying to get time to have a proper chat with our chef and will do at some point.
Well I would hope they are child size portions for the children? The point is that a packed lunch which contained something 'puddingy' or chocolaty would be deemed 'banned'. Some people view baked beans as junk food (not me) and why the emphasis on 'sweet' veg only rather than a mix of that throughout the week mixed with cauli, broccoli and greens, that was my thoughts.
I was reading in this mornings paper that the EU are trying to stop kids taking cheese and yoghourt in their packed lunches. Kids will be starving soon!!:D:D
Maybe some supporter of this HT could come up with what they DO consider is a suitable packed lunch for a child.
No fizzy drink, no crisps or cheddars, no biscuits, no scotch eggs or mini sausages. We're no longer allowed to send in stuff like healthy homemade soup so what do we have left
Bottle of water
Piece of fruit
Yoghourt (for the time being)
Sandwich
Yum!!!!:D:D
I cant remember where I was reading this now but I read the other day that in Canada there was a family who were fined or banned or whatever the 'punishment' was for giving their child at lunch a pot of roast beef, carrots, potatoes and green veg. Their crime? NO GRAINS were included!!!!
I thought it sounded a lovely lunch even if cold, I would eat it.
I was reading in this mornings paper that the EU are trying to stop kids taking cheese and yoghourt in their packed lunches. Kids will be starving soon!!:D:D
Maybe some supporter of this HT could come up with what they DO consider is a suitable packed lunch for a child.
No fizzy drink, no crisps or cheddars, no biscuits, no scotch eggs or mini sausages. We're no longer allowed to send in stuff like healthy homemade soup so what do we have left
Bottle of water
Piece of fruit
Yoghourt (for the time being)
Sandwich
Yum!!!!:D:D
How long to they want to be controlling kids diet in their own home
As somebody else has pointed out portion size come into it too Tia, our staff eat our school dinners now and I can honestly say that they are healthy, not boring and the vegetarian options are brilliant, that is from an avid meat lover I've been trying to get time to have a proper chat with our chef and will do at some point.
That's fine Mrs Teapot, sounds like you have a good chef. However, the school we are talking about serves up stuff like pizza and wedges, fish fingers and chips and lasagne with garlic bread. Hardly healthy stuff is it?
In a lot of schools they use masses of processed food, catering packs of various mixes .... Eg scone mix, sponge mix, gravy mix, Yorkshire mix all of which contain preservatives, additives etc. they're not healthy at all.
If that Head really does want to improve the food his pupils are eating then, alongside his ban of what he considers unhealthy food, should be a wonderful selection of healthy, nutritious, colourful home cooked food cooked at his school and not the current bilge they are serving up.
I cant remember where I was reading this now but I read the other day that in Canada there was a family who were fined or banned or whatever the 'punishment' was for giving their child at lunch a pot of roast beef, carrots, potatoes and green veg. Their crime? NO GRAINS were included!!!!
I thought it sounded a lovely lunch even if cold, I would eat it.
Bet they weren't expelled though!:D
I'm going back several years but I used to make lovely homemade soups and casseroles which my kids loved and send them in for their packed lunch in a flask. Lots of other mums used to send in baked beans, soups, stews etc and we were all told to stop as it could be dangerous if they broke their flask. Around that time they'd brought out thermal flasks with unbreakable linings so we switched to those. We were told we couldn't use those, not because they were dangerous, but in case the children spilt hot food on themselves.
Well I would hope they are child size portions for the children? The point is that a packed lunch which contained something 'puddingy' or chocolaty would be deemed 'banned'. Some people view baked beans as junk food (not me) and why the emphasis on 'sweet' veg only rather than a mix of that throughout the week mixed with cauli, broccoli and greens, that was my thoughts.
Yes they are, we have the child size portions too, it's really a substitute for a sandwich for is and a lot cheaper, the meals are only £2! Do you think cost of certain vegetables may come into play? We have green beans and cabbage as well. A lot of puddings are served in little disposable containers but everything is freshly made on the premises , if the pudding is say a crumble the topping is oats with no added sugar just the fruit base but that is served in a dish.
In relation to some of your comments we have found that the increase of school dinner uptake appears to have had an effect on the children's concentration in the afternoon, we've also had less incidents on the playground at dinnertime. Now that can only be an observation at this point and it may well be that they are just enjoying mealtime more as the food is better.
I am struggling to understand how you can take this stance in the absence of seeing any part of the 3 other letters the family's grandmother states were received, as well the official permanent exclusion communication. Letting alone any factual detail of what happened during the meetings between parents and school.
And yet, in the case of a police officer who is actually caught *on film* lying that a person has said he has been drinking alcohol you take the following stance:
Even I would struggle to argue that we aren't privy to enough detail in that case - I'm really confused by how and why you would apply your logic so incredibly differently?
Can I ask, would you'd say you have a higher regard for police officers than teachers? Do you think there is perhaps some prejudice and preference at play in your decision not to reserve judgement here, when in a case with far more damning evidence available you fight to get others to keep an open mind?
Are you suggesting the school are happy to publish that the child is expelled for breach of food policy, but wont mention that there is something else, if there was? It would be easy to say the expulsion was for a non food related matter, but we cant divulge details.
As for bringing up another thread that has no comparison to this, I'm not sure why you do that. However, in that incident, all we have is a brief film clip, and using deductive powers, I think there was life before the film started. From the beginning of the clip, the Policeman is suggesting the person concerned had been drink driving. He knew the blokes name, and pointed out his car. It is possible they suspected he had driven there, and may have been drinking. I said I don't know if that is the case, because I wasn't there.
To be frank, it's really obvious to me that there is an awful of anti-teacher sentiment coursing through many of the opinions on this thread.
Blatant and predictable deflection tactic!
I have not seen one 'anti-teacher' comment, not one person has expressed any negative view about teachers.
Part of my career was senior management in the LEA, I have three family members who are teachers, one of whom is a HT and I even started to train as a teacher but decided it wasn't for me because you have to have a certain quality that I didn't possess to do the job. I have also discussed this situation with my family members and all, including the HT, agree that the HT has mishandled the situation and let it get out of hand. My HT cousin even suggested that, as he has been drafted in to deal with a failing school, his judgement regarding anything negative about pupils is likely to be like a hair trigger and once a decision is made, it shows weakness to his employers or that his judgement was flawed if he was to change his mind. Apparently this view is being shared throughout the HT network.
Comments
The government made it their business.
They certainly have and its pathetic that more people dont stand up to them on such petty issues which affect us all as families or dont have the power to stop them being so interfering , meddlesome and controlling.
In this instance, with a 'healthy Eating Policy', do you think it is so bad to argue against?
Yes I do, it doesnt matter what the policy is or how well meaning its not their place to bring in policies except those relating to education not diet. What they think about what children eat should not be their business, should not be anyones business unless said child is starving or malnourished in which case its down to social services but still isnt the schools place to ban a child , this is not in the best interests of the child as it removes them from their friendship groups and is about the Head of the school getting the upper hand. My point is no parent should have to be at loggerheads with the Head over what their children eat in the first place its not the schools business and if it is the schools business due to rules or laws then its pathetic
No school has the right to check/approve a child's lunchbox seems to be the argument, yet when one poster removed cheese biscuits from the discussion and replaced them with a lump of lard ,it seems teachers suddenly do have the right to check what a child is eating,are they meant know if it's cheese biscuits or a lump of lard telepathically? or are they allowed to look into a lunchbox? seems it's just a question of where the line is drawn.Some draw it under a pack of cheddars and some draw it under lumps of lard...
If your work place introduced a healthy Eating Policy would you just accept it ,or still bringing what you liked. I would still bringing the food i'd like to eat i not be told what ever,
the menu you link to me is representative of many primary schools, Im always amazed that its so 'sugary', the veg is the really sweet starchy veg (peas sweetcorn and baked beans) and the puds are sugar heavy. I do wonder how these menus fit with what the 'guidelines' are.
Absolutely, and imagine if it had been peer pressure that would have finally changed his diet.
The new policy, when the first story came out was only about 2 weeks old. Over time with the other children being praised and given sticker for their lunches, for Riley (although I dont agree with removing food) to have the 'offending' items removed and then given to his parents at the end of every day, over time you would have got change by default. By the time there are more of the workshops, fun days about fruit and veg, he will have been feeling different and put pressure on his parents not to give him these things and wanting to fit with the other children.
If its not about him learning how to interact with the rules then by default its about what his parents permit him to have or not.
I specifically said that teachers dont 'inspect' what children are eating and shouldnt do although they may do in some schools. Children eat in communal areas, everyone can see what they are eating so the dinner ladies see what children are eating, whether they are struggling or already finished and if they go against the 'rules' they will inform the teaching staff.
As I said, I worked with children with offending behaviour who were not yet under YOT and as part of this put together a 'healthy eating pack' long before all this stuff came in (I should have copyrighted it) because of the links with behaviour, mood, concentration and food. BUT those were children specifically identified by their schools and other agencies as having anti social and/or offending behaviour. My work concentrated on what parents get out of changing diets, small changes, what to ADD to diet not what to take away, how to make it fun. It was very successful in terms of the diet changes.
The debate has been ongoing for many years with both Governments that is why vending machines were banned or required to be stocked with healthier options such as milk, water etc. What we have now in respect of 'some' packed lunch boxes is a kind of portable vending machine!
As somebody else has pointed out portion size come into it too Tia, our staff eat our school dinners now and I can honestly say that they are healthy, not boring and the vegetarian options are brilliant, that is from an avid meat lover
Who is insulting...is the belief that someone is on the wind up to be considered an insult on DS now?!?
Oh I read your post, and I maintain that you are harping on about other reasons for which there is no evidence! The reasons for the permanent exclusion will be no different as the letter published is very clear, excluded because of lack of parent support for healthy eating policy while consideration is given to permanent exclusion. Do you really believe it possible that the reasons for expulsion are going to be different? The reason may be different in the HTs head ie 'so they went to the press, right I'll show em who's boss!' but the official reasons will not have changed.
Maybe some supporter of this HT could come up with what they DO consider is a suitable packed lunch for a child.
No fizzy drink, no crisps or cheddars, no biscuits, no scotch eggs or mini sausages. We're no longer allowed to send in stuff like healthy homemade soup so what do we have left
Bottle of water
Piece of fruit
Yoghourt (for the time being)
Sandwich
Yum!!!!:D:D
Well I would hope they are child size portions for the children? The point is that a packed lunch which contained something 'puddingy' or chocolaty would be deemed 'banned'. Some people view baked beans as junk food (not me) and why the emphasis on 'sweet' veg only rather than a mix of that throughout the week mixed with cauli, broccoli and greens, that was my thoughts.
I cant remember where I was reading this now but I read the other day that in Canada there was a family who were fined or banned or whatever the 'punishment' was for giving their child at lunch a pot of roast beef, carrots, potatoes and green veg. Their crime? NO GRAINS were included!!!!
I thought it sounded a lovely lunch even if cold, I would eat it.
How long to they want to be controlling kids diet in their own home
That's fine Mrs Teapot, sounds like you have a good chef. However, the school we are talking about serves up stuff like pizza and wedges, fish fingers and chips and lasagne with garlic bread. Hardly healthy stuff is it?
In a lot of schools they use masses of processed food, catering packs of various mixes .... Eg scone mix, sponge mix, gravy mix, Yorkshire mix all of which contain preservatives, additives etc. they're not healthy at all.
If that Head really does want to improve the food his pupils are eating then, alongside his ban of what he considers unhealthy food, should be a wonderful selection of healthy, nutritious, colourful home cooked food cooked at his school and not the current bilge they are serving up.
Bet they weren't expelled though!:D
I'm going back several years but I used to make lovely homemade soups and casseroles which my kids loved and send them in for their packed lunch in a flask. Lots of other mums used to send in baked beans, soups, stews etc and we were all told to stop as it could be dangerous if they broke their flask. Around that time they'd brought out thermal flasks with unbreakable linings so we switched to those. We were told we couldn't use those, not because they were dangerous, but in case the children spilt hot food on themselves.
The letter on their website relates to food policy.
What are your grounds for believing something else is involved?
Yes they are, we have the child size portions too, it's really a substitute for a sandwich for is and a lot cheaper, the meals are only £2! Do you think cost of certain vegetables may come into play? We have green beans and cabbage as well. A lot of puddings are served in little disposable containers but everything is freshly made on the premises , if the pudding is say a crumble the topping is oats with no added sugar just the fruit base but that is served in a dish.
In relation to some of your comments we have found that the increase of school dinner uptake appears to have had an effect on the children's concentration in the afternoon, we've also had less incidents on the playground at dinnertime. Now that can only be an observation at this point and it may well be that they are just enjoying mealtime more as the food is better.
Are you suggesting the school are happy to publish that the child is expelled for breach of food policy, but wont mention that there is something else, if there was? It would be easy to say the expulsion was for a non food related matter, but we cant divulge details.
As for bringing up another thread that has no comparison to this, I'm not sure why you do that. However, in that incident, all we have is a brief film clip, and using deductive powers, I think there was life before the film started. From the beginning of the clip, the Policeman is suggesting the person concerned had been drink driving. He knew the blokes name, and pointed out his car. It is possible they suspected he had driven there, and may have been drinking. I said I don't know if that is the case, because I wasn't there.
Blatant and predictable deflection tactic!
I have not seen one 'anti-teacher' comment, not one person has expressed any negative view about teachers.
Part of my career was senior management in the LEA, I have three family members who are teachers, one of whom is a HT and I even started to train as a teacher but decided it wasn't for me because you have to have a certain quality that I didn't possess to do the job. I have also discussed this situation with my family members and all, including the HT, agree that the HT has mishandled the situation and let it get out of hand. My HT cousin even suggested that, as he has been drafted in to deal with a failing school, his judgement regarding anything negative about pupils is likely to be like a hair trigger and once a decision is made, it shows weakness to his employers or that his judgement was flawed if he was to change his mind. Apparently this view is being shared throughout the HT network.
So, where is this anti-teacher sentiment?