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.
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.
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.
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.
I remember when I was 10 or 11 some kid being sent home because their parents had sent them to school with a couple of Tylenol because they'd hurt their arm. The Tylenol was deemed to violate the school's zero tolerance on drugs rule.
As I recall, the parents ended up getting an apology from the Principal.
What always amuses me about "zero tolerance" rules in schools is that they'll enforce it against these sorts of idiotic things, but if it's zero tolerance rule against bullying, they go out of their way not to enforce it. It's a classic case, often seen in bureaucracies and police forces, of trying to look tough by taking on easily enforceable bans and basically turning their backs on the tough stuff.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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...
"Students do not shed their constitutional rights when they enter the school house doors." -Tinker v. Desmoines
open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
If you take MY candy, I will take it from YOUR cold dead hands.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
The three Grade 11 students — who asked to be identified only as Weeman, The Fern and Goggles — told CBC News they made more than $200 in the first week of school by bulk-buying candy and chocolate bars, then selling them at a profit.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
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!
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.