Slashdot Mirror
3rd-Grader Busted For Jolly Rancher Possession
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 ?
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.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
From our so-called educators.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
This has to be the most idiotic story I've read in years. Someone clearly isn't in touch with reality here.
When the adults act like children who will the students emulate later in life?
suck it! That's what it's for right?
In my day we managed to carry around weed and not get caught. The fact that she got caught with a Jolly Rancher proves what I suspect - kids today are a little slower, mentally speaking.
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.
But it contains an amount of sugar that is the recommended amount for 3 days!
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
The state law does not restrict what the parents may include in a child's lunch, however, the girl's parents did not include the candy, it was given to her by another student (probably a friend)... Still seems very stupid, especially if her parents were to give her other foods lacking in nutritional value.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
taking candy from a 3rd grader
This third grader, her parents and those who read the story are learning a valuable lesson about the nature of the state.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Today it's candy, tomorrow it's drugs and before you kow it they're smoking crack while living on the streets.
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.
What if she were diabetic and her blood sugar was low?
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.
FGD 135
Idiocracy implies that there are idiots from top to bottom.
In practice, this is simply what happens when rules written by people who are quite intelligent and well-meaning and only part-idiot (because they don't anticipate the problems) are supposed to be carried out in practice by a lot of average joes.
"Have less candies in schools" is a good rule. Achieving this goal by expelling children with candies is a bad attempt at enforcing a good rule.
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 my big fat triple stacker cheeseburger. That would have had to been a school imposed Policy, according to this.
It's not like she was expelled. People need to toughen up a little. I got detention for things my friends did that I got blamed for but I didn't make a state case out of it.
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.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
I'm only 12 years old and what is this?!
And in Texas, no less.
There may in fact be no hope for our Union.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
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.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
This has to be the most obsurd story I have ever seen. Honestly to say that we are banning all minimal nutrition foods, is rediculous. Why is it this country has started to give the Gov't so much power that now they decide what we are and aren't allowed to eat, and where we are going to eat it at? I know I love candy and hell in my old h/s the band kids sold some phenomenal chocolate chip cookies. We even had a snack line that you could get candy. What are the fundraisers now gonna be well were not gonna sell cookies or chocolate, we selling vegetables from now on and maybe some fruit. Seriously this is just rediculous. I don't blame the kid or the parents or even the kid that gave the candy to the girl. I would just skip detention and let them suspend my kid for however many days they want. This is just ludicrous. Hell even my kid whos 2 gets to eat chocolate and such every now and again. Its not like he gets it every day but really to have the gov't or the school or whomever step in and say its illegal is WRONG!
then crack. Clearly the guidelines are in place to protect children from this heinous gateway drug/candy.
If your going to do the crime youve gotta be willing to do the time. Book her Danno.
It's nice to know that they still find new ways to make children afraid and paranoid of authority figures.
I think they should enact a 10-20-life policy for kids who get caught with multiple jolly ranchers with intention to distribute or consume.
If they get caught with paraphernalia (candy wrappers) they should be fined, given 5 days detention, and put on probation.
Isn't it also a law where if you get caught dealing on school property the sentence is doubled?
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.
The more we socialize responsibility for health care, the more power the government needs to control costs...
Even more idiotic than, say, installing webcam surveillance software on laptops that are rented by children and then punishing children for "immoral acts" that they do at home? I'd say it's a tough call.
...telling the child you are not allowed to have this at school, throwing it away and moving on with the day? I can see trying to get rid of junk food at school as a good thing but this is just ridiculous.
So, the state guideline banned Jolly Ranchers and the school was simply adhering to that, whether they liked it or not. Fine. Did the state also mandate a week's detention for possession? Wouldn't confiscation be enough?
Really is this surprising to anyone? Coming from the same state that is thinking of not teaching evolution anymore and approved the editing of school books to push a conservative agenda?? Everything is big in Texas, including the level of stupidity at all levels of education and common sense.
Perhaps it is time for Texas to secede from the union...this time we won't stop you Texas.
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
Candy was given to this kid by her friend.
And to think that when I was in school, we could take a knife with us as long as the blade was under 6", we had a smoking area in HS and if we got caught smoking pot in the bathroom, the teacher would flush it down the toilet and call our parents. We could buy sodas for lunch, bring whatever we wanted as far as food. Oh yeah, my "walkman" got confiscated once, I got it back at the end of the day tho...I also wore tshirts to school proclaiming "Yngwie F*cking Malmsteen that's who!"
I wish I still had my pee chee folder that had the knife rules on it...it would be hilarious.
From the article:
“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.
The closer you are to the code, the happier you are. - Ancient Geek Proverb
Next thing you know she'll be doing Pixy Sticks lines and smoking chocolate cigarettes behind the school.
Let's say banning salt in New York? and having a $1000 fine if you break that "law" http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/03/11/2010-03-11_assault_on_salt_an_insult_chefs.html
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?
talk about changing times, when i was in first grade, i took a boy scout knife to school for show and tell. another kid took it and was messing about and cut another kid on the finger, i got a 1 day suspension from school. imagine if now...
A Jolly Roger cookbook that got our school evacuated for hours back in the day.. something about a guide for mass destruction laying around with notes handwritten all over wasn't found as amusing by our school staff at the time.
Im ok..
I'll be surprised if the ACLU isn't all over this like a bee on honey; oh wait, is honey on the list too?
"In true dialogue, both sides are willing to change" --Thich Nhat Hanh
Do they get detention for eating the "food" from the school cafeteria?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
When I was young ... a long time ago (1960's in fact) ... my family moved a lot. As a result I ended up attending two different elementary schools in Texas, one in New Jersey and one in Alabama. While I can't comment on other Texas elementary schools, the two Texas schools were overwhelmingly the least pleasant experiences of the four. One of them seemed to adopt more of a guard/prisoner mentality regarding the relationship between teachers and students. I see that little seems to have changed.
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
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.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
It's much more important for schools to prevent our children from eating candy, than it is to actually educate our children. The sugar in the candy might actually have helped the child to stay alert during the next lesson, which of course should be prevented at all costs- after all, knowledge is dangerous!
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
this is just an example of a school admin that disagrees with a law and took it to a silly extreme to make his point. how many people believe that he would have otherwise been compelled to expel a young child for possessing candy at school? shame on him he shouldn't be using the students he is supposed to protect to forward his agenda.
'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,' said school superintendent Jack Ellis."
Jack Ellis can't tell the difference between rules and guidelines. If these are really guidelines then they're advisory, which means the people who oversee/enforce them are meant to have some common sense in how they are enforced.
+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.
Bow-ties are cool.
This is Texas after all. She should have been gassed and had her body displayed for all to see what this horrible criminal offender had done. God I wish Mexico would invade JUST so they could get rid of those armpits that are Texas and Arizona....
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
they would probably give me a months detention for eating my pudding first at lunch.
No, the newspaper that was chosen for the summary misrepresented the issue, probably to sell more ad space. The candy was not banned at all due to a state guideline. Certain types of candy (gum and Jolly Ranchers among them) were banned because the kids were making a mess with them. It was probably that or go to the taxpayers for overtime for the janitors. And we all know how well asking for money goes over in the current economic environment.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html
The actual news story is far less interesting than making this out to be a nazi plot against our chilluns so more people will indignantly read the story and view ads, I know, but when you have to go 6 pages on a Google search to get to the first local coverage of the event (you know, people who have reporters who can go and talk to people)...
The real story will never catch up with the lie that sells more papers.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
From the Texas website;
"The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does NOT RESTRICT WHAT FOODS OR BEVERAGES PARENTS MAY 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."
This page was updated Friday.
... 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.
This is just more evidence of the transition of our society from whatever it was, into a Nanny / Police State. You muct not question The Law / Rules, and use common sense. To do so is to be a "Bad Guy".
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Look at the silver lining, at least they didn't strip search her.
In my day we managed to carry around weed and not get caught. The fact that she got caught with a Jolly Rancher proves what I suspect - kids today are a little slower, mentally speaking.
Prob'ly 'cause their parents smoked so much weed.
Sure, this was probably the flat kind that she could have sucked into a knife and held the whole lunch room hostage!
Here in Oregon, the school bus driver confiscated my daughter's pencil and threw it away because it was "dangerous", but didn't have any problem with another student threatening my daughter with a nail clipper (well, they are banned on airplanes) right in front of her, and every school is the Beaverton School District apparently sells popcorn to the students as a fund raiser, despite the school nurse insisting to me that popcorn was a choking risk for all students. But they get really upset when you point out the logical inconsistencies of their policies.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
as the rest of the country learns how it feels to be persecuted for an unhealthy practice. Welcome to the club, it's only downhill from here.
"But school officials are defending the sentence, saying the school was abiding by a state guideline that banned 'minimal nutrition' foods" Minimal nutritious foods? Lets take a look at school lunches shall we? Greasy processed food-like pizza, wilted salad drowned in ranch dressing, a fruit cup swimming in high-fructose corn syrup, chocolate milk, french fries (they are a potato and count as a vegetable), and then some sort of dessert. How about we send the people who came up with that menu to detention for 10 days.
I can understand the basic principle. If they allow leniency on one student breaking a rule then they allow all students breaking all rules. This logic may sound contrived - and I agree is a generalization - it's principles are not. Essentially, if they excused her then more students would follow suit. However, we are speaking about a candy and not a violent crime. Should we consider behavior modification over punishment? I believe that if you educate and inform individuals they will understand their crimes and why it is a crime ( or breaking rules ) they over time will modify their behavior, but if you only punish a student without educating them why they are receiving that punishment they will lack that understanding and will not modify their behavior. Really, it boils down to personal liberties and the over-reaching-hand of the state administrators. I understand that child obesity is a serious health concern for all U.S. states, it not only impacts the health of students but also taxes our tax dollars - not to be a pun. We will spend more money for child and adult health care for health issue's resulting from an unhealthful diet. I say adults because the children will maintain their poor eating habits well into their adulthood and continue to stress our health care system. This is why I say education and information over punishment. The child doesn't look overweight to me and she has all her teeth, so it seems to me that through deductive reasoning I can deduce that poor nutrition is not an issue for this child. I mean give her a break, it was a Jolly Rancher and not a pistol.
Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
I would love to see someone fill up Jack Ellis' car with Jolly Ranchers and hang a free candy sign on it in the school parking lot....
Line 1 of the policy:
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.
This is a policy about what Schools are allowed to serve to students. Not a policy about what foods students are allowed to eat or possess.
At least in my high school the principal actually looked around for excuses to give people detention. (I heard he was a frustrated ex-cop but never found out if that was true.) Come to think of it he once tried to keep a disabled kid out of school, the state wasn't too happy about that one.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I hope they have a cell reserved for her in Gitmo. Next thing you know, the kid will be planting snickers bars by the roadside....
Since when did the State (or in this case, agents for the State) magically bypass the Constitution and grant themselves the authority to arbitrarily seize personal property? The candy has zero intrinsic value, but that's not the point. They are prohibited from randomly taking things from people. If the candy-possession presented a danger to other students, take it and call the cops. There's a due-process structure already in place. If the candy-possession was creating a situation disruptive to other students, take it to the school office where the parents can retrieve it later. The disruption is the problem, not the item.
Attending school doesn't require that you surrender your property ownership. This is one of those camel's nose events, and should be smacked down really hard.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I find this to be especially true when dealing with School Administrators.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
You are exactly the sort of shitbag that enables this sort of lunacy.
Then the candy would be a medication for her and she would be in violation of the school's zero-tolerance policy on drugs.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Nailed 'Em!
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 threatening violence and abuse will turn such people away from this career and then what are you, the parent, left with?
Now a parent who comes in to have a sensible debate with the principal, and argue that the punishment being set out is too high in a measured voice, open to listening to the principal's point of view and constructively discussing how the school could improve its policies, well those are the kind of parents teachers love to meet. These are the parents schools are desperate to encourage on to their boards of governors. Doesn't sound like you're one of them though.
Ok, the policy is STILL stupid then.
Punishing children who make a mess with candy I can agree with. But nowhere does it say this child created any sort of mess with this candy. That everyone should be penalized because some people cannot behave is hardly the lesson our public schools should be teaching. By that reasoning, I think we should take away the cars, trucks, and any other motorized vehicles from everyone who works at that school because some people drive drunk or use them to get away after burlgaries.
All this policy does is condition children to accept reduced liberties simply because someone, somewhere, at some time abused their freedom. And all so some custodian doesn't have to clean up an occasional mess.
Did anyone notice '10-year old' and '3rd grade'? sorry to hijack, but held back 2x in grade school. perhaps there is more to this story than what we're being told than her friend giving her some candy. sadder commentary is that we're spending so much time on this story. sign of the times i guess.
Saw some show with the Chef Jamie Oliver, where he was trying to change school lunches.
The schools insisted the vegetables cooked into a casserole did not count as vegetables, but french fries did.
Might make a good south park episode. Too bad chef is gone.
How much you wanna bet the school regularly serves greasy pizza for lunch (some schools serve it for lunch and breakfast!) which all falls neatly under the current state nutritional guidelines?
These administrators have a serious case of plank-in-the-eye.
Another example why "Zero Tolerance" is just a bad idea.
Oh, right. It's the sound of Jamie Oliver's forehead hitting the nearest wall, over and over again.
Every parent should pull their kids and spend a day with them. Let the school see how empty the school would be without them. Actually, they should pull them forever. Hit them where it hurts: funding. This kind of behavior is born out of the fact that education majors are statistically the lower-scoring students at college. So our kids are taught by the below-average to average.
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.
You are exactly the sort of shitbag that enables this sort of lunacy
And here is a follow up from the state making it clear that Leighann was not in violation of the law.
“This particular incidence of candy possession as it has been reported by KHOU-TV would not be considered a violation of the state or federal nutrition program and therefore would not have jeopardized your district’s food service funding.”
Detention seems a little harsh, but only a little. Sitting in a boring room for an hour or two isn't all that big a deal.
The schools I went to had rules about permissible foods. The school my kids go to has rules about permissible foods, and candy is expressly forbidden. We have a diabetes epidemic, and it's common for kids at public schools without food policies to show up with lunches consisting exclusively of candy and junk food.
Plato (not my favorite philosopher) argued against basing ethics on pleasure with the example that given a chance, a child will eat sweets to the exclusion of healthy food, and get sick. So this isn't exactly a new or unfamiliar phenomenon. A child in third grade isn't usually going to be perfectly competent at balancing pleasure with nutrition and health concerns, and the parent is not present, so it's reasonable for the school to intervene.
"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."
Well now, if only the school GAVE that reason to the parents instead of insisting it was a non-existant government policy they were reluctantly enforcing.
This is ridiculous! Where is our country? Zero Tolerance policies are akin to Prohibition. It will not work in the long run. Why is government, local or otherwise, so bent on making the lives of the constituents living hell? I can only imagine what one Jolly Rancher will cost that family trying to defend their child. Also, what does it say to the poor kid? Oh, I see, get them acclimated to "authority early" so when they are adults they will not question. WTF? Is freedom of self determination dead or must we obey the each and every study of the month?
.. to school.. What is this world coming to?
... I'll have a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster with a side of Plutonium Nyborg
The parent folded like a cheap suit. Rather than fight the policy or even write a strongly worded letter, she told her daughter "life's not fair, maybe this will teach you that it isn't." Someone save us from acquiescent parents who refuse to fight for their children and believe in-loco-parentis means "when child at school, I have no influence".
first they almost take out thomas jefferson from texas school books because he was not pro-religion enough, and then this. tells volumes.
...
im not american, and i know about these. so go figure
Read radical news here
Did anyone watch Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution ... Give me a break... some school districts count Fried French fries as a serving of vegetables.... yet they're punishing kids for having a jolly rancher?!?! Seems like were failing to see the forest for the trees.....
The bigger problem is that people have reached apathy... We punish kids for having a jolly rancher but we serve chocolate and strawberry milk at lunch?!? Why are we not attacking the bigger problem.
So are they banning French Fries, Pizza and any form of processed frozen food too? Do we get to put the school administrators/state officials in detention for serving crap processed foods to the kids? They're trying to do the right thing, but they're going about it all wrong.
Enough said....
I read the attached article, but I still call BS. From the 2nd until 8th grade,I sold candy at school: Now and Laters, Jolly Ranchers, Blow Pops, and a slew of other "hard candy." Not once did it make a mess. I have a 2nd grader and the kids share candy all the time in the cafeteria. There's no mess. You can paint this anyway you want, but educators know better. Jolly Ranchers aren't new and it's not like there's been a rash of Jolly incidents. Gum, ok, I can understand. However, there's no commonailty between gum and hard candy. FWIW, I take a JR and throw it against the wall as hard as I can and the mess (assuming the wrapper comes open) can be cleaned in about 2 minutes. That's nothing compared to what happens with green peas. Those suckers go everywhere. Should we outlaw peas, carrots, mashed potatoes (hard to get out of ears and noses)? Again, BS.
since possession of less than an ounce is only a misdemeanor. Had she had TWO Jolly Ranchers it would have been felony possession of more than an ounce.
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
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.
Is it really an extra expense to have Bob the janitor clean up gum and ju-ju-bees in addition to scrubbing the toilets and cleaning up vomit? I wouldn't think they'd need to hire contract cleaners for gum and taffy.Sensational journalism or not, it sounds like the staff is blaming everything but themselves when they got called out on a stupid maneuver. They should be ashamed of themselves for making a little girl cry because she had a friggin jolly rancher. She's ten years old for Jebus' sake.
This sounds a lot like the viral emails that complain about the latest over-the-top government outrage, which later turns out to be somewhere between an exaggeration and an outright fabrication. Please, let's wait for some substantiation before we start the condemnations.
...move to Texas.
According to caloriecount.com, 3 pieces of Jolly Rancher candy (18.0g) contain 17.0g of carbohydrates, 11.0g of which is sugar, a total of 70 calories. This child had one piece, so that's about 23 calories and about 3.7g of sugar. So what the hell is the big deal? We're talking about maybe 1.5% of her total daily caloric intake here. If her mom or the school is feeding her some fruit juice she's getting more sugar than is in that candy, and when it comes right down to it fruit juice isn't much better than drinking a soda! Doesn't anybody know how to think for themselves anymore?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
its all so funny until one of these tyrannical pricks is deciding whether or not you or someone you love is going to get some lifesaving procedure but, they cant point to a rule and some one dies a horrible death. You stupid stupid big government liberals just don't see it do you? These people are not your/our friends the stupidity of brainwashed indoctrinated supposedly educated people astound me. Don't try and feed me that exception crap either its a daily event and becoming more prevalent daily, First they came for the JEWS but I was not a JEW...
Crazy it should be a persons choice!
I actually RTFA, and I actually RTF policy too. No where does it state that the possession of minimally nutritious foods is punishable. If anyone (besides the teacher assigning the detention) deserves punishment, and that's a very big if, it's the student that handed out the candy, not the one who accepted it. "FMNV may not be sold or given away to students on school premises by school administrators or staff (principals, coaches, teachers, etc.), [b]students[/b] or student groups, parents or parent groups, guest speakers, or any other person, company or organization." (emphasis mine) Of course, the detrimental affects of prohibiting sharing and other critical social activities far out-weigh any health hazards posed by that lone Jolly Rancher. Stupid stupid school
But a ban is probably an easier, if less fair, way to deal with the minority who were making a mess.
I refuse to support policies that are "less fair." Pay our janitors more and deal with the fact that kids like candy and will bring it to school, regardless of the rules or punishment in place. Making our schools prisons is destroying our education and our youth.
And back to the topic, the superintendent of the district said that candy and gum are banned at the school because
it creates a mess. It's all over your furniture and your floors.
And then the mom said,
She didn't even eat [the candy]. The teacher took it away.
A ten-year-old was harshly punished before she ever caused any harm, and that's not right. The friend that gave her the candy got in trouble too. I might understand the punishment if she had been a repeat offender and had been given warnings before but there is no mention of that in any article. Humiliating and punishing a child like this is not fair, and that act should be punished. I hope the media rips this school to shreds. We, the people, should have zero fucking tolerance towards this stupidity.
Druggie: "Hey kid, want some dope?"
Kid: "Is that a kind of candy?"
Druggie: "Err... no."
Kid: "OK then. Mom said not to accept candy from strangers."
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. A girl rumored to posses OTC medication is strip searched by the principal and could have faced expulsion for drug charges. Some kid gets a cell phone picture from a partially undressed peer, and he's hit with child pornography. These are just a few examples. We routinely classify innocuous behavior as the most extreme and vile crimes. So now are public schools are microchasms of a police state, with TSA security screenings, strip searches, a huge police presence, and criminal sentences for routine disciplinary problems. Institutionally, we see our children as equally capable of evil as Al Queda.
What we're seeing is the inevitable result of that process, where effective discipline has simply given way entirely to arbitrary enforcement of state power. But the process didn't begin when they started talking about the four food groups. The process started when we decided we needed to "get tough on crime" and we culturally embraced zero-tolerance. The problem started when politicians started to convince people that law enforcement was the best answer for all our social ills.
'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,' said school superintendent -Jack-Ellis- Martin Bormann.
This incident brings me back to my days in the Austin public school system. For stealing food (I was neglected and starved, but nobody asked.) I was put into the ACT program, where they made me do all my class work in a small white cubicle, made me do huge stacks of the same 1st grade worksheets if I turned my head or dared speak a word. If I didn't finish my homework and the worksheets, they could keep me after school till 12am if they wanted. They had the right to restrain me if we tried to leave. After school hours they got really crazy and tried to make us slip up so we would have to stay. Eventually I just stopped going to school. They banned this program a few years ago. I also got suspended for wearing a Dead Kennedy's T-shirt. The candy incident is totally typical of that system and it is more serious and damaging to the child than some people on here would think.
They should, but unfortunately hard candy and especially gum take a lot of effort to clean up even from an "easy to clean" area. And eating areas are usually constructed to meet a construction budget by the lowest of multiple bidders.
I have a theory, but it may or may not match up to reality. The school may have been (like many schools) facing cuts to their budget, and had to lose a janitor or cut hours for the cleaning staff, so they instituted the ban to keep the effort to clean the lunch room to a minimum.
And, yes, on the topic of junk food bans, it is crazy. As a proud lover of the ideals of things like "Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution", and a full supporter of the idea that we need to start feeding our children real food, I don't think a ban is the correct way to get it done. You'll just get inevitable backlash, and it'll be seen as "government interference" and the ban will be flouted by the very people the ban would be designed to help.
Fortunately, that's not what this story appears to be about.
This punishment may still be unfair. I'm not sure I agree with a 5-day detention. I think that was a gross overreaction, unless these students have been flouting the ban for some time or the administrators had some other reason to believe that these specific students were about to make (or previously had made) a big mess with the candy. Even so, I think this is an overreaction.
But let's criticize the school officials for something they did based on the real reasons they did it and not an apparently deliberate misquote to sell more column space.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Fine. I actually agree for the most part. I think the ban was probably misguided and the punishment was almost certainly an overreaction.
But, hey, at least now you're criticizing the policy based on the actual facts behind it, and not some made-up "nutritional value ban".
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
“Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,” he said.
The Nazi's tried that same defense and we executed them anyhow.
The girl’s mother said the incident has taught her daughter a lesson, but not the one her teachers intended.
Yeah. Your teacher and the superintendent are either incompetent or unable to think for themselves. Neither is suitable as a role model.
Think the superintendent is an idiot? Tell him what you think.
Jack Ellis
Superintendent
P. O. Box 819
Wallis TX 77485
979-478-6551
jellis@brazosisd.net
And would like to see the following new policies implemented.
1. No group of five or more students should be allowed to exhale in synchronicity. This will lower the co2 content drastically during the moment of exhale and any student caught doing this should be given five swats. The guilty students shall then be expelled for not less than two weeks.
2. Any student caught farting in school (expelling methane) shall be made to pay cap and tax penalty of 200 dollars for gaseous emission on campus and be expelled for 2 days and forced to attend an environmental consciousness awareness seminar.
3. Any student wearing more than 90% black clothing in a southern climate should be expelled. The black clothing does not reflect any light and thus becomes hotter when the student is outside. When the student comes inside they bring in this extra heat and cause the AC units to work harder. This is environmentally horrible and student should be forced to wear all white for 2 months and sent to an environmental consciousness awareness seminar. Similar punishment and rules should apply to students in colder climates who wear white.
4. All students shall be tested for salt or sugar contamination in their blood on a random monthly basis. Any child with high salt or sugar content shall be made to eat bland tofu for two weeks while taking salt and sugar danger awareness classes. Anyone caught bringing salt or sugar within 200 feet of a school campus shall be guilty of a felony and be arrested and charged and the courts must issue the maximum punishment for possession of said taste enhancers.
5. Candy, (this goes without saying) any candy, sweets or goods brought on to a campus shall be treated like heroin drugs or other illegal substances of this nature and extreme and unusual punishements shall be handed out.
6. Any legislature or school board that wishes to add an addendum to these rules must first prove to be more politically correct than a multiracial family eating tofu under a windmill and driving a Prius. The legislature must prove a complete disconnect with the people they govern and must be willing to pass laws keeping with the motto, "No common sense, never , not on my watch" and must be able to bend over far enough to insert their heads into their rectums. They must also be able to stick their heads through at least 6 inches of sand and remain in this position through riots protests and general descent. The bodies must support a socialist political agenda that takes away rights and freedoms from individuals and hands them to the state or school in keeping with the motto, "We shall rule them as their betters because we are better, know better, and can make better decisions than they." Legislatures and school boards must under no circumstances add any laws or adjustments to these rules unless said law is disagreeable to at least 80% of the people so that the premise "The individual can not know better than the government, the governed are ignorant, the governed are sheep, the governed are lucky to have rulers who can control ever aspect of their life and know better how to spend their hard earned money." must be upheld. Specifically if you pass a law or rule that 80% of the people agree with you violate the "No common sense, never, not on my watch" motto that all governments seem to now hold inviolate.
To all those who disagree arm your selves with the following.
1. Information
2. Voters registration
Then proceed to vote your betters out of office. When they are on the street asking for hand outs, give them a Jolly Rancher and smile.
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,' said school superintendent Jack Ellis.
... fuck Godwin's law.
Everytime someone says something like that, all I can think is
7 days is a pretty hard punishment for a first offense for eating candy don't ya think?
Jack of all trades,master of none
Pay our janitors more and deal with the fact that kids like candy and will bring it to school, regardless of the rules or punishment in place.
OK, good start. A ban is a bad idea (I actually agree), but what are the alternatives? Where does the money come from to pay these janitors more? How many community members will approve the budget increase, and how many of them will rail against how much money is being wasted?
A ten-year-old was harshly punished before she ever caused any harm, and that's not right. The friend that gave her the candy got in trouble too. I might understand the punishment if she had been a repeat offender and had been given warnings before but there is no mention of that in any article. Humiliating and punishing a child like this is not fair, and that act should be punished. I hope the media rips this school to shreds. We, the people, should have zero fucking tolerance towards this stupidity.
Fair enough. But at least we are ripping them to shreds based on the real reasons for their actions.
Misrepresentations like the original article and the summary fuel the debate, but people are now debating about "nutritional value" bans. That's not what this case is about, and that's not why the candy was banned.
The punishment is extreme. The ban is probably wrong. But understanding WHAT you are criticizing is important.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
and it didn't helped a lot. ... would not be considered a violation of the State law"
"This particular incident
and no hint of what would be a violation.. geesh. as if this incident wasn't proof enough that they need to clarify what the law is supposed to cover..
i think the law was intended to keep burguer king off the school's menu.. state law's should be a lot more specific when they regulate this kind of stuff.
She should be thankful the school is trying to help her avoid her parent's future.
.. someone is thinking of the children
Some kids take pens and pencils and mark up desks costing schools money. Given this reasoning, we should ban all pencils and pens in schools and give detention to any student found with them.
Also, paper can be turned into spitballs which not only need to be cleaned up but cause distractions. Therefore, all paper should be banned also.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
This "article" has all the smells of 10% sensationalist reporting. That is, the part of the story that has been reported is likely just the tip of a much larger, more rational, iceberg. I failed to find any info in the article about if this was the first offense. I suspect that it isn't. Has she been warned before? Does she have a history of knowingly sneaking in contraband? In short, how many other straws are there on the camel's back?
Totally NUTS -- This is so outrageous I can't believe this story is true -- If so, move out of that county, I mean RUN!!!
Kids should eat in an easy to clean area, they should be able to eat whatever the parents decide to send.
As much as I want to agree with that, I also think children should eat healthy. There are a lot of negligent or (more likely) ignorant parents out there who are more than happy to pack some questionable highly-processed food like Lunchables thinking that it's good and healthy for their child.
When I was in 8th grade (18 years ago), I got detention for having gum in class. Why? For the exact same reason cited in TFA: it's a mess and ends up under desks, stuck to lockers, etc. Clearly our society's priorities were not in order then. I should have held a press conference about my infringed-upon rights!
Was a week of detention over the top for a 3rd grader with candy? Sure.
Do we care?!
Nail him up, I say!
Nail some sense into him!
Say out loud: I'm an Aspie and I'm somewhat proud, I guess. Uh. Can I write an email in all caps instead? Hm...
Teachers ought to know that punishment doesn't work in the long run.
Of course, being raised in a culture of punishment+rewards=obedience culture, they are unaware of the cycle of slave conditioning and oppression they perpetuate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRE2gqjQx5Q
A more common sense approach would be to create a solution that offers alternatives to parents and makes sure parents *understand* why alternatives are necessary.
Rules enforced by violence are the opposite of leadership.
That's why the rest of the world wants to throw up when American's make claims about living in the "freest country in the world".
This makes a lot more sense, and I take back my bitching in a previous reply. A week in detention still seems like a ridiculous punishment for having some candy. I agree that being made to help with cleanup after lunch for a week or two is a much more fitting punishment, especially since it offers them a chance to see why the rule is there and learn from it.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
There seems to be two Americas based on your age. One where you are expected to be independent and enjoy the ideals of free speech and general independence (note, this argument is based on ideals), and one where you are expected to bow to authority on a wide range of arbitrarily-defined rules or face harsh punishment. In essence, we have made it OK for kids to be subjected to a tightly controlled authoritarian type of environment during their most sensitive years of enculturation, and then upon finishing public school, we jettison them out into a world that preaches democratic ideals. It's just pure madness -- by the time somebody leaves the public school system they will not be prepared for a world of independence at all. What's worse -- by subjecting kids to harsh psychological treatment in schools for dong things which adults would not consider any type of offense, we're stacking up a negative mental burden on them before they even reach the most challenging parts of their lives. It doesn't just end with jolly ranchers either, politics and policy is a taboo subject in schools, too. I seem to recall people in my school getting detention hours for questioning the DARE program, which was later dismantled as being ineffective. Unfortunately, it seems public school in the U.S. is about mentally (and sometimes physically) beating kids down instead of embracing critical thinking.
It is. The punishment is still extreme to the point of being silly. And I'm still not sure I buy the reasoning behind the ban.
Hell, as others have pointed out, this came out after the letter from the state food folks clarifying that candy is not covered by the ban, so this could possibly just be the school rotating in a new excuse when the old one is discredited.
I don't know the school or its policies, and of course trying to search for any "gum and hard candy ban" that might have been in place before the story broke is now pretty much impossible.
If such a ban existed, then the school's story has a lot more credibility - they were (possibly overzealously) in enforcing a (possibly misguided) ban that existed as a reaction to a real problem.
It's also possible that the ban exists, and was enforced as written, and the only real sin is that some administrator didn't take the time to understand what was going on before he/she made something up to get a reporter to stop hounding him/her.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Deserve punishment = deserve torture.
Although torturing children is a centuries-long tradition, its only lasting effects are to damage the children and satisfy the righteousness of the executioners. And, it achieves compliance in the short term, at tremendous cost: permanent loss of trust, secrecy, fear, stress, mental illness, rage, and the worst of all, the lesson that violence is the way to get what you want and that getting what you want at any cost is OK.
I would say that having a word with all parents explaining the situation resulting with a signed agreement for paying the clean-up bill would be a better way to handle this, along with a list of acceptable alternative snacks. Yes, it would take some imagination and leadership, which is more difficult than using a whip, but it works better in the long term and gets easier with practice.
Have you seen Texans? They ARE FAT. They compete with Mississippians, Alabamians and Georgians or even what the old Hawaiian royalty for the title.
The last time I was down in Houston, I was teaching at NASA and I noticed then that once I got away from NASA and north towards Houston, that it had LOADS of fat ppl.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Smuggle low-quality candy into school or produce it on school premises
2. Sell it for a ridiculous price
(no ???)
3. Profit
Isn't prohibition wonderful!
"'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules"
Which is code for, "I'm to stupid to be in charge of anything more complicated than pencil distribution."
These are the "educators" (and believe me I use that term loosely) that are supposed to be teaching our kids to think and reason for themselves. I sure don't trust them to do that when they make idiotic statements like the one above. Sure, nutrition is important, but it's the parents job to decide what is and isn't acceptable. It's time for schools to stop trying to brainwash kids into their way of thinking, and just educate them.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
She should have just eaten the evidence.
Parent got downmodded unfairly a few posts back and is stuck in karma hell. Please be kind and bumb him a point to get him out. If you feel the need, mod this one down as offtopic.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
...that they can't punish you for doing your job too well.
Unless of course it brings recriminations within e.g. whistleblowing.
It'd be nice to see this situation reversed someday.
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
I remember getting into all sorts of stupid shit in school and getting punished for it. Some minor, some not so much.
Detention on a 3rd grader seems a bit much, particularly for a week, and particularly for eating candy. But hey a policy is a policy.
I do recall getting the same shit for chewing gum in class or wearing a ball hat (the later they would confiscate). Mind you that was not as early as 3rd grade, but hey I hear kids are doing drugs and having sex earlier, so bring on the discipline.
Anyway I can see how the parents might be a bit peeved off, but how is this just not something that gets settled in parent teacher, and its somehow international freaking news.
I think too many parents think they have the right to interfere with the public school system simple because they pay taxes and do not agree with something. Well I got a news flash: Plenty of people don't agree on things, its kind of a pretty reoccurring problem. Go to the PTA and raise hell like normal parents. Or as someone else mentioned that no one seemed to like, there are alternatives, private and home school if you feel the public option is not for your family. If you really want to throw down, well there is also other States, other Public School systems, and other countries. If you REALLY feel that it is such a big deal, and you can solve it like normal human beings through the regular channels... Well then I guess you have to ask yourself just how important that is compared to other things in your life.
Anyway I am not a Parent. Nor do I live in the US. Nor do I live on Texas. So really I couldn't give a rats ass about any of this. I also don't know what this has to do with Geeks, Technology or Computers... Heck you can barely call the baby sitting they do in Texas, particularly in third grade "education"! Likely indoctrinating them with creationism and intelligent design at that point... jolly ranchers are the least of their worries!
When did the schools start turning into airport security? Just tell the parents and if they have a problem with the kid eating candy so be it they will give them hell for it and if it is causing a mess at the schools..... TAKE IT AWAY! simple as that... am I going to get arrested for walking down the street chewing gum next?
Thinking now outlawed in schools.
You sold candy and assert that it made no mess. Wow, you were both a second grader AND the school janitor?
Maybe the school district thinks the state law is stupid so they are enforcing it to the max to make a point.
Too bad the children are the ones who suffer due to over-enforcement.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Is that the girl who is getting punished is NOT the girl who brought the candy. The State policy says that they won't limit what parents send their own kids. But the kid that's being punished was given the candy by another student. In short, the kid that brought the candy should be the one getting punished for passing it out to other students. After all, her parents can make the call for giving their kid candy, but their kid shouldn't be passing it out to others. What's to then prevent a kid from slipping a candy to another kid with the intent of getting another kid in trouble? My two cents is that they busted the wrong kid.
-Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
and send my daughter to a private school. This is one of the stupidest things I've heard yet from Texas public schools. I'm sure tricky ricky ferry perry had something to do with it.
Thank you Con Agra & Monsanto for manhandling state regulated school lunch programs: F*CKERS.
~Just as a thing fails if it lacks a kernel, so too it fails if it lacks a skin. ~ Rumi, Discourses
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.
Okay so there really was a good reason for the rule. The punishment was a bit harsh esp. for a 3rd grader, but missing recess for a week is bearable. This brings up another issue. The kid goes home and squeezes out some tears and Mom goes on a rampage getting the media involved etc. This is exactly why kids have cell phones in class these days. They may text constantly and be completely distracted from learning but when the school says NO and confiscates the phones, the parents cry foul and get the policy over turned. If I were the principal I would be doing two things, tell the teacher to lighten up a bit on the kids, and then publicly I would stand behind the punishment without reservation.
-- QED
This is NOT the most stupid move I've seen schools, but it is in the top 5.
Now if they were to suspend the teachers for drinking a cup of coffee, then they would probably hit the number one spot.
That's not the story they were telling the week before:
http://www.khou.com/news/Candy-Gets-Third-Grader-A-Weeks-Detention-93033319.html
and
My son never seems to finish his jolly rancher, or his sucker, I find it stuck to the wall, or the carpet, or the dog. He ruined it for all the kids out there that savor every last tasty morsel of their hard candy. My deepest apologies to kids with a sweet tooth; if it weren't for my son's sticky-candy ways, you could all be sucking down Jolly Ranchers every single day, until the dentist shouts 'Oh joy, now my kids can go to Yale!'
Always remember the chickens that have gone before
Well, I am sure the school hired people to clean the school. Regardless, hiw about punish people who throw gum/candy on the floor rather than ban all gum/candy?
If the town disagrees with you committing assault, should the town ban all speech? Thus is like banning legal possession of hanguns to stop crime... Except Chicago and Washington DC have the highest gun violence rate-maybe all committed by criminals...
That is 'state logic.'
Way to go Texas! Way to show the world how truly idiotic 'merica can be with the wrong amount of common sense about the right ideas. Once again you set the agenda for the rest of America to ignore. Just stick to fucking up our textbooks.
My kids go to school to get an education and the schools need to focus on that and stop trying to be parents. They do a bad enough job on their primary teaching, no need for them to fuck up anything else. BTW, public education isn't free. We are paying a ton of taxes for it so don't tell us to send the kids to private schools unless you are going to refund our tax money (which i would gladly accept.) If i want to send my kids a lunch of Ding Dongs, Ho Ho's and jolly ranchers it's none of the schools business. Let them eat lunch in peace and get back to work.
Every day Texas surprises me with something new regarding how much it would suck to live in that state.
"School officials in Brazos County are defending the seemingly harsh sentence. The school’s principal and superintendent said they were simply complying with a state law that limits junk food in schools."
Here's the contact information for the school district officials in case you want to let them know how you feel.
http://www.esc6.net/info/districts/info.aspx?id=4
If the kid had only jolly ranchers in the lunch bag the parent packed, i would say I understand, negligence what not... but if the kid had a full lunch, well balanced, and also had some treats for later on in the day, then i would have to say bugger off. Seriously, power trip galore....had i been there, sure confiscate it if you think something is not ok, but detention, especially if the parent was not aware, maybe give a warning that next time there will be detention...but come on, let the punishment fit the crime.
I was thinking, heck maybe the ban of tylenol has a reason, maybe it is something highly adictive, or dangerous or both.
turns out tylenol is the name for a brand containing paracetamol. In other word they were strip searching somebody for a FUCKING ASPIRIN.
The zero tolerance policy made no sense to me before as an european, but now that I know it is paracetamol, I can only think it went beyond ridicule , broke the fourth barrier, to explode in the face.
Call me troll, or off topic, but I can only shake head.
As for the dirty candy things, how often did that happens ? Was it all kids ? From my time as kids we did not have candy which were so dirty as to make more than our own shirt dirty. What the heck are you selling in AMerica ? Exploding melted chocolate candy ?
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
What the hell is happening to our schools? Is there too many chiefs, and not enough Indians?
This is the most absolutely ridiculous story I have heard this week. Oh wait! This is Monday!
On a serious note... didn't the teachers see a problem with disciplining the child like that? Don't they have better things to do?
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.
I got out of public school almost 15 years ago. And back then it was pretty crazy with rules that were enforced by mindless drones. Not a lot of critical thinking going on with the staff at my public school. (especially middle school for some reason).
I think things are probably worse now than when I went to school. It's like some kind of nightmarish Orwellian dystopia. A rule for every behavior, where the rules are applied sporadically but harshly. There is so much fear in schools that some parent or interest group is going to prosecute that they act like idiots and get themselves in even more trouble.
What hasn't changed since I was in school is how public schools will stubbornly stand by their moronic decisions.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Something I hear a lot is that people are disgusted by the number of fat people in this country and want to keep our children away from fatty foods... this here is the result of that thinking. We've started to ban soda from schools. Candy is next. So is that acceptable? I don't know, but there is certainly a line to be found somewhere where we're protecting the children or denying them what they want to eat.
How is it that teenagers are getting child porn charges for simple nudity or partial nudity? Nudity alone isn't generally considered porn. There are a number of movies a person can rent from a regular video store or buy on Amazon that have minors nude. (Pretty Baby, American Beauty, Zeffirelli Romeo & Juliet etc)
I wholeheartedly agree. If we can't get rid of zero-tolerance or "THE RULES", perhaps the "bright guys" at the top could try to codify common sense. Something like:
Here are "THE RULES" 1-N...
Rule N+1 is: You must make a good faith attempt to understand the context of and apply common sense to each individual situation. If you do not, these rules hold you to be just as accountable (or more at fault?) as if you had completely disregarded them.
Then perhaps they could write in to the official HR description of all administrative jobs: #1 required job qualification: Common Sense.
...might work. Uh, never mind...
-N.
Awww, is somebody still upset about their Jolly Rancher?
Give me a break... some school districts count Fried French fries as a serving of vegetables....
Not in Texas, I don’t think:
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
needs to take advantage of the situation and send this girl a lifetime supply of Jolly Ranchers - or even better, send every household in Orchard, TX a free bag of candy. What will definitely turn into a PR nightmare for the district can be a PR coup for the candymaker!
T.J. Schmitz - the man, the myth, the legend - o
Principal: Hi Mrs. Poorkid? We caught your kid in school with a gum.
Mom: So... guns are allowed, no?
Principal: Yes, no wait. Oh. Never mind then. um wait. crud.
Wow. Fascism redux. It is amazing how bad our government is going. This is one of the reasons we homeschool our children. Imagine this, in our farmily kids are encouraged, even required to carry a razor sharp knife. Urbanites have lost touch with reality. Time to cull.
Caught with Jolly Ranchers huh? Should we read her Miranda rights, or treat her as an enemy combatant?
this teacher needs to get a life , what a mean & angry person
The faculty member was just looking forward to spending some quality time alone with this little girl in detention.
The Nuremberg Defense is a legal defense that essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders" ("Befehl ist Befehl", literally "order is order") and is therefore not responsible for his or her crimes.
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
'Whether or not a child cries, we have to follow the rules under our Zero Intelligence Policy,' said school superintendent Jack Ellis.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
They found it because they were peeping at her laptop web cam.
'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,' said school superintendent Jack Ellis
Actually, you don't have to follow the rules.
What you could of done was just took the candy away and told the kids they can't eat that during school hours.
You could of ignored it.
You could of used the incident to maybe get the rules changed.
Instead, you choose to be a sheep and follow the letter of the rule, not it's intent.
Yes, I know, you run a school and you want your kids to understand rules are to be followed. but seriously, dumb rules won't be followed by kids. They just figure away around them.
So why don't you do something good for the kids, and learn to think for yourself, and share that with the kids.
Be seeing you...
Does the school have a few webcams mounted on laptops that they used to catch her eating the candy?
Why wouldn't confiscating the candy be punishment enough? Children typically tend to have a strong attachment to foods they like.
8==8 Bones 8==8
it would have only cost her one extra detention (well at least at my school), definitely worth it ...
There seems to be a default response to tough decisions: let's just follow protocol. These protocols are the results of our unwillingness to think deeply about problems individually. Instead, we just create more and more rules and laws that govern our social behavior and decision making. In this case, the girl snuck a piece of candy into her lunch was reprimanded and the officials who could not see the absurdity in handing her detention. And they backed it by following the "rules." Why were these rules created and for what purpose? It's a sign of mental laziness that is plaguing our country when it comes to making rational decisions. Of course protocol has its place in societies, and it should definitely be there, but we cannot stop checking the consistency and rationale of these protocols and rules. So when a girl is given detention for a few grams of candy, we shouldn't be asking why do these rules exist, but why are these rules enforced so sternly for such a minor infraction?
effective sneaking and concealing messes (or framing others for them). Ah, I see! - this law is meant to prepare children for life in the corporate world.
This isn't news. I got in trouble for all sorts of shit when I was in school, and I don't recall ever trying to make a news report about it.
The school bans candy, the child disobeyed, the child is punished. Seriously, that's all. I got in trouble for running when I was in school - that doesn't make them fascists, and the school wasn't just trying to make an example out of me, and my parents didn't get enraged and scream at the principal. No, instead, I stopped running, I took my punishment (Staying after class), and that was that.
-Bill
She had go for a smoke break.
This is a hard lesson for a child to learn, but thanks to Zero Tolerance, she is now learning that adults can do stupid things, and that authority figures are not always worthy of respect. This is a lesson she will use later in life.
You forgot to click "Post Anonymously", and you're wrong.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Funny how nutrition is a concern in a state where obesity and stupidity are the main exports.
How could they know if the jolly rancher was in her mouth unless they observed it, inherently affecting the outcome.
OK -- so let one child bring in a whole bag of candy and share it. Then place the entire school in lockdown. You can't coddle these... children.
-- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD
This should be Jamie Oliver's next special. :)
In many schools, students are forbidden from sharing food due to allergy concerns. I don't know of anybody allergic to Jolly Ranchers, but sharing candy containing nuts should be a no-no. If a kid brings candy from home, that should be the kid's own business. If a kid gets candy from another kid, that should only be the school's business if the kid's parents have given the school a directive to prevent food sharing.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
" 'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,'"
Fuck you. Fuck people like you who are so cowardly you have stopped using your brain.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Help me out, will ya? Do we blame "W" or Obama for this one? :)