Vent - New primary school headmistress.

Money_maker

I would have thought that no fizzy drinks was the norm in all primary schools. I see no reason why they should need to justify this - 'no fizzy drinks' covers all including fizzy water. What's the matter with parents not being able to understand and accept this simple concept? Please support your schools rather than be the parent PinkLipGloss has come across in #21.

pelirocco

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I agree, though would argue that despite its (natural) sugar content, pure fruit juice is very good for you.


Are you suggesting that they should allow coke and lemonade rather than banning fizzy water?
Presumably we're talking primary school here, I can't remember. In which case I don't think coke and lemonade are appropriate.
I can't see many people wanting to bring in fizzy water, so I would say it is a sacrifice worth making.


[But I agree with you abuot the glass bottle issue. Glass bottles, regardless of contents, aren't appropriate in lunchboxes these days.]

Actually pure fruit juice does an awful lot of damage to childrens teeth , and I would argue that it has little benefit to health , sugar is still sugar no matter where it comes from

Azari

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I would imagine that it would be much better value to buy a big (1.5l?) bottle of fizzy water and decant into lunch-box-sized bottles than to buy it pre-packed in that size.

It would, except that the carbonation would be lost on decanting. So that's a complete non starter.

Are you saying that only children whose parents can afford to buy the small bottles of fizzy water should be allowed it?

1) Don't be ridiculous.

2) Are you saying that it is a schools responsibility to ensure that, whilst on school premises, no child has any advantage over any other because of parental income?

3) Even if you are saying (2) it's irrelevant as you can't decant fizzy water and keep the fizz.

And are you saying that lunch staff should have to check that a bottle is sealed before a child is allowed to open it?

!!!!!!, if they are going to go to the trouble of reading the label to ensure that no child drinks a banned substance it's hardly an effort to check the seal.

I think a rule of "no fizzy drinks" is not ideal but it is a simple rule that works most of the time.

But detracts from the parent's legitimate freedom of choice simply to make it very slightly easier for the staff who have been lumbered with the job of vetting the children's intake anyway.

Jojo_the_Tightfisted

I just have images of loads of 8 year olds realising just how fun it is to shake other kids' fizzy water bottles up and wait for them to be opened in the dinner hall.

And the ensuing fuss when somebody's child slips on the resultant spills and breaks an ankle, a dinnerlady shatters her hip or somebody's child has no lunch because it's soaked their lunch.



The rest of the stuff - I'd ban pencil cases because some kids are thieving little gits (from wealthy homes as much as poor) and will nick stuff/accuse other children of having done it because there is similar in their pencil case.


They'll change the absent marks when it is drawn to their attention the school attendance figures are atrocious. Or they are saying that lateness is regarded legally as unauthorised absence but is recorded as late after register closed, which is somewhat different.



I don't see the point of putting fruit into all lunchboxes; not all children like it, for a start; and it can take ages to get through an orange (not all children will eat grapes, one of mine hated everything except apples and even then rarely ate them, she'd stash them in her drawer until the end of term.




Other than that, you're fortunate that you can leave work to pick the children up. In a similar situation, I would have had to say that I cannot leave work until x o'clock, and having a job to keep a roof over their head was a bit more pressing than a grazed knee.


I don't envy those days for the hassles. But I really miss having little ones.

Gees

Gra76 wrote: »

Here's some of the things she's implimented since she's been in charge:

- If the kids aren't in class 5 mins before the morning lesson starts then they lock the doors and don't let them in unless they go to the front reception with a good excuse. Even then they get marked as absent for the morning on the register. I don't see how that's constructive in any way, shape or form.

I have a friend on the PTA and he says she's trying to get more of these barmy ideas on the go. He did tell me the entire PTA can't stand her and have already managed to persuade her not to go through with half a dozen other hairbrained ideas, but he thinks there's plenty more to come!

They should lock the doors; they don’t want undesirables entering freely. Anyone wishing to enter late should enter via the front reception.

Surely it’s a late mark and not an absent one? Parents have an important part to play in their children’s education, getting them to school on time is necessary. If this new head is trying to improve time keeping and attendance perhaps you could encourage the school to reward punctuality and attendance. Children love rewards, and will be nagging their parents to be on time.

davidlizard

Concerning the late marks - at the school my daughter was at last year, one of the teachers - fortunately not hers - had a bit of a timekeeping issue and was often late in. The kids would have to wait around in the playground until she turned up, and were all given a "late" mark as a result. This happened at least once a week.

Needless to say the vast majority of the parents kicked off about this but were told this was local education authority rules - if the child was not in his/her classroom at 8:55 then they were marked late regardless of the reason, whether it was the parent/child or schools fault.

RadoJo

I too would have thought that the ban on fizzy drinks was as much for the risk of them being shaken and exploding/spilling as for the fact that generally they tend to be the sugary, additive-rich types. I also agree that as essentially a fundraising committee, the PTA are not the right people to approach on these matters and you would be better off addressing your legitimate concerns about not being allowed tap water and the potential abuse of the system of calling parents up for illnesses with the head direct or the governing body.

ALIBOBSY

I remember the dentist telling us that the co2 is an issue as well as sugar. she reckoned it made the water very acidic and damaged tooth enamel. So slightly better than a sugary drink, but not as good as plain water.

Ali x

Valli

Jojo_the_Tightfisted wrote: »

I just have images of loads of 8 year olds realising just how fun it is to shake other kids' fizzy water bottles up and wait for them to be opened in the dinner hall.

And the ensuing fuss when somebody's child slips on the resultant spills and breaks an ankle, a dinnerlady shatters her hip or somebody's child has no lunch because it's soaked their lunch.

That's why it's banned;) nothing to do with the sugar content - it's the potential mess.

Personally I would ban those yoghurts in plastic tubes - they are not easy to open and shouldn't really be opened with classroom scissors, which rarely, if ever, get washed.