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."
Candy was given to this kid by her friend.
The only liars are the newspapers for not telling the whole story.
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 (gum, hard candy, etc) were banned because the kids were continually making a mess with them.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Then the other girl's parents included it in their school lunch, so it was exempt from the restriction. It was given to them by parents not the school.
All the girl's parents should have to say is that they approved of her having it. It really doesn't matter whether the parents handed it to her directly or gave it to her indirectly through approving of another person who had decided to give it and hold it on her behalf.
In any case, it belonged to the student. Laws regarding the transfer of property are set by the state, not the school.