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
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.
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.
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.
>>This has to be the most idiotic story I've read in years. Someone clearly isn't in touch with reality here.
Heh, when I was in high school back in the 90s, I was in journalism. We had very nearly the exact same story happen in our area. The reason was different (educators didn't want kids sticking them to desks), but the effect was the same.
We also got to run a story about a Boy Scout being kicked out of school and refused graduation because he brought a (dull-tipped) Swiss Army knife to school. I think that was upheld on appeal, too, but I can't recall the details.
In local news, a year back we had a school shooting at a local community college. The board met to discuss what should be done, since the guy clearly was in violation of the zero tolerance signs posted up all over campus.
Their decision? They made the font bigger on the signs.
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
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.
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
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 *
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.
> In local news, a year back we had a school shooting at a local community college. The board met to discuss what should be done, since the guy clearly was in violation of the zero tolerance signs posted up all over campus.
> Their decision? They made the font bigger on the signs.
Well those guys really are idiots. I mean, they shouldn't wonder if it happens again cuz they totally forgot to add Braille!!
...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.
> And in Texas, no less.
> There may in fact be no hope for our Union.
Didn't they want to secede anyway? Let them. A quick renaming into Mexas and it's all good for everybody... :-)
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
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...
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.
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
A single jolly rancher has less than 24 calories and 0 fat.
It takes longer to eat than a chocolate bar would, has 10% of the calories contained in a chocolate bar (such as a snickers) and no fat (compared to 13+ grams).
"If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
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
+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.
we should prosecute the friend. and declare the War on Candy
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
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.
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.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
... 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.
In case you have to be reminded of basic history, Texas was first an independent republic having won a revolution against Mexico before it went through the territory/statehood process (which of course was in turn before its secession as part of the CSA).
I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
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
If you take MY candy, I will take it from YOUR cold dead hands.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
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.
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.
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.
Interesting that that statement came after the story about the school getting a letter from the state saying they went too far.
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
Schools enforce any arbitrary rules that they want. I ran into 1st amendment problems in high school (freedom of the press). I was told "You can't do that.". I countered that with "The constitution says I can." They responded with "That doesn't matter, you're in our school, we say what the law is."
The local print media picked up the story, and then the school changed it's stance to "As long as his paper does not include libelous or defamatory content." Since we had stuck with running facts (mostly, I was just a teenager) interspersed with opinions, we were safe, but still told not to do it.
Food stuffs aren't constitutionally protected, as far as I know. Constitutionally protected items are ignored as they see fit.
I believe these rules come from school administration having been in their position for years without significant oversight unless an event such as these happen. They continue to extend their rules as they see fit without confirming the legality with anyone with a law background.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
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.
Say NO to unpaid Internships!
Reading the article AND finding multiple sources? Welcome, you must be new here!
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!
Given the number of digits in your UID, all I can say is...
"Why yes, yes I am new here."
Where is your lawn, so I know to avoid it? (grin)
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
She should have just eaten the evidence.
Oddly enough, I don't see any such disclaimer within the Bill of Rights. And in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, SCOTUS ruled that "First Amendment rights are available to teachers and students, subject to application in light of the special characteristics of the school environment."
You may now apologize to the GP poster for your ignorance-based insults.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
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.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
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
So screw any diabetics who carry a few hard candies in case they go hypoglycemic, I guess.
Here's a novel concept. Instead of banning hard candies, ban making messes and punish those who do. I can't recall the last time a Jolly Rancher climbed out of my pocket and made a mess somewhere -- even when I've forgotten to take him out of my pocket before I do the laundry. Kinda nice that way, sugar dissolves in hot water pretty well, rinses right way and all you have is a small wrapper left over.
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.
~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.
You can play on my lawn anytime. ;)
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
'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...