Beyond a head teacher's remit?

I think rules re school Uniforms, piercings, etc, should be adhered to, but I still think inspecting lunch boxes is beyond the school's remit.

I Had a discussion on more than one occasion about the introduction of uniform at DD1' s primary school - the HT liked them to "express their individuality", I and other mothers wanted a uniform. He did not have children so he did not have the problem of of a six year old girl expressing her individuality at 6.30 every morning.

I would object to a dinner lady, teacher or whoever poking through my child's lunch box.

I said on a different forum that free school dinners of good quality are a good idea, even though some people can afford them, perhaps that is the price we have to pay to ensure that all children get a wholesome meal at least once a day.

I think not wearing earrings or nose piercings is quite sensible. It could be dangerous at times. What would the mother say if her daughter came home with her nose torn because somebody took offence at the child and pulled it out? She'd blame the school for that, probably. She would have to take it out for PE.

I agree with others who say it's an over reaction by the head. It's possible that the head and parents have had a number of similar difficulties, and that's what is behind what does sound like a draconian response. We should be promoting healthy eating, but not imposing exclusions on 6 year olds who brought in a pack of mini cheddars as part of his packed lunch. This poor lad is all over the newspapers, it'll no doubt follow him through school life, especially if this goes daft and leads to a permanent exclusion.
We've had parents fined for taking a week out of school, now a small boy excluded because of a pack of mini cheddars. I always supported school uniform/make up/ear rings/etc policies and believe parents should generally support school staff in relation to discipline etc. But, this is just plain daft. it's enough to bring out the maverick in ordinary folks.
The main focus of lunch box oversight should surely be that children are being given enough food and drink to keep them going during the day. Ideas about what constitutes nutritious food has been known to change hasn't it. Plus, my experience was that my children wanted lunch boxes similar to those their pals had. If no one had mini cheddars, no doubt most children would conform to that. Mine didn't want "green stuff or salad, because no one else brings that".

And herein lies the problem as explained in the last part of the message. My grandson (who has genuine food allergies leading to severe anaphylactic shock) is being laughed at by others because he has a healthy packed lunch, with healthy sandwiches, carrot sticks and cucumber, fruit and a yogurt- without Mini cheddars, crisps of sugar/fat ladden snacks. Is that any fairer?

It is funny how 'Big Brother' is seen from different cultures. Where people in one country think it is ok to apply draconian uniform rules, and yet allow kids to bring in packed lunches with little nutritional values and laded with fat, sugar and additives of all kinds. Where I live, it would be totally the other way round, and would be seen ridiculous to nit pick on uniform, and approve of unhealthy foods. I've just discussed this with my two young neighbours who have school age kids- and they thought it was totally bonkers.

Thanks for the link. Reading between the lines, or perhaps beyond the lines (?) this sounds like a family who have been pushing the bounds and cocking a snoop at school rules for a while. I bet many of us are familiar with parents like that .

Pity the poor child is caught up in this situation though

Presumably the family then contacted the press

Another reason for school dinners do you think, granjura? Or another headache in the provision of them.

But this all seems a bit Orwellian to me. I think small children are very open to ideas such as healthy eating; perhaps the school would have been better to have introduced "chats" with the children as well as "rules for parents" about what makes them grow strong and healthy and what to bring for lunch. I remember DS coming home age 6, in fact very upset, saying we musn't eat chicken because Miss had told him it was cruel. he refused to touch chicken or eggs for months, I was cross because we did not have much money and chicken was a comparatively cheap meal! But he took it on board.

I do think there are a great many people around today who have a little power and then start abusing it.

I'm sure the school did include healthy eating, etc, as part of lessons.

Orwelian- perhaps. But when you look at the stats for obesity, diabetes, joint problems, heart problems, etc, in the UK and the forecast- and the huge share of the NHS budget swallowed up by food realted problems- maybe Orwelian makes sense, somehow.

The chicken story is absolutely and totally out of order, and I would have made an official complaint about this.

School meals would be out of the question for our grand-son- as the smallest trace of egg or some nuts will set an anaphylactic shock attacks- packed lunch is the only way for him.

I think it is perhaps difficult for some people to realise how harduous the job (not job, as it is totally unpaid and NO expenses) is. Flexibility means, as said, umpteen more time spent on such stuff rather than education for all. It is almost impossible to get teachers to become governors, and same for parents and community representatives Meetings after meetings, after meetings- as stated, often late into the night. They have better things to do than looking at exception to school rules for packed lunches, uniform or holidays, really.

BTW- nobody has commented on the cultural aspect of what rules we accept or not. As said, from 'Continental' Europe- the fact that rules re uniform are totally accepted, but rules about education or healthy foods are not, seems totally bizarre.

Yes, v. Difficult re food allergies and disorders, DD1 has to be gluten free although we did not know that until recently. But did you hear about the breakthrough with peanut allergy? Early days but promising.

I knew someone once whose son would only eat readybrek and chocolate (he was in his twenties). I wo der what was in his packed lunch box.

I remember ds coming back from French exchange with French boy, whose mother had packed them baguettes filled with pieces of chocolate. This boy ate no veg at all (except french beans which he got for every dinner after that), no fruit, nothing healthy at all if he could help it.

Margaret it's always worth asking the school what in fact was said about the chickens as 6-year olds don't always get the information correct. I surmise the teacher was talking about battery hens. I know it's too long ago now, but still a good rule to check.
We used to tell parents to do this and also if they promised to believe only half of the stories brought home from school we would also dismiss half the stories brought to school from home.

Back to the OP. Interesting point Jess

It probably was battery hens, and it was also about the way they were slaughtered; not just me but other parents were cross.

Now I wonder if that is why teachers are more stressed granjura - you suggested we could have made an official complaint. We just had a chat with her and she apologised, said she could have come on a bit strong as she was a veggie. She was a good teacher generally.

DS is much less squeamish now!

The OP - is it their 15 minutes of fame? Who alerted the press?

Sorry, losing it. The OP. I think the school should guide healthy eating, but not enforce it.

It would be interesting to know what constitutes a school dinner at that school and what the exact ingredients are.

What we think of as healthy one month may not be the right thing to eat next month. Fat/sugar debate, fruit juice - once good for you now bad. Bombarded with information from all quarters. The rules on packed lunches would have to keep changing to keep up with research.

Margaret- of course an official complaint should be last possible measure. You didn't mention you'd had a good chat with her, a good teacher, and that she had spologised. Best way forward indeed.

Now, would it not make sense for packed lunch list to change occasionally in line with recent medical research? It would to me.

Still, looking at this from the outside, I think there is a lot more to this story than what was presented. I do find it concerning that the wearing of plain socks and no nail varnish seems more worthy of following than healthy eating. But then I am just a foreigner - as said, my neighbours here thought it was plain bizarre- and so was the primary school teacher who later came for her English lesson. Au revoir.

I agree with margaret. Schools are there to educate not to enforce unless it is in the interests of safety. What food a child's parents provide is none of the school's business. Thier business is to educate the children, not tell the parents how to behave.

It is completely wrong that a child has been excluded because the HT objects to what the parents put in its lunch box. The child has no control over this so should not suffer.

I very much suspect that there is a behaviour issue lurking somewhere. What could you possibly reasonably exclude a six year old for except violence towards other children or the teacher? If there is no behaviour issue, it's just a head on collision between the parents and the HT. The child should not be involved in any way. What the HT has done is quite simply wrong if it's really about Mini Cheddars.

We will wait for the next episode

Meanwhile it is the child who is "piggy-in-the-middle" and the one who is missing out on his education. He is only 6, poor kid!

Totally agree about education being primordial- and about poor kid being pig in the middle. By cannot fathom why a child can be punished for wearing socks with a logo or faint nailvarnish or a plain ring (a few examples from the high school where I was Senior teacher)- but not for putting in jeopardy the school's healty eating programme?

It is about time teachers got on with what they are paid to do i.e. educate our children and leave parents to bring up their children as they wish. As long as children are safe and happy at home they will be fine and grow up to make their own choices. We are now seeing increasing numbers of children with vitamin D deficiency because we will not allow them in the sun. We are being told to restrict fruit consumption so how long before we see the return of scurvy!

Schools have a right to have in place a healthy eating education programme. They do not have the Big Brother right to have in place and to enforce rules about what parents give their children to eat. Parents not agreeing with or acting against the school's healthy eating education programme do not put that programme in jeopardy. The school can carry on teaching the children what it wants to teach them.

Leave parents to bring children up as they wish?
Don't they do that already?
And who is not allowing children out in the sun?
And while we're at it where is the sun?

I agree, thatbags.
It is a programme, not a law. Parental freedom of choice is being eroded here.

Sun, what is that? And children in Australia have been diagnosed with rickets because of the 'slip slap slop' policy introduced because of the strength of the sun. Moderation in all things as my mother used to say.

I wonder what would happen if a child had a packed lunch consisting only of a selection of raw vegetables and fruit. Presumably these items would be considered to be "healthy" but, on their own, they would not constitute a healthy diet.

If the parents' account is accurate, it seems ridiculous that a child can be excluded from school for having a packet of mini cheddars in his packed lunch - provided it wasn't just a packet of mini cheddars. Anyway, is a school legally within its rights to exclude a child on this basis? It seems very harsh.

Whilst I would be worried to see a packed lunch consisting of, say, a packet of crisps, "cheese string" and a chocolate biscuit, I don't think this sort of "packed lunch patrol" is a good idea. Also, I'm not sure that calling parents in to school and lecturing them is likely to create an atmosphere of respect and co-operation.

My feeling is that there should be an informal session for all parents before children start at a school devoted exclusively to a discussion and sharing of information about what consitutes a healthy packed lunch. Many foods are marketed as being "healthy" and parents may not realise that they are not.

Teachers are meant to be teaching and not monitoring their pupils' diets, but if it is now within their remit to consider other than educational matters, I think it should be done more sensitively. Poor teachers - they seem to have so many additional responsibilities these days. And poor child too.

What is wrong with cheese strings?

These are the added ingredients (in small quantities): Acidity Regulators (Citric Acid, Lactic Acid), Paprika, Vitamin D

The rest is cheese.

Everything in cheese strings is fine unless one has an allergy to citric or lactic acid. Why are people holding cheese strings up as unhealthy food?

Acidity regulators are used in lots of food stuffs, including wine.

The DM on line today prints the letter from the HT to the parents, confirming a brief exclusion, whilst a permanent exclusion is considered. The article implies the parents are said by the HT to be the only ones not conforming to the healthy eating plan imposed from 14 Jan.
The little boys mum is quoted as saying she could accept exclusion if her lad was throwing chairs around etc.
In over 30 years of working with children and families, I know a handful of 6 year olds permanently excluded from school. In each case, the schools had done everything they could to avoid exclusion. Each of the children had significant special needs, and one had given his teacher a black eye, in front of his classmates.
Surely, we can't be living in a country where exclusion because of mini cheddars can be allowed. If the adults involved can't reach some kind of reasonable solution, rather than the brinksmanship that seems to underpin this situation, we're all doomed