They're only saying that they can't have junk food IN SCHOOL. All your other examples are acceptable within the school day, surely?
Six-year-old schoolboy suspended for having Mini Cheddars in his lunchbox...
- Thread starter Overslop
- Start date
They're only saying that they can't have junk food IN SCHOOL. All your other examples are acceptable within the school day, surely?
By law parents are required to send their children to school.
Are you saying that during school hours, it is OK for the school to disregard and over-rule the wishes of the parents?
In all cases?
In your examples, yes it is ok to overrule the parent's wishes (though a dialogue would be preferred).
In all cases? Well that would be silly, wouldn't it.
To me that sounds like insanity.
We're not just talking about bad parents here... you're saying that the school always knows best for the children in its care.
It's impossible to agree with that.
I think there are better things for a school to put its resources towards than making allowances for the whims of every pushy parent. To that end, where there is no obvious "harm" in the school's policy and, provided it is acceptable to most parents, there is little good reason to make concessions.
You'll note that I've conceded limited power to the schools - I've not said or insinuated "the school always knows best"
Using just my examples, you said the school should have power to:
Suppress all religious activity (ie, stop a child from praying or reading the Bible/whatever), against the parent's wishes.
Dictate to the child/parent which sports the child should take up/practice, and prevent them from participating in others, against the parent's wishes.
Enforce a programme of mandatory after-school activity, against the parent's wishes.
That's "limited power" then? Eegads, I'd hate to think what you consider "unresaonable".
Do tell me if I've mis-quoted you, because you said that all the examples I gave the school could justifiably enforce.
As long as the child is runnng around at play time then what's the problem ?
We used to give our daughters sandwiches, yoghurt, a bag of crisps & juice to drink.
When I were a lad Mum packed me up with Sarnies & Ice cold Orange juice (I lived in Western Australia & by the time recess came round the ice had thawed enough to drink)
Sarnies were... Cheese & Chutney... Ham & Egg.. Egg & Cress, Cheese & Tomato (used to go soggy though) and a bar bar bar, bar bar of club. (biscuit)
I'm now 52 and only recently started to turn into a bloater <--- i'm not going down without a fight though !
I think this issue is more about the parent and the principal to be honest.
We used to give our daughters sandwiches, yoghurt, a bag of crisps & juice to drink.
When I were a lad Mum packed me up with Sarnies & Ice cold Orange juice (I lived in Western Australia & by the time recess came round the ice had thawed enough to drink)
Sarnies were... Cheese & Chutney... Ham & Egg.. Egg & Cress, Cheese & Tomato (used to go soggy though) and a bar bar bar, bar bar of club. (biscuit)
I'm now 52 and only recently started to turn into a bloater <--- i'm not going down without a fight though !
I think this issue is more about the parent and the principal to be honest.
Religious activity is forced upon many children in church-tied schools (being around 12 out of 13 primary schools in a 5-mile radius of my house). Parents can opt out, but provision for those children is ridiculous (sit in a classroom during hymns). Since this behaviour of schools is acceptable to many (I hate it, btw, but suck it up), I don't see that there should be a problem with a non-religious school specifying itself as a non-practicing zone (not that this ever happens in reality, so the point is moot).
For sports, schools tend to give choice where they have the facility. Often this means some children can do some sports, others can't. Parents can complain, but should the schools have to respond to that?
After school detention requires parental agreement. I said from the beginning "within the school day", so was not signing off on this one.
It's all a bit straw-man, though - we're getting distracted by your insistance on such arbitrary examples. My previous post on the matter gives a more general outline of my views on it.
Sometimes the kids just need protecting from the crap their parents will give them. Richard Bacon did a great podcast at christmas with Dimblebys son who did the research into school dinners v packed lunch to give the evidence to the government to support free meals for all.
They went to one boy and asked him what he had in his lunchbox and he had something like two sausage rolls and a pack of crisps. Borderline neglect for me, kids just have what you put in the box and as a parent you shape their eating habits.
My eating habits are bad, I have a massive sweet tooth and my parent let me get away with it. I want a much better start for my son nutritionally than I ever had. Also the benefits in attention span at school from not filling kids with crisps and sugar is well known.
They went to one boy and asked him what he had in his lunchbox and he had something like two sausage rolls and a pack of crisps. Borderline neglect for me, kids just have what you put in the box and as a parent you shape their eating habits.
My eating habits are bad, I have a massive sweet tooth and my parent let me get away with it. I want a much better start for my son nutritionally than I ever had. Also the benefits in attention span at school from not filling kids with crisps and sugar is well known.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
i can hear it now, arrhhhhhh you have some contraband, *tazer* *drag pupil out of dining hall*
"You will think twice about the mini cheddar next time?"
The rest of the pupils find out he has been banished. Imagine the atmosphere when eating lunch in the future.
Don't you think you're just dodging responsibility for your own actions?
"My diet is bad; it's not my fault, even tho I'm a grown adult. It's my parent's fault."
Think I made a post on these forums before about it - did quite a lot of elimination before I knew what was causing the headaches (and another problem I was having) and pretty much conclusively narrowed it down to artificial sweetners. TBH don't really care what "evidence" might be as I can trigger it like a light switch - atleast for me its 99.999% likely to be the cause and I didn't set out to blame it on anything specific. (EDIT: Not saying the science is wrong as such or anything like that just that I know what happens to me personally).
RE the hyperactivity that was medically diagnosed when I was about 7 after an incident while in hospital (unrelated) when the medication I was given set me off (worse than I'd get from food/drink). Mostly seem to have grown out of it as I got older but occasionally certain brands of orange squash will make me very irrationally irritable (these days I recognise it for what it is and can deal with it).
Last edited:
No I worded that badly I should have said "were bad, I had a massive sweet tooth and my parent's let me get away with it". Which is why I said I wanted a better start for my son, of course I'm in control of what I eat now and take responsibility for it.
I do think early eating habits are shaped and controlled by parents.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
She feta find another school then.
The school will have probably baked off after this scandal.
I don't see how that's related to what I was talking about. I said replacing snacks with fruit etc isn't going to combat obesity because their energy content is similar. As far as blood sugar goes however, chocolate has a lower glycemic index than many fruits.
Last edited: