School Bans Fish Because Of Pupil Allergy

A primary school in Swindon has banned fish ‘from the school environment’ because one pupil has a very severe fish allergy.

Robert Le Kyng Primary School wrote to parents in March, asking them to avoid putting fish or fish products in lunchboxes. The school also changed its menu to protect the student who suffers a severe anaphylactic reaction to any contact with fish.

Head teacher Susan Smith told the BBC this was a ‘life threatening issue’ and made it clear that the school would not have taken such a drastic action in any other situation.

She said this pupil’s fish allergy is the most severe food allergy among pupils at the school, although other children do have allergies.

She said the decision was not taken lightly.

Some parents feel they have not been consulted and the whole school should not be affected “for one child.”

However, personally I was very pleased to read this story.

As a physically disabled person, I have debated for some time in my own mind about whether allergies can be considered disabilities. I think it is safe to say that a life threatening allergy can be considered disabling. At the very least there can be no doubt that this child has a very serious medical condition.

As a passionate supporter of inclusive education, particularly for those academically able to benefit from one, I am very pleased that this mainstream school has taken what some may see as an unusual, and even drastic, action in order to safely include the child. The child’s allergy to fish in no way affects their academic abilities or lessens their right to be educated in a mainstream environment.

The school should be given a great deal of credit for making this adjustment in order to make the environment safe for the child to be educated in. Under the Equality Act 2010, schools and workplaces are required to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ for disabled people. The school may have had this law in mind when making the policy, but many of you may not consider this adjustment reasonable.

And yes, readers, there is room for the argument that this was not a reasonable adjustment. How far should banning food for reasons of allergy go, you might well ask? Well, several schools have already been banning nuts for reasons of allergy for several years. Does this surprise you? It doesn’t surprise me at all.

Why should fish be any different for this particular school, while this pupil attends?

There is room for the argument that this child should go home for lunch. However, everyone knows that lunchtime at school was the time when we socialised with our friends. Should this child really miss out on the social side of school because they are allergic to fish? What if they did go home for lunch, came back and sat next to a child who had eaten fish for lunch and had a severe reaction anyway?

You might be thinking that perhaps this child should be home schooled. After all, surely fish is not cooked or bought in their home. However, here again, I ask, should this child miss out on the social side of school because of their allergy to fish?

To the Robert Le Kyng Primary School, I send my full support of this decision, along with sincere thanks for being inclusive. To the parents who felt they were not consulted, to those who criticised the decision, I ask: What would they do, and what would they expect the school to do, if their child had this severe allergy to fish or any “uncommon” food?

Readers, before you criticise the school’s decision, I ask you also to consider the question above.