School giving me no notice

Zziggi

Nicki wrote: »

But in that case, I think you'll find that the LEA would say that if you are regularly using stuff which one child can't taste, then none of the children can do so.

I can see that in one sense 29 kids out of 30 loose out because of the oneeveryone looses out. But if the child can't taste the food for a medical (i.e. disability) reason then to regularly exclude them from food tasting would constitute discrimination - or at least people would claim discrimination against the child with a health problem.

I know this is a completely different senario, but i think both sides have to be reasonable and at least TRY to be inclusive. I refuse to let my kids be photgraphed in school & we're the only ones to object. The school has a policy of letting parents film/photograph kids in christmas concert, harvest festival, class assemblies, sports day etc etc. So there is the problem that I am within my rights to refuse permission and the school cannot film/photograph without my consent.But if I insist on not giving my consent then all parents are prevented from filming/taking pictures. If they allow filming/taking pictures and remove my child from every activity of this sort then this could be construed as discrimination/trying to coherse & pressure parents into giving consent. I absolutely stand by my refusal and will not change my mind but compromise has to be reached. I think it would completely unreasonable for me to expect all parents to be banned from filming when i am in the minority of one (although many schools have a blanket ban and i understand if there are "kids in care" at the school [especially removed in cases of abuse]then social services insist on no filming/photos anyway even when the child is the only kid in care at the whole school). The major events are xmas concert, sports day, harvest festival. Class assemblies are lower key. The compromise is that i remove my kids from the major events (xmas concert, sports day, harvest festival) so filiming/photos can occur but they take part in class assemblies and parents are told not to film/photo in class assemblies. Of course parents grumble but i feel i have compromised. I have said to the school that I do not consider my kids being unable to take part in the major events as discrimination (so there by allowing the school off the hook) and that I accept that it is ME removing my children from the major events and not the school excluding them. I could have been an !!!!! and said i want my kids to take part in everything otherwise i'll scream discrimination then filming would have had to be banned for every event. Now that would have been "selfish and mean spirited". I think when people are making attempts to include everyone then both sides should see that there has to be some give and take. However if no attempt is made with small changes in order to include everyone then i think people have little choice than to be "selfish and mean spirited".

KellyWelly

Zziggi wrote: »

I can see that in one sense 29 kids out of 30 loose out because of the oneeveryone looses out. But if the child can't taste the food for a medical (i.e. disability) reason then to regularly exclude them from food tasting would constitute discrimination - or at least people would claim discrimination against the child with a health problem.

Yeah - if I can't have it then nobody can, eh? That is mean spirited.

As stated by lots of people - it's quite likely this teacher is paying for the ingredients herself - lots do - and she's asked the parent of one child to provide alternatives because she doesn't know if something will 'upset him' so she's making sure that a. he is included and b. she doesn't give him something that will make him poorly. All the parent needs to do is write the teacher a letter and tell her exactly what he can't have and what alternatives need to be provided, it's that simple. It's right that the school should provide them because it is for a medical need and her son should in no way be excluded. But you know what - if she goes in there kicking off demanding her son's rights and this and that then it's a real possibility the teacher just won't bother anymore (I wouldn't) and the whole class will miss out because of it. If everyone just thought before they went in all guns blazing then things would be a lot simpler and more pleasant.

KellyWelly

Zziggi wrote: »

Or alternatively, the parent would be seen to be attempting to make sure their child is treated as same as everyone else.

Actually I doubt this - from the teacher's point of view, the OP has been providing the ingredients all year and hasn't said anything about not being happy about it, and all of a sudden comes in and starts demanding and accusing the teacher of not treating her son the same as everyone else. Has the OP even put her son's needs in writing and told the teacher she won't provide the ingredients? No. We're not bloody mind readers.

KellyWelly

And actually - the more I think about it, the more it makes me really cross that you think it's ok for the other children to miss out because of one child. It works both ways. I would be offended by a parent who went into school and made demands that lead to an activity being withdrawn from my child.

jellyhead

the OP's boy is only in year 1 - he is 5 or 6, still a little boy. I think at this age he should be included in things at school and not made to feel different because of his allergy

Obviously he knows he's allergic and knows he's using different ingredients, but being left out of cooking, or being allowed to cook but not taste is making a big deal out of his differences and seems quite unkind imo, yet that's what some of you think should happen - this one small boy be left out just so it doesn't stop the other 29 children from enjoying the baking on a regular basis.

This is not just pancake day or one science lesson - it's a regular thing.

milliebear00001

I think the point is being slightly missed that the school has a LEGAL obligation to ensure inclusion. The teacher, parent, Head etc, and their preferences, don't come into it. If the children cannot access the curriculum equally, then the school is failing in its legal duties, and Ofsted (and other bodies) could come down on them like a tonne of bricks. If the teacher repeatedly uses baking as a way of teaching the Key Stage 1 curriculum (and I'm not knocking that as an idea per se) then she needs to be sure baking is something all children can do. If she cannot ensure this, she needs to make sure she's not basing so much of her teaching on this, and that she uses other, equally creative, teaching methods, that are accessible.

jellyhead

KellyWelly wrote: »

Yeah - if I can't have it then nobody can, eh? That is mean spirited.

It's equally mean spirited of those who think the cooking should be free for 29 students and expensive for one, surely?

However this is being funded, school or teacher, the budget could cover all the ingredients and if that means baking less often then so be it.

If the teacher is paying out of her own pocket and decides she can't afford it and then scraps the whole thing, well that's her choice - why she would choose that option rather than using the same budget and baking less often, or asking ALL parents to pay a contribution, is beyond me

Zziggi

KellyWelly wrote: »

Yeah - if I can't have it then nobody can, eh? That is mean spirited.

As stated by lots of people - it's quite likely this teacher is paying for the ingredients herself - lots do - and she's asked the parent of one child to provide alternatives because she doesn't know if something will 'upset him' so she's making sure that a. he is included and b. she doesn't give him something that will make him poorly.

When I read the OPs situation I took it that the main objection was the amount of notice given. So surely all that really needs to be done to rectify the situation is that the teacher needs to provide reasonable notice. I read the cost issue as a secondary issue because the OP is now on benefits. Maybe i misunderstood - can the OP clarify?

KellyWelly

jellyhead wrote: »

It's equally mean spirited of those who think the cooking should be free for 29 students and expensive for one, surely?

However this is being funded, school or teacher, the budget could cover all the ingredients and if that means baking less often then so be it.

If the teacher is paying out of her own pocket and decides she can't afford it and then scraps the whole thing, well that's her choice - why she would choose that option rather than using the same budget and baking less often, or asking ALL parents to pay a contribution, is beyond me

Yes, you are right and I don't think this one child should be excluded, as milliebear has said it is a legal obligation for all children to be able to access the curriculum equally and he shouldn't have to pay when the others don't.

My point is that all the OP needs to do is put the specific needs in writing and let the teacher know instead of stewing and going into school all wound up and complaining.

It's probably not a good thing that I've had to deal with difficult parents all day who have shouted and abused me for daring to punish their delightful sons for wiping sh!te on other children in the playground and shouting see you next tuesday up and down the halls and pushing me out of the way. Parents - you won't get anywhere demanding and behaving unreasonably, just be nice, PLEASE!!!!

jellyhead

Yikes kelly, I hope tomorrow is better :eek:

I'm feeling sorry for the OP's boy because I'm thinking of my 3 year old's face when he told me he wasn't allowed to eat the pancakes at nursery. It was unexpected, neither of us had realised it would happen and at home we just use lactofree when we cook pancakes, scrambled egg etc. for him so he didn't really know that nursery wouldn't be doing that (he's young for his age, doesn't listen or speak much). He was a bit miffed, bless him.

I've just realised what you mean about see you next tuesday - that's awful! what age are these children?