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."

Comments

State Guidelines?

[the_one_wesp]

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.

Re:RTFA

[lastchance_000]

Then the friend should be punished according to the state's policy. Oh, wait, there's no punishment mandated for students violating the policy (it's enforced against the schools by the Dept. Of Agriculture). Sounds like another case of the local school administrator thinking with something other than his or her brain.

Re:RTFA

[natehoy]

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. Oh, and by the way, the friend was also punished with the same detention.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy

[joeyblades]

Ummm... in what universe do you live? In mine, public school is not FREE... It's built into my tax structure. As such, I have certain expectations about how my money should be used to educate the kids rather than abuse them... and let's be clear, punishing that little girl for a piece of candy that is clearly not in violation of the state guideline is abuse and caused her much more harm than a few extra calories...

Re:RTFA

[lastchance_000]

Interesting that that statement came after the story about the school getting a letter from the state saying they went too far.

Re:RTFA

[googlesmith123]

How interesting. That article reads very differently.

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

[palegray.net]

I suppose it's a good thing you don't have a law degree, as you'd be an awful attorney. Minors do not universally enjoy the same expression of constitutional rights as adults (as an example, the principle of in loco parentis regarding school environments). The Supreme Court has held that certain minor rights may be abridged under certain circumstances, as explained in references like this one, along with countless others.

You are advised to educate yourself before continuing to post on this topic.