Having trouble with school

[poppynurse]

 

Poppy - are you suggesting that schools should examine the content of every chocolate bar as it enters the premises?

 

Not at all, you know that's not what I meant - I'm simply saying that a healthy diet does not have to include chocolate every day, and some chocolate is better than others, but I don't see many children with good quality chocolate...

[MrShed]

Only because it agrees with you!

 

Absolutely!!!

[poppynurse]

Bookworm - good balanced arguments (and you're singing from the same sheet as me), rep left

[patdavies]

 

Pat, I never said anything about the school sending the kids home, I very specifically said "the parents can take their child home for lunch." Likewise, I don't know where the legal requirement comment came from, if all parents took their children home for lunch, then there would be no need for supervision, so I don't see the relevance. :-? Anyway, not important.

 

No, but I made the point anyway - before anybody popped up and stated otherwise.

 

Oh and BTW, there is no right to take a child out of school for lunch/at lunchtime. That said, I don't know of a school that fails to generally grant that privilege. I know this to be fact as we researched for one child who was persistently late returning. Following legal clarification, the HT simply withdrew the privilege.

 

At the end of it, what are "rebel" parents going to do? Keep on using their children as tools to drive home the point that "we shall overcome"? Because you won't. Overcome, that is.

I fail to see why not. Dictating what foods can be given to children is taking the nanny state as step too far. What next - Logan's run? Particularly when such dictation is being done by teachers without a shred of nutritional training.

 

Strangely enough, if you look at the whole thing, a Big Mac with fries and a milk shake is a nutritionally balanced meal.

 

Sooner or later, crisps and chocolate bars will totally disappear from the playground in the same way that Coke bottles and cans have, because people can be educated (or brainwashed depending on your point of view ).

I disagree. And Coke drinks have not disappeared from the playground.The only restriction is on selling or supplying them on school premises.

 

Anyone who tries to challenge this in court will be seen as an over-reacting prat wasting taxpayers' money

Seen that way by you perhaps. Any court challenge will not be for banning sweets, but for unlawful punishment or exclusion. Edited September 18, 2008 by patdavies

[Bookworm]

But is is NOT taking the nanny state too far! *tears hair*

 

Banning all junk food altogether from shops, THAT would be it.

Banning all junk food from your own home, THAT would be it.

 

Stopping children eating the stuff for a whole 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, that isn't it.

 

Coke has very much disappeared from the playground, I do not see a single child in the local school drinking it nowadays. And when parents pick up their kids, they do not hand them a can of Coke either, so the message is getting through. What they drink once at home, well that's another story...

 

Seen that way by me? Oh, I think that I would be far from alone. ;-)

[patdavies]

Bookie.

 

In my original post, I attempted to provide clarification of the legal side of all this.

 

Whether or not you agree with the law is irrelevant to me. Your stance on junk food is irrelevant to me. Your qualification to judge what is and what is not "junk" food is irrelevant to me. In fact, most of your rant about whether or not junk food should be given to children is irrelevant to me - and I suspect, to those who want to know what the legal position of a school is about enforcing such policy/rules.

 

I have laid out the legal position as far as schools are concerned. I will now withdraw from this thread and allow you (and others) to continue your off-topic rant about what is and what is not junk food and who should and should not be allowed to eat it.

[alibobsy]

As someone who has always been fascinated by science (was training as a bio chemist at one point in my younger days) I have always been sceptical about the accepted line, particularly when it has been hijacked by polititians. If the school wish to send out guidence about what to put in packed lunches that is fine by me, but they should never take it off the child. Send a letter to the parent and a discussion can take place.

 

Bookie I agree about the low fat diet being a big lie. The latest research about full fat milk and butter is really interesting and completely blows current thinking out of the water, so it wound me up about teachers telling a 10 yr old who is so thin (despite eating like a horse) and extremely healthy that full fat milk would "make him fat".

 

For children at primary school level they should be having around 30-35% of their daily cals from fat and to be balanced I would suggest some fat at every meal of the day makes sense.

 

I read a recent publication from america (where as you say bookie they have been trying to prove links between sat fat and heart disease for many years not just recently as I said) they gave a group who already had heart issues a diet with saturated fat as opposed to the usually low fat diets advised. They actually saw improvements in their conditions-the opposite of what they predicted lol.

 

I have come to the conclusion that the best foods are the least processed, homecooked meals from good wholesome produce, including butter and whole milk. Throw out the processed stuff including so called low fat spreads (which some studies have linked to higher rates of cancer).

These additives and extra chemicals are really the "bad" foods.

 

I wonder if alot of us react to this kind of interference because of a backlash against the overall levels of interference in this "nanny state".

 

Mind you I cook most stuff from scratch and grow my own veg/fruit lol. Am even thinking of getting chickens lol, so a bit of "good life" up here rofl. Maybe because of that I object to being told about my kids diet, but appreciate the intentions behind it as well.

 

ali x

[alibobsy]

BTW don't get me started on so called "global warming", drive my hubby mad with it lol.

 

ali

[MrShed]

BTW don't get me started on so called "global warming", drive my hubby mad with it lol.

 

ali

 

I'm with you on that one ali!!!!!!

[Bookworm]

Bookie.

 

In my original post, I attempted to provide clarification of the legal side of all this.

 

Whether or not you agree with the law is irrelevant to me. Your stance on junk food is irrelevant to me. Your qualification to judge what is and what is not "junk" food is irrelevant to me. In fact, most of your rant about whether or not junk food should be given to children is irrelevant to me - and I suspect, to those who want to know what the legal position of a school is about enforcing such policy/rules.

 

I have laid out the legal position as far as schools are concerned. I will now withdraw from this thread and allow you (and others) to continue your off-topic rant about what is and what is not junk food and who should and should not be allowed to eat it.

Pat, I have respected your opinion and your posts, I would very much appreciate if you would do the same and not dismiss my opinions as "rant". It is completely uncalled for.

 

I don't believe I have said ANYWHERE that I disagreed with the law, incidentally. As for OT, you joined in quickly enough into giving your opinion on the "nanny state", so fail to see why you find it now necessary to dismiss everyone else's opinion in the manner you have. Very disappointing.

[Spiceskull]

Seen that way by you perhaps. Any court challenge will not be for banning sweets, but for unlawful punishment or exclusion.

On this response to Bookie I also agree, and the important point missed is this: who would take who to *court?* (soz, what a typo )

 

Parent keeps giving child 'banned' food, school complains, parent continues. At this point parent has nothing to complain about. Eventually school (if they don't do their homework) will exclude child, and hence an 'exclusion claim' will be issued.

 

Court will ask school to demonstrate 'good reason' under law, why exclusion happened, and court will actually see school as over-reacting, not parent, assuming that 'banned food' is the 'defence' given.

 

I must admit to being on Pat's side over these arguments - they make sense, and resonate with my own personal frustrations over dictation by schools, dictation based not on any legal principle but on a bullying basis.

 

On the issue of junk food, if the school can 'educate' enough kids into the junk food policy, then the 'offenders' will want to be in with their peers, and the junk food message will snowball to the desired effect. You can't educate the parents (cue 'shock horror' from Bookie) they left school years ago, but you can educate the kids...

Edited September 18, 2008 by Spiceskull

[MrShed]

You do seem on a bit of a crusade here Bookie, and can see Pat's point when he is talking about your "ranting"....clearly going to as he is on my side

 

Sorry, not meaning to cause offence, just can see what he/she/it means ...

[MrShed]

I think the whole policy is the same as saying:

 

Drink driving...how will we cut it? Oh of course - we will prevent any pub having a car park.

[Lula]

You think that the worm is ranting, trust me, I have seen a rant, and this aint it my friends

 

 

now I am going to hide lol

[Bookworm]

I am not on a crusade at all, 2 of my kids are no longer at school and the 3rd one is in a special needs school where things are by definition different.

 

I do however have a problem with the whole "nanny state" accusations which to me are on the par with the howling "censorship" or "my human rights are being breached" or "political correctness gone mad" when what it actually means is "strop strop, I can't do or say what I want regardless of the implications."

 

Believe me, when I'm on a rant, you'll know it. Besides, I usually warn about them when I get on my soapbox. ;-)

[MrShed]

All I would say in my defence here is that in 99.9999% of cases, I smack down people who start wittering on about personal rights, privacy rights, human rights yadda yadda yadda.

 

I do think(personally, obviously you dont agree!!) that in this case it is more than just a label of "infringment of rights" without argument to back it up. It really is tantamount to my analogy above.

[Spiceskull]

It really is tantamount to my analogy above.

Not quite...but almost, and I certainly know where you are coming from.

 

Firstly, I disagree completely and utterly with nanny-stateism, MOST especially when it involves children, who are not in any real position to make decisions for themselves (adults at least have the capacity, if not the wherewithal or drive, to stand up for themselves)

 

I tend not to listen to the 'infringement of my rights' brigade - if you have a problem, and it is enough of a problem, you WILL do something about it, believe me, because if you don't then it really isn't worth complaining about. That is the raison d'etre for CAG.

 

What I am all for is personal choice, the right to make a personal choice, and the right to exercise those choices, save where they may be detrimental to others, either intentionally or unintentionally. That is where the law, and acts of Parliament come into play.

 

It is lawful for a parent to give their children whatever they so wish in their packed lunch, it is for the parent and child to decide upon, and for the parent and child to choose. If a school were to present a single example whereby they could prove that a 'ban' was lawful, then I would stand by them in support.

 

What you have here are the do-gooders in the schools, the ones trying to climb the greasy pole by new labour, spin-doctored band-waggonism, the very same people who complain about rights when asked to stay late if a child has not been collected by the parent (for whatever reason)

 

These are the same do-gooders who somehow believe that they have the right to enforce their own views, however well-intentioned, on others, and expect to be obeyed without question. The people who complain to parents about dropping kids off in their 4X4's (in the interests of green credibility) but probably have three cars at home themselves (I have a married couple of teachers as friends, and they have three cars between the two of them, one is specifically for taking the dog to the park!)

 

I'm not picking on teachers - most of them are wonderful people, doing an exacting job in difficult and often impossible circumstances. My gripe is with the hypocritical wannabes, the ones who 'must be seen, and must be obeyed' - in other words the X Factor/BB/Apprentice rejects, the ones who enjoy twitching curtains of a Sunday.

 

My kids are lucky - their school is very flexible, with flexible and 'common sense' approaches to most things pastoral and syllabus based. If something becomes an issue they tend to discuss fully, take a vote, and swing with popular consensus...they are there to teach my kids, they do that, they do it in a way that I am happy with, so I have no complaints against the school (exam resit fees aside...)

[pdc.withy]

I teach at a large primary school in the SW. In the first newsletter this year it was stated that children were no longer 'allowed' to bring in sweets/cake to give out on their birthdays. Since I started teaching 10 years ago this has been a popular practice and the children look forward to this little treat which is given out at the end of the day as the children leave the classroom to join their parents. I found this sad and petty. We have a staff of around 60 people and guess what happens on their birthdays? Cakes, gateaux, brownies, biscuits galore in the staff room. There is an expectation that you will do this when you have a 'happy' event. Already this term we have had several birthdays and heaps of gunk has been consumed. I plan to bring this up at the next staff meeting on Monday. Teachers; do as I say, not what I do? Never?

[WAVE_131]

I get worried when Government want us all to be healthy. Social welfare was introduced in this country after the Boer War (1899 to 1902) because there were so many unfit young men who could not fight. With "4 million heavily armed Germans" on the horizon (to quote Blackadder) something had to be done.

 

Ok, the above is a bit of a distraction but I become suspicious when schools start ANY sort of policy unconnected with education.

 

I am an ex-governor of a school and my mother is a retired teacher and both of us are of the opinion that at a school where attendance is compulsory, as opposed to say a fee paying private school, much of school regulations are bluff and unenforcable.

[WAVE_131]

Already this term we have had several birthdays and heaps of gunk has been consumed. I plan to bring this up at the next staff meeting on Monday. Teachers; do as I say, not what I do? Never?

 

We were discussing introducing new school uniforms...with the attendant costs...at a governors meeting once. I suggested that if it was evidently considered such a good idea why didn't the teachers wear it?

[Spiceskull]

We were discussing introducing new school uniforms...with the attendant costs...at a governors meeting once. I suggested that if it was evidently considered such a good idea why didn't the teachers wear it?

Now, that is a view/consideration I would like to see applied when all these petty officials try to impose anything on others...so, no crisps for kids...then no crisps for teachers...

[blipvert]

I believe this healthy food inititiave comes under the remit of the School Food Trust:

School Food Trust Home Page

 

and they have nothing to do with narrowing the gaps in railings so mums are unable to pass through maccy d's or whatever. This is a government quango with an annual budget of £15 million of taxpayers money and those working for it all on gold standard state sector pensions.

 

Their role is (quote). "reducing diet-related inequalities in childhood through food education and school bases initiatives".

 

It is this lot who are responsible for the lunchbox police, If I was a head teacher i'd tell them where to go but in todays 'performance target culture' and PC compliant teaching establishment, I doubt if any head teacher would dare do so.

 

Bring back the good-ole days

[mathmagician]

Going to jump in as a non-nutritionaly trained teacher here

Schools will have policies regarding what is allowed to be sold on the premises and will encourage students who bring packed lunches to consider healthy options where possible (I teach at secondary).

However I would like to turn the argument around somewhat here. While this isn't the reason healthy eating in schools was launched,there is one major benefit. Now munchkins haven't hoovered up 1000 calories of fast release energy at lunch, they aren't all sat in my lessons crashing from their sugar highs. Quite frankly, while they're in my classroom and on school time, they should be fed with something that will provide them with lasting energy and without causing them to go into carb-laden digestive stupor (chips etc).

If my job is to educate them, as has been underlined so many times in this thread, then surely the students should be in the best frame of mind and well energised to face the challenges I set before them.

[MrShed]

But then on the flip side, some sugar is needed.

 

I accept your point, but then on the other side, do you want your students to be zonked out and have no energy to concentrate as they have not had enough energy intake?

[mathmagician]

Oh they need to eat, but they need something that won't make them boom and bust if you'll forgive me stealing the expression. Slow release carbs and protein. Not processed sugar.