3rd-Grader Busted For Jolly Rancher Possession 804
theodp writes "A third-grader in a small Texas school district received a week's detention for merely possessing a Jolly Rancher. Leighann Adair, 10, was eating lunch Monday when a teacher confiscated the candy. Her parents said she was in tears when she arrived home later that afternoon and handed them the detention notice. But school officials are defending the sentence, saying the school was abiding by a state guideline that banned 'minimal nutrition' foods. 'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,' said school superintendent Jack Ellis."
What were the parents thinking ? (Score:5, Funny)
What were the parents thinking ?
We are obviously faced with a loophole in the law here. We urgently need to enhance the law so we can prosecute the parents of the child with criminal charges.
Not her parents... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well obviously we have to crack down on this before the underground network of candy distribution of schools becomes a threat to our children's education and health. Unchecked candy eating will lead to precious seconds taken away from education due to required teeth brushing.
-- gid
Re:Not her parents... (Score:5, Interesting)
The three Grade 11 students — who asked to be identified only as Weeman, The Fern and Goggles — told CBC News they made more than $200 in the first week of school by bulk-buying candy and chocolate bars, then selling them at a profit.
Re:Not her parents... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks man ... next time someone asks me why I oppose the criminalization of drugs, I'll just point them to that article. Sometimes reality provides it's own parody.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Who gives a f* about which parent it is ?
As long as we can prosecute parents, everything is fine. If friend's parents are responsible, then problem solved.
That was the basic spirit expressed in my enhancement of the law proposal.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm from Texas and this is just stupid.
Well... you said it, not me.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Funny)
we should prosecute the friend. and declare the War on Candy
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html [mysanantonio.com]
Candy was not banned at the school because of a "nutritional" requirement, certain types of candy were banned because the kids were making a mess with them. Oh, and by the way, the friend was also punished with the same detention.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Schools enforce any arbitrary rules that they want. I ran into 1st amendment problems in high school (freedom of the press). I was told "You can't do that.". I countered that with "The constitution says I can." They responded with "That doesn't matter, you're in our school, we say what the law is."
The local print media picked up the story, and then the school changed it's stance to "As long as his paper does not include libelous or defamatory content." Since we had stuck with running facts (mostly, I was just a teenager) interspersed with opinions, we were safe, but still told not to do it.
Food stuffs aren't constitutionally protected, as far as I know. Constitutionally protected items are ignored as they see fit.
I believe these rules come from school administration having been in their position for years without significant oversight unless an event such as these happen. They continue to extend their rules as they see fit without confirming the legality with anyone with a law background.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, I'm some 30 years out of school, but no the US constitution applies to everyone in the United States.
Consider the 4th Amendment. The police can't just say "oh, he's a minor" or "oh, he's a foreign national" and disregard it. Well, on the second point, it's being more casually overlooked, but that's a completely different argument.
How about the 8th Amendment? Do the courts torture or kill minors who commit crimes? No, they fall under the same laws that we all do.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
You are advised to educate yourself before continuing to post on this topic.
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
To sum up:
- 5 days of detention served at lunchtime and breaks
- School has banned hard candy and gum because of the mess
- Nutritional value is only applicable to food served by the school, not packed lunch
- Girl was given the candy by a friend who also got detention
- Candy was not actually consumed. It was confiscated.
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Funny)
Reading the article AND finding multiple sources? Welcome, you must be new here!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Given the number of digits in your UID, all I can say is...
"Why yes, yes I am new here."
Where is your lawn, so I know to avoid it? (grin)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So screw any diabetics who carry a few hard candies in case they go hypoglycemic, I guess.
Here's a novel concept. Instead of banning hard candies, ban making messes and punish those who do. I can't recall the last time a Jolly Rancher climbed out of my pocket and made a mess somewhere -- even when I've forgotten to take him out of my pocket before I do the laundry. Kinda nice that way,
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, can't do that, see the gun control debate...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
~Damn you and the GP! If we taught that objects (other than the stray meteor) don't do harm, it's the people who use them inappropriately, then we'd be teaching personal responsibility, rule of law, and how to get along without banning stupid shit for no reason! We can't have that!~
Really, weren't there already rules against vandalism? If that was enforced when the mess occured, and not prior to it, then kids might learn that they get in trouble for misusing objects. Other kids might look and say, "So, if I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've never dealt with small children before, have you? These are 3rd graders, they make messes, and teachers don't have the slightest idea who to punish for it.
If the problem is bad enough that they have to ban jolly ranchers, then they have to enforce the ban.
You cannot make policy around rare medical conditions. You can account for them in policy, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.
Re:What were the parents thinking ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What were the parents thinking ? (Score:4, Funny)
I was just thinking how if you keep a jolly ranger in your mouth, in the same position, long enough, it can develop a fairly sharp edge.
Clearly, the school was proactively intervening before she weaponized her candy and held the lunch ladies hostage.
Re:What were the parents thinking ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And you may kill her if you open her mouth!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually no, most "child protection" laws are civil laws. This means that children can be removed from homes, and parents punished for "abuse" or "neglect" without due process of law. Many people do not understand this and wonder why their children are removed without them being found guilty of any crime.
Realize that you have the right to due process prior to being deprived of life or liberty. But, one's children do not fall into either category. The best constitutional argument. I would think, would be vi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually no, most "child protection" laws are civil laws.
Of course. That's because the state considers your children their property. You are expected to care for them properly and not abuse them, send them to the indoctrination centers every day, and you will be paid a token stipend (in the form of a "deduction") at the end of the year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
She is 10 years old, obviously she is not in charge of her own food.
Her parents and the school are the only ones who should be supplying her with food, so why is she the one getting detention?
It cannot be expected of her to have self control or to even understand health, take the food away and punish the source, anything else is just ridiculous.
Whoosh LOL XD (Score:4, Insightful)
+4, +3 Insightful? Wow Mods, whoosh. This is funny. Your lack of noticing the tongue-in-cheek comment is even funnier.
Sometimes it's funnier to mod a funny post "insightful". It's a way of drawing even more attention to the comment in an even more serious light - which makes undercutting this with humor even more effective...
Granted, it's sort of an abuse of the moderation system, but, god damn it, just because someone reacts differently to a joke than you did does not mean they didn't get it! I'm sick of "whoosh", people overuse it and misuse it all the time.
Re:Whoosh LOL XD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What were the parents thinking ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I also thought this part of the article was interesting:
Ellis said school officials had decided a stricter punishment was necessary after lesser penalties failed to serve as a deterrent.
How extreme do the punishments have to be before the powers that be realize that the rule sucks? Maybe deterring is pointless? I understand that Fast Food Nation and Supersize Me are bringing things to public awareness, and in general it's a good thing if the schools increase the nutritional quality of what they provide to the kids, but to try to take away a kid's right to choose whether she's going to eat a tiny piece of long-lasting candy is borderline insane. Rule makers, educators and legistlators: Please stop making new rules just to try to make things "better", when there are much better ways for you to spend your time.
Also, one other question: Do parents get to provide any feedback on this rule?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the mother fuck is wrong with our society?! We used to bring and trade around all sorts of candy and shit back in the day and everything was all good. Nowadays if you take a sneeze out of turn you might get expelled for it. Seriously, starting to really seriously consider homeschooling supplemented by private tutoring for my children when they are old enough for school (thankfully at 3 and 6 months respectively, it's not currently an issue, although the 3 year old is quickly approaching school age).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of it depends on the teacher and the god complex that they've grown over their years of teaching. "I am your teacher, this is my classroom, you must do what I say."
I remember in primary school (oh so many years ago) a teacher finally got in trouble for not allowing students to use the restroom during their class. Several students urinated on themselves or in their chairs, because they were afraid of the authority. That teacher had a much higher rate of "accidents" such as this,
Re:What were the parents thinking ? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Zero tolerance" is code for "I don't want to have to think critically," or "my staff is too unprofessional to avoid favoritism."
Thus, the only people who think zero tolerance is a good idea are inept managers, administrators and politicians.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And those people are idiots. Zero tolerance is a terrible idea, even in cases where it's effective, because it flies in the face of "letting the punishment fit the crime."
Anyone who advocates such extreme overreactions is not of sound mind, or at the least just doesn't realize that they do things that are "wrong" all the time.
There are so many rules in our society, and they're so convoluted, that nobody can realistically be innocent of everything all the time.
The cynic in me thinks this is intentional, so t
Re:What were the parents thinking ? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Zero tolerance is for things like, violence, gun possesion, possesion of drugs, harassment, cheating, etc, etc."
You are doing exactly what parent is criticizing, and for exactly the same reason. Violence (self defense), gun possession (BB Gun, toys), possession of drugs (OTC, prescription, etc), harassment (online? name calling?), cheating (plagiarism, failed footnote).
You really, really need to rethink.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm tempted to critique your proposals with a thoughtfull reply but I have zero tolerance for zero tolerance proponents.
More "zero tolerance" idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
From our so-called educators.
Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
When did the Jolly Ranchers become illegal and subject to be excluded from school?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When did the Jolly Ranchers become illegal and subject to be excluded from school?
Ever since they had the potential to be a god damned mess in school. [mysanantonio.com]
It has nothing to do with nutrition, it has to do with the fact that a wet jolly rancher is a bitch to clean up. Same with gum.
This is what's seriously wrong with our society today, no one wants to deal with nuance or a deeper story.
Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to attend FREE school, you absolutely must abide by the state/district policies. Don't like it? You have a choice: Private school. Actually, there's another choice: Home school.
Yes, this policy is being abused, no it should not go this far, probably there's some subtext here not being reported (like continuous pastern of this issue, and singling out a particular student as an example). Possibly, this could even be an attempt explicitly to GET notice, so the law gets CHANGED! Very often, the best way to see a law overturned is to actually enforce the letter of the law, even if you don't agree with it, as doing so would actually create enough news and yelling that the law can be changed.
My wife's school has a pretty touch nutrition program. Nothing sold in the cafe is "questionable" on a nutrition standpoint. kids can't buy snacks unless they've already both bought and EATEN their meal (they have to get a pass from the cafeteria aide before they can enter a snack line). Snacks are limited to relatively healthy items, but things like chips are available, but again, only if the meal was actually eaten... Candy is not sold by the cafe, but it is available from teachers as a positive reward system. Parents are cautioned not to send certain snacks (especially candy) to the school, but kids can not be directly punished for it (a not is sent home the first few times, and contraband is confiscated if its a continuing problem).
What IS important to note: The PARENTS can actually get in some hot water if they're failing to either send a nutritious lunch, pay for a meal plan, or get on an "assisted" lunch program (for those having trouble affording it). They handle this by checking what kids are eating, and if the school feels the lunch is "dramatically poor" in nutritional quality, the kid is made to buy a meal at the cafe, and the parents get a bi-monthly bill for those meals. i.e. send you kid to lunch with some low-grade snack-as-a-meal, or fail to send one at all, and the parent is not only out the cost of what they sent (which likely will be thrown out by faceteria staff) but they get a bill for the meal the kid did eat. Failure to pay that bill (or get on an assistance or free lunch program for those that qualify) leads to added fees, late charges, and eventually collections (in the form of you kid can not return to the school until you pay, or fill out forms to get on a program).
Every kid that goes to public school in 8th grade and lower here is essentially guaranteed a good meal, regardless of who's paying for it. You would be flabbergasted at how many parents send their kids to school with little or no food and no money, and who would otherwise have NO ISSUES financially getting them a good meal. Many are simply lazy, others seem to not give a shit. The state has a responsibility to get involved. I'd much rather it be this way, including continual documentation of the neglect to provide a good meal, eventually leading to a DSS visit at home to find out why, and in the meantime the kid doesn't suffer...
banning candy (and sodas and other such pure sugar content items), is essentially done exclusively such that those can be used as positive rewards in other ways. Ensuring lunch actually includes basic nutrition (whether it be vegan, vegetarian, or other, many standard easily apply to what is and is not a fulling and nutritious lunch), that is important.
Fuck you and your WOT.
If it's my kid, Then I set the rules. Period the end.
I think in this situation the parent should decide the punishment if any. And I sure expect the parent to be able to over turn the detention, if they thought it appropriate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fuck you and your WOT.
If it's my kid, Then I set the rules. Period the end.
I think in this situation the parent should decide the punishment if any. And I sure expect the parent to be able to over turn the detention, if they thought it appropriate.
Funny how those who use "period" in their statements are those who put the least thought into their postings. Your kid? You set the rules? So you can feed your kid candy 3 meals a day every day, for example? No, that is legally child abuse. Ahhh, not so "period" anymore is it? Plus you are completely ignoring the fact that kids full of sugar from lunch are essentially unteachable for the next 1-2 hours. The school, by enforcing nutrition, is also performing its duty of teaching the kids the whole day instea
Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (Score:4, Insightful)
You're obviously not a parent. Or any sort of individual responsible for teaching a child. My child, my rules -- consistency is one of the key issues with parenting, and having those rules undermined and changed on a whim because of a school administrator only serves to subvert the authority of the parent -- a fragile entity at any point in a child's life.
The government is stepping way over the line with parenting - constantly. The GP's reply was succinct and to the point - they're my children, my problem. Until schools allow us to divert our tax dollars to a private school and until school officials are not public officials they do not have the right to dictate to me what my children do. Just in case you missed it -- they work for us. Me. They're not an untouchable entity to which I must bow and scrape.
One example: my wife buys food for my son to take to school. He doesn't like it, so he doesn't pack it. He goes to school and ends up skipping lunch. The food's there -- but in your world the government billing us for him to eat what the school provides is just dandy. We can't force him to take his lunch -- take away their food, you go to jail. Take away their freedom, you go to jail. Take away their game system, you go to jail. The government is making parents into individuals who have all the responsibilities but none of the power -- while conveniently ignoring their own continuing abuse of powers.
The "letter of the law" is not intended to be zero tolerance. These teachers and principals and other officials always claim they're following the letter of the law, but police officers let speeders off with a warning every day -- or ignore the jay walkers -- or the people in the financial industry routinely flipping the SEC the bird while they manipulate away billions of our dollars. Claiming the "letter of the law" is being followed is just an excuse to piss on the individual on question, and not even bother to call it rain.
With the way the world is going we're all going to burn in the next century; that fire may be religious, or indignant, or nuclear in nature -- I don't know.
"People should not fear their government, their government should fear the people."
"There is no justice. There is no balance. Violence isn't the last resort; it's the only resort."
Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to attend FREE school, you absolutely must abide by the state/district policies. Don't like it? You have a choice: Private school. Actually, there's another choice: Home school.
Since when is it free? They've raised our property taxes a few times now to generate more funding for the public schools in the area. They're hardly free. If I want to send my kid to private school, they don't let me opt out of paying for the public schools.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called compulsory education for a reason you know.
Meanwhile, you do realize that this is just a piece of candy don't you? It's not like the child eats nothing else.
Surely you should realize that even if this was actually a case of bad parenting, punishing the child for it is not likely to be helpful?
Perhaps the school is concerned that Jolly Ranchers are a gateway? Why next thing you know, the kids will be taking ibuprofen for a headache and then who knows what debauchery might ensue?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The school is not paid for by the parents' tax dollars alone, the revenue comes from the community as a whole including many non-parents, and as such the community as a whole absolutely has a right to ensure that their money is spent effectively... even if a few prima donna parents want their
Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
"Students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the school house doors." -Tinker v. Desmoines
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, children are NOT stripped of their rights in a school. They may have a reduced right set, but only as it pertains to 'In Loco Parentis'. As a government run institution, a school cannot legally make rules that strip away constitutionally protected rights outside of the 'in loco parentis' framework.
I'd think a better way to put it would be this:
Students have the same rights in school as out of school. The school however, receives additional, typically parental, rights.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>Parents have the CHOICE to not send their kids to the local public district schools
Yeah but we don't have a choice to stop sending them our money. Schools hold a monopoly much like Comcast has a monopoly in my home town. The difference is I can choose not to pay Comcast any dollars (and therefore not have internet). I don't have that choice with the schools. Even if I send my kid to Apple Elementary, the public school is still sucking dollars from my wallet.
The money should follow the child just the same way it works in European schools.
Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously though, a week detention for candy? How about starting with a polite note home to the parents explaining the policy? All a detention will do is set up an adversarial relationship where the parents will fight the school on everything they try to do from now on.
Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (Score:4, Interesting)
All a detention will do is set up an adversarial relationship where the parents will fight the school on everything they try to do from now on.
If that happens, it'll be the best thing that ever happened to the kid. My mom's often adversarial relationship with school administrations kept me out of some truly weird shit.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
My mom's often adversarial relationship with school administrations kept me out of some truly weird shit.
Like gym class? I bet it was gym class, wasn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My mom's often adversarial relationship with school administrations kept me out of some truly weird shit.
Like gym class? I bet it was gym class, wasn't it?
Catechism class, actually. Public school in the boonies, not much oversight, so we had an off-the-books Catholic indoctrination class every week.
Like I said, some truly weird shit.
Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember when I was 10 or 11 some kid being sent home because their parents had sent them to school with a couple of Tylenol because they'd hurt their arm. The Tylenol was deemed to violate the school's zero tolerance on drugs rule.
As I recall, the parents ended up getting an apology from the Principal.
What always amuses me about "zero tolerance" rules in schools is that they'll enforce it against these sorts of idiotic things, but if it's zero tolerance rule against bullying, they go out of their way not to enforce it. It's a classic case, often seen in bureaucracies and police forces, of trying to look tough by taking on easily enforceable bans and basically turning their backs on the tough stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always preferred to call it the "Zero Intelligence" policy. As all too often demonstrated by school administrators.
Wow... (Score:2)
This has to be the most idiotic story I've read in years. Someone clearly isn't in touch with reality here.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Informative)
>>This has to be the most idiotic story I've read in years. Someone clearly isn't in touch with reality here.
Heh, when I was in high school back in the 90s, I was in journalism. We had very nearly the exact same story happen in our area. The reason was different (educators didn't want kids sticking them to desks), but the effect was the same.
We also got to run a story about a Boy Scout being kicked out of school and refused graduation because he brought a (dull-tipped) Swiss Army knife to school. I think that was upheld on appeal, too, but I can't recall the details.
In local news, a year back we had a school shooting at a local community college. The board met to discuss what should be done, since the guy clearly was in violation of the zero tolerance signs posted up all over campus.
Their decision? They made the font bigger on the signs.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Funny)
> In local news, a year back we had a school shooting at a local community college. The board met to discuss what should be done, since the guy clearly was in violation of the zero tolerance signs posted up all over campus.
> Their decision? They made the font bigger on the signs.
Well those guys really are idiots. I mean, they shouldn't wonder if it happens again cuz they totally forgot to add Braille!!
Kids today. (Score:5, Insightful)
Learning to get away with stuff is vital to the developmental process. I see a sad future where the adults of tomorrow are too stupid to run a decent ponzi scheme, and all the good ones are owned by foreigners.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure you're not describing my kids school...
Its as easy as... (Score:5, Funny)
This is Not all Bad News (Score:5, Insightful)
This third grader, her parents and those who read the story are learning a valuable lesson about the nature of the state.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is Not all Bad News (Score:5, Insightful)
This article, and many more like it, prove the existence of a growing "Nanny State.". I often read people dismissing "Slippery Slope" arguments but here is a real life example.
Someone passed a guideline to try and help children eat healthier and suddenly children are being punished for possessing a piece of candy.
It doesn't take a genius to see how this is going to play out in other realms such as healthcare and finance. After all, the bureaucratic morons running the schools are essentially the same bureaucratic morons that you'll find doing the administrative work in local, state, and federal governments.
No, not all of the administrators in a school or the government are morons. Many of them are intelligent and capable people. The problem is that they're outnumbered by the morons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree about the slippery slope, and what others have posted about "zero tolerance" bullshit. However the part that is really monumentally moronic here is that those nutritional food guidelines are supposed to cover school-provided foods, NOT what lunches parents send their kids to school with, Public schools have absolutely no right to monitor such things providing the kids aren't consuming banned narcotics, etc.
The "zero tolerance" anti-drug rules are also idiotic. There is absofuckinglutely NOTHING wro
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The small school district, which has three campuses in Orchard and Wallis, bans gum and candy because, [Superintendent] Ellis said, “It creates a mess. It's all over your furniture and your floors.”
from http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html [mysanantonio.com]
Not "Nanny State", Police State (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem doesn't stem from giving kids nutritional guidelines. When I was growing up we learned about the food groups, etc, and nobody got disciplined for eating junk food.
The problem stems from an unchecked authoritarian mindset among school administrators. Since the 80s, the easy solution to social problems has been to criminalize bad behavior and institute harsh penalties across the board. Now when a child brings utensils for his lunch, he gets hit with weapons violations [nytimes.com]. A girl rumored to poss [cnn.com]
Re:This is Not all Bad News (Score:4, Informative)
Trying to make a partisan issue out of a nonpartisan one only muddies the water.
This just in: Hypoglycemic child dies... (Score:5, Insightful)
while walking home from school after teacher implements zero tolerance policy and confiscates condition-regulating candy.
I suppose it would take something terrible like the hypothetical situation above to put tolerance back into the system.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
fucked up as it is, i'd kinda like to hear about a kid walking home from that school get abducted just so we could see the school try to explain why there was no proper supervision on their property...
I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
Her parents think the detention is stupid, tell the school that she won't be staying for it, and there's nothing the school can do about it. Right?
In loco parentis doesn't trump erm, er, whatever the Latin for 'actual parents' is, does it?
Here in the UK when my teacher tried to include me in a class detention because most of the class were misbehaving, my parents told the school that they wouldn't be allowing me to be kept in, and that was the end of it.
State Guidelines? (Score:5, Informative)
The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does not restrict what foods or beverages parents may provide for their own children's consumption. The policy also explicitly states that school officials may adopt a local policy that is more restrictive than the state's.
State guidelines [squaremeals.org] my big fat triple stacker cheeseburger. That would have had to been a school imposed Policy, according to this.
Not My Child You Don't... (Score:5, Insightful)
If this EVER happend to my kid, I would be down at this principal's office, telling him to shove thier policy up their ass sideways and my son would absolutely not be serving any detention over a friggin' piece of candy.
They want to press? I'll be pressing buttons on the phone for my lawyer and the local newsmedia myself. Legal nightmare, PR nightmare, financial nightmare... they'll have all of that for sure.
Parents like you are a problem... (Score:3, Insightful)
Parents like you are why highly experienced well trained teachers leave the profession and public schools struggle to find decent replacements.
Parents threatening financial and personal ruin on teachers do not encourage 21 year olds to take up this profession, and drive existing teachers out of schools fearing for their own safety. Let's face it, you don't go into teaching to make millions and retire early. You do it because you believe its a great thing to do, you do it for the love of it. Parents threaten
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GP wasn't threatening personal and financial ruin on a teacher -- he was threatening school administration, as a proxy for the district.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Taking school authority seriously is one thing, but should we also teach kids that we should follow authority no matter how stupid the rules seem?
Well, yes.
When subject to some kind of authority (as we all are, at some time) you don't get to pick and choose the rules you want to follow. The police officer will be happy to pull you over for a speeding ticket even if you think 45mph is ridiculously slow for this piece of road - and charge you double, even if you think it's stupid to call a stretch of road a "work zone" where no work is happening.
So, yes, the kids should be taught that authority is real and that they must follow the stupid rules, too.
A
Reading the article (Score:4, Interesting)
It's even stupider than that. The rules the board are citing clearly states that they do NOT restrict what foods parents can give their children.
But the candy didn't come from her parents, it was given to her by another student, who had gotten it from HER parents.
Nobody is suggesting punishing the other child though.
I seem to recall when I was in school, if you brought candy you were ENCOURAGED to share with the class. Now if you share a piece of candy with your friend - your friend gets detention !
Seriously, it's noble for the department to ensure that children get a decent, healthy and nutritional meal at lunchtime. Punishing a child for taking part in the time honored tradition of sharing (especially the recipient) is just outright stupid.
Re:Reading the article (Score:4, Funny)
But the candy didn't come from her parents, it was given to her by another student, who had gotten it from HER parents.
Nobody is suggesting punishing the other child though.
I'm suggesting it. She should be charged as an adult with contributing to the delinquency of a minor - Punishment of up to 12 months in jail and/or a fine of up to $2500.00. Anything less and the terrorists will have won.
First Jolly Ranchers... (Score:3, Funny)
Liars (Score:5, Insightful)
saying the school was abiding by a state guideline that banned 'minimal nutrition' foods. 'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,' said school superintendent Jack Ellis."
Except that the state guideline is intended to restrict what the school provides to students, not what students bring into the school themselves. It's about making sure that the school is meeting nutritional requirements in the lunches it provides and not that it's taking state and federal funding dollars to provide the students with pizza bought from the Domino's franchise owned by the principal's brother. It's actually explicit even in the linked article without having to read the linked statute, and the administrators dance around it as "well the parent didn't provide it - it came from another student". Still didn't come from the school - still not covered by the law.
The school administrators making this claim are either idiots or liars. They could, I suppose, be idiots - plenty of idiots get moved into administration positions where they can do less harm to students than in front of a chalkboard. But it's more likely that they're liars who think that if they "blame the government" they can divert attention away from themselves. They don't want candy in school? That's fine - when I was a kid the administrators at my elementary school had the same rule. But they didn't try to pretend like they were conforming to some fictional government requirement to restrict candy in the school. They just said "no candy in school" and that was that. And if the parents had a problem with it they could bring it up at the school board meeting and get the school board to change the policy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And continuing on in the very article you posted:
The superintendent also noted the state's school nutrition policy bans certain foods of minimal nutritional value, including candy and gum.
Which is completely irrelevant to the discussion unless the superintendent intends to falsely make the "my hands are tied - the state is forcing me to do this" argument. It reads more like the superintendent changed his story when he decided to go "on record" because someone told him that blaming the state government was idiotic.
What about the pusher? (Score:3, Funny)
“The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does not restrict what foods or beverages parents may provide for their own children's consumption.
"Brazos Elementary Principal Jeanne Young, said the problem, in this instance, was that the candy was provided by another student – not the girl’s parents."
I think the candy pusher deserves the sentence, not the simple user. This is just like the Rockefeller laws, punishing the victim of sugar addiction rather than the seller. Oh, I know she didn't buy the candy, but the first one is always free, y'know.
so how's this different from... (Score:3, Insightful)
Bad summary, and intentionally misleading coverage (Score:3, Informative)
Much more enlightening than the coverage provided was a story in a local newspaper. They (gasp!) actually took the time to talk to the school officials involved and determine why such a ban exists, and why the punishment was so harsh. Heavens! It's almost like they engaged in, dare I say it, journalism! What's really telling is that it was on about page 7 of the Google search results list, well after all the blogs and screaming and angst over this injustice.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html [mysanantonio.com]
Candy was not banned at the school because of a "nutritional" requirement, certain types of candy were banned because the kids were making a mess with them, and it was getting expensive to have to keep cleaning it up. Personally, I'd make any kid caught making a mess with candy give up a week or two of recess and spend time helping to clean the school. Or send their parents the janitor's bill for a day and let them enforce the problem with their little darlings. But a ban is probably an easier, if less fair, way to deal with the minority who were making a mess.
This still might be an overly harsh punishment for an action that doesn't even deserve punishment, but the real reason is far more interesting than the knee-jerk sells-newspapers coverage I've seen everywhere else.
Re:Bad summary, and intentionally misleading cover (Score:4, Interesting)
Shouldn't the eating areas be constructed to facilitate cleaning?
I understand chewing gum bans, but jolly ranchers?
As far as junk food bans, this is getting crazy.
A friend of mine had her daughters zero calorie soda confiscated, yet other kids can keep their kool aid and juice boxes, which are less healthy by many accounts.
The governments solution to bad decisions by parents is to empower teachers and administration to make bad decisions instead.
This is ridiculous.
Kids should eat in an easy to clean area, they should be able to eat whatever the parents decide to send.
Re:Bad summary, and intentionally misleading cover (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You are exactly the sort of shitbag that enables this sort of lunacy
We have to follow the rules! (Score:3, Funny)
And then they're surprised... (Score:4, Insightful)
... when every couple of years one of the not-so-well-adjusted kids gets himself a gun and makes them pay. As far as I'm concerned, actually I'm surprised that it's only one of them every couple of years.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
> And in Texas, no less.
> There may in fact be no hope for our Union.
Didn't they want to secede anyway? Let them. A quick renaming into Mexas and it's all good for everybody... :-)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It takes longer to eat than a chocolate bar would, has 10% of the calories contained in a chocolate bar (such as a snickers) and no fat (compared to 13+ grams).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do they get detention for eating the "food" from the school cafeteria?
Nah, eating the food from the cafeteria is punishment enough.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for eating healthier, but THIS COUNTRY IS GETTING NUTTIER AND NUTTIER. I never smoked, but banning it and making it illegal were harbingers of things to come. Then the Safety Police got involved with seatbelts... Then trans fats and high fructose corn syrup... As they are all hard to defend against, everyone has let this country start down the slippery slope because 'Well, it won't affect me much and its a good thing...". Everyone should WAKE-UP. Tell the Health Police to pound sand and demand more personal accountability responsibility, not hand over more decisions to the government! Detention in school as she had a piece of candy that didn't meet 'minimal nutrition guidelines'!!!? ARE YOU KIDDING, AMERICA?
Personal accountability is necessary, but it's not the end-all, be-all, panacea. Smoking, unlike other vices, affects more than simply the user. It's exceedingly difficult to avoid breathing in second-hand smoke when in the vicinity of a smoker, and because the user is someone else, you are not at liberty to regulate the amount the other uses/produces. Should we hold children personally accountable for their inability to avoid their parents' second hand smoke?
Trans fats and HFCS are food additives, no
A recipe for crime (Score:3, Insightful)
I am convinced that such policies--and knee-jerk "zero tolerance" policies in general--contribute to crime, because they teach impressionable children that rules and laws are arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair, and that the people who create and enforce them are fools who are unworthy of respect.