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."
From our so-called educators.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
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.
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.
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.
having actually RTFA (crazy i know), her parents didn't give her the candy, another student did, and the law is quite clear that no restrictions are placed on food given to a child by their parent. odd that no mention is given as to what, if any, punishment was given to the student who gave her the candy, and either way a weeks worth of detention for a 3rd grader is a massive overreaction for pretty much anything short of violence.
What if she were diabetic and her blood sugar was low?
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
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.
...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.
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?
I don't see where getting it from a friend is any different from bringing it from home. It's a freakin' piece of candy. I'm from Texas and this is just stupid.
+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.
The state guidelines are supposed to apply to the school itself. "Federal regulations do not permit foods of minimal nutritional value to be served in the food service area during meal periods." Giving a candy to a friend is not "serving" food. And even if it was, it would be the kid who provided it who was in violation, not that kid who ate it.
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?
... 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.
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.
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.
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). Our society is getting all sorts of fucked up and it usually seems to center around moronic school officials and their power trips and FUD about how some kid with a Jolly Rancher will somehow turn out to be a murderous psychopath who wants to raze an entire school.
I'm from Texas and this is just stupid.
Well... you said it, not me.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
She should have just eaten the evidence.
"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.
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.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Whats wrong? Political Correctness and Liberalism is running rampant. Its only going to get worse with Obama and company in charge.
And yes, I posted as AC because I know Slashdot is full of liberals who automatically mark any comment that might be critical Obama and left as troll or flame bait.
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.
Or I guess more specifically, the 14th Amendment.
I don't see in there anywhere the text "emancipated adults", nor any reference to age at all.
But let me guess, you're a teacher. If you teach any sort of American History, Civics, or Politics classes, you gloss over these little details, and/or add in your own verbiage as you see fit.
I have kids, AND I've dated women with school age children. If the school has tried to overstep their bounds, I've reminded them of exactly such. It's been very rare, but there is the occasional bad apple. Usually it's only taken a polite phone call to the principal to get the error straightened out. As a parent and parental figure, it's my job to protect my children from people like you.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
It's not stupid....it's the New Order under the Obama Regime! YOU WILL NOT EAT ANYTHING WE DO NOT APPROVE OF!!
I'm posting this to a bunch of conservative blogs. Could it be /. has seen the light? Could it be the massive brainpower of /. readers FINALLY developed a sense of logic?
"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.
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.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
From the link in 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. The policy also explicitly states that school officials may adopt a local policy that is more restrictive than the state's.
I agree, a screwed up school administrator
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.
> Instead of banning hard candies, ban making messes and punish those who do.
Nope, can't do that, see the gun control debate...
Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
There are two separate and distinct questions.
The first, and the one I was quite clearly responding to is, "Does the constitution apply to minors." The answer is unequivocally yes.
The second question, the one nobody asked, and the one you seem to be hell bent on incongruously attaching my response to, is whether age, or more accurately attendance of a public school can diminish your rights. The answer is also obviously yes.
If the constitution didn't apply to students there would be one decision, not, as you say, mountains of case law feeling out the bounds of in loco parentis. That one decision would be to minors what Dred Scott was to blacks.
~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 eat my candy and don't get it all over then it's ok, but if I use it to gum up the copy machine then I'll get in trouble" and learn how to get along in the world. All this girl learned is that rules are arbitrarily made up and enforced by those with power over her, so she may as well do whatever the hell she wants 'cause eventually someone is gonna kicker her in the teeth with a made up rule about something she'd least expect.
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.
'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...
For most people, no, it's not the only reason. First... none of those markets can even begin to approach the ubiquity and profitability of the drug trade. We are talking billions of dollars flowing among hundreds of millions of drug producers, sellers, and consumers. Second - and more importantly - all of the examples you listed involve crimes with victims. Producing, selling, and using drugs are all inherently victimless crimes: no person is harmed or deprived of their rights as a consequence of these actions.
Criminal organizations make the vast majority of their profit from the drug trade, because the market for drugs is huge, but they engage in many other crimes as well, including the ones you mentioned. If we can deprive criminal organizations of the profit they make from drugs, they will inevitably be weakened - their ability to use money to influence and bribe corrupt government officials to their ends will be reduced. No doubt they will redouble their efforts to make profit from other markets, but the markets for the things you mentioned are nowhere near as ubiquitous as the demand for drugs is (and there is no reason to believe that criminal organizations aren't already trying to maximize the profit they make from these other ventures.)
A programmer is a machine for turning pizza into code.