Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

3rd-Grader Busted For Jolly Rancher Possession

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the step-away-from-the-candy dept.

Education 804

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."

cancel ×

804 comments

What were the parents thinking ? (5, Funny)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155700)

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.

Not her parents... (4, Interesting)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155834)

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.

Re:Not her parents... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156188)

Well obviously we have to crack down on this before the underground network of candy distribution of schools becomes a threat to our children's education and health. Unchecked candy eating will lead to precious seconds taken away from education due to required teeth brushing.

-- gid

RTFA (0, Redundant)

mrops (927562) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156250)

Candy was given to this kid by her friend.

Re:RTFA (5, Insightful)

TheReij (1641099) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156396)

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.

Re:What were the parents thinking ? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155966)

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.

Re:What were the parents thinking ? (0, Redundant)

AtomicOrange (1667101) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156108)

+4, +3 Insightful? Wow Mods, whoosh. This is funny. Your lack of noticing the tongue-in-cheek comment is even funnier.

Re:What were the parents thinking ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156436)

Of course people understand it. Are you going for meta-irony here?

Re:What were the parents thinking ? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156220)

What were the parents thinking ?

Obviously, if they had given the situation any thought they would made sure she had an Unjolly Rancher or a Sour Ball to more accurately reflect the school's position on this whole "threat of candy" issue.

Re:What were the parents thinking ? (4, Funny)

homey of my owney (975234) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156472)

Guns don't kill people, Jolly Ranchers do.

More "zero tolerance" idiocy (4, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155718)

From our so-called educators.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (4, Insightful)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155850)

I would add that this law is totally invading the right of the person to eat whatever he/she wants! Who are they to tell me NOT to eat a pack of Jolly Rancher? Or to tell my kid that I should not let him/her eat this crap occasionnaly?

When did the Jolly Ranchers become illegal and subject to be excluded from school?

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (2, Insightful)

KDEnut (1673932) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156194)

Exactly. Who gets to decide what "Acceptable Nutritional value" is? What if the teacher is a vegan? Does that mean I can't send my child to school with a hot-dog? Besides, last time I looked sugars WERE on the accepted food pyramid.

This policy was obviously supposed to help direct the school lunch providers, as the school board has no right to dictate to parents what they can and cannot send with their child for lunch.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156334)

RTFA jackass. first off, the teachers have NO say in what is and isn't acceptable, it was decided by the state. second, the state has no regulation on what you can give to your kids, but the candy was not given to the kid by her parents. third, are you really going to pack a hot dog in your kids lunch, which gets made in the morning and then sits in a locker for 5 hours? thats fucking disgusting.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (1, Insightful)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156424)

I would like to point out (without supporting or defending this at all) that kids dont really have rights in schools. Theyre minors in the care of an adult, teachers have the right to set rules and enforce them to a limited degree, and that includes (so far as I am aware) saying "if you eat candy you get a detention". Whether or not a teacher doing so should or would remain employed for long is another matter.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156450)

When did the Jolly Ranchers become illegal and subject to be excluded from school?

When the school stopped selling the candy themselves I would guess.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (2, Insightful)

k8to (9046) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156458)

Redundantly, the law doesn't say that at all. The law is a restriction on what the school itself may provide for students as food, in order to force them to provide healthy meals for their students. There are no restrictions placed on what parents may provide for students for their own meals, on nutritional grounds. The school is just being ridiculous.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155858)

This is "zero tolerance" done the wrong way. If we're going to go zero tolerance, we need to go all the way. Upon discovery of the illicit candy, she should have been summarily executed on the spot.

Seriously though, a week detention for candy? How about starting with a polite note home to the parents explaining the policy? All a detention will do is set up an adversarial relationship where the parents will fight the school on everything they try to do from now on.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (3, Interesting)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156036)

All a detention will do is set up an adversarial relationship where the parents will fight the school on everything they try to do from now on.

If that happens, it'll be the best thing that ever happened to the kid. My mom's often adversarial relationship with school administrations kept me out of some truly weird shit.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (5, Interesting)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156086)

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.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (1)

KillaBeave (1037250) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156198)

That's because zero thought ... er ... I mean, zero tolerance rules and their enforcement like this is PRECISELY bullying.

Makes me sick.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156178)

Since there is no restriction on what foods the parents pack for their kids, as a parent I would be compelled to make a statement by sending my child to school with a large lunchbox filled to the rim with Jolly Ranchers with instructions to sit through detention enjoying them visibly and loudly. I would make sure I spoke with the administration beforehand so they understood I will be doing this.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156240)

It was not the parents who gave her the choccy bar...

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156320)

So? It's still as dumb as a bag of hammers.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156416)

All a detention will do is set up an adversarial relationship where the parents will fight the school on everything they try to do from now on.

You say that as if it is a bad thing.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (1)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156488)

Gosh, this is going to come of as a bit of lunacy, but sometimes zero tolerance policies are the only way to repeal bad laws.

Laws tend to beget other laws. For example, in my workplace gym there used to be people who would stay on the treadmills for hours at a time and prevent others from using them. So they put up a sign that requested people limit their treadmill time to 20 minutes. So people started setting the timer for twenty minutes. When that was up, they'd reset it. Pretty soon I expect to see another sign telling people to limit their total time per day to twenty minutes.

In the real world I'm torn between having lots of very specific laws or a few broad laws. When the laws are too broad it leads to abuse by the people who make or enforce the laws. When laws are too narrow they are effectively meaningless.

In this case we have a law that is relatively new and thus has no real guidelines. It is subject to abuse.

By instituting a zero tolerance policy, my hope is that some people will see the current failings of the law and either repeal the law or clarify the loopholes. If there were no ZTP, then the law could be selectively enforced based on arbitrary and unwritten guidelines.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156022)

From our so-called educators.

The bigger question is does this law pertain to the "educators" as well? Shouldn't a teacher get a dock in pay if caught with a Jolly Rancher for not setting a proper example?

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy (0)

angelwolf71885 (1181671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156224)

its going to be worse when Obama institutes taxes on " unhealthy foods " its called excises Obama and we can eat what ever the fuck we want

Wow... (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155744)

This has to be the most idiotic story I've read in years. Someone clearly isn't in touch with reality here.

Re:Wow... (3, Informative)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155972)

>>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.

Re:Wow... (3, Funny)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156176)

> 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!!

Re:Wow... (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156336)

They made the font bigger on the signs.

if there had been really massive signs at columbine you can be sure it wouldn't have happened.
Are you saying we shouldn't protect our children!!!!

Re:Wow... (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156340)

This has to be the most idiotic story I've read in years. Someone clearly isn't in touch with reality here.

You must be from Dashspot.

Here in Slashdot we've got far more idiotic stories this week alone.

Re:Wow... (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156508)

It's average for a US public school story. Remember, there have been girls permanently expelled from entire school districts, over a bottle of ibuprofen. ZERO TOLERANCE. "No drugs doesn't mean illegal drugs, it means no substances with an effect on your body!" Except all the caffeine from the Coke-owned vending machines that line the halls. Or, technically, any kind of food, since anything you ingest has SOME kind of effect on body chemistry.

Or, for that matter, the times that principals have strip searched girls and found them hiding the dreaded asprin in their panties, and the courts have ruled in their favor, child is permanently banned from all schools, principal has done nothing wrong. If you have cramps, tough it the fuck out, aspirin is a gateway drug. Or that one principal who lined up every girl in skirt, and made them all lift them to prove they were wearing appropriate panties. Nothing wrong with that. Like in prisons, the law says that the principal can do ANYTHING if the purpose can be argued to be to enforce order among the inmates.

What will the future become? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155754)

When the adults act like children who will the students emulate later in life?

Re:What will the future become? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155884)

Niggers?

Re:What will the future become? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156056)

Lawyers?

To the teacher that took the candy, (1)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155790)

suck it! That's what it's for right?

Kids today. (5, Insightful)

Petersko (564140) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155800)

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.

Re:Kids today. (1)

ckaminski (82854) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155906)

yeah, but I'm pretty sure you didn't get away with lighting up a joint in the middle of the lunchroom under the watchful eye of a dozen or so teachers fearful of breaking the rules and losing their jobs.

Re:Kids today. (2, Insightful)

charleste (537078) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156448)

...under the watchful eye...
I'm pretty sure you're not describing my kids school...

Re:Kids today. (1)

zorg50 (581726) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156006)

You smoked weed in third grade?

Re:Kids today. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156358)

You didn't?

Re:Kids today. (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156030)

She's only in third grade. Don't worry though, thanks to the school's efforts she will learn quickly. How to hide stuff from her teachers, that is.

Re:Kids today. (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156330)

Learning to get away with stuff is vital to the developmental process

I know you meant this in jest, but there's some truth to what you're saying: Pushing the envelope, testing the rules, authority, and the environment around you is an essential part of childhood and adolescence. If they never explore and discover their own boundaries, they'll remain at risk of blundering into dangerous territory. I challenge my 13 yo sister whenever I see her to explore and open her up to new experiences. While she does it under my supervision, that doesn't negate the point I'm making:

Kids who don't explore don't grow. And testing limits is a natural part of that process... if you went through your childhood without ever getting into trouble and had only perfect grades, you're badly prepared for adult living.

Minimal nutrition foods? (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155808)

But it contains an amount of sugar that is the recommended amount for 3 days!

Re:Minimal nutrition foods? (2, Informative)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156432)

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).

Its as easy as... (5, Funny)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155902)

taking candy from a 3rd grader

This is Not all Bad News (5, Insightful)

skywire (469351) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155912)

This third grader, her parents and those who read the story are learning a valuable lesson about the nature of the state.

Re:This is Not all Bad News (2, Insightful)

Asic Eng (193332) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156044)

About a specific state. It doesn't have to be like this, it is not like this in most western countries and people in the US should demand better.

Re:This is Not all Bad News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156162)

This was a "PR" stunt to bring attention to (and contest) the 'minimal nutrition' guidelines.
The mother was quite involved from the beginning.

Re:This is Not all Bad News (0, Troll)

anngd (1542981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156088)

Big Brother comes from the left.

Re:This is Not all Bad News (3, Informative)

keithjr (1091829) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156234)

Errr, refresh my memory, when did small town Texas become a left-wing haven?

Trying to make a partisan issue out of a nonpartisan one only muddies the water.

Re:This is Not all Bad News (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156510)

And makes the poster look like a fool.

Re:This is Not all Bad News (1)

Redlite (1588373) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156454)

Amen.

Re:This is Not all Bad News (5, Insightful)

Buelldozer (713671) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156270)

This article, and many more like it, prove the existence of a growing "Nanny State.". I often read people dismissing "Slippery Slope" arguments but here is a real life example.

Someone passed a guideline to try and help children eat healthier and suddenly children are being punished for possessing a piece of candy.

It doesn't take a genius to see how this is going to play out in other realms such as healthcare and finance. After all, the bureaucratic morons running the schools are essentially the same bureaucratic morons that you'll find doing the administrative work in local, state, and federal governments.

No, not all of the administrators in a school or the government are morons. Many of them are intelligent and capable people. The problem is that they're outnumbered by the morons.

Re:This is Not all Bad News (0, Flamebait)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156356)

Yeah, the lesson is "Everything is Dumber in Texas".

Re:This is Not all Bad News (2, Insightful)

arks32 (677043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156414)

'Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,' said school superintendent Jack Ellis. This is the statement from the highly "educated" and very well paid superintendent. This is the system that the vast majority of the population imprisons their children in from ages 5-17.

Today it's candy, tomorrow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32155932)

Today it's candy, tomorrow it's drugs and before you kow it they're smoking crack while living on the streets.

Re:Today it's candy, tomorrow... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155994)

"Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!" -Venkman

This just in: Hypoglycemic child dies... (5, Insightful)

razathorn (151590) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155936)

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.

Re:This just in: Hypoglycemic child dies... (1)

JasoninKS (1783390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155996)

Nah...the school would still just say they're following the state guidelines, therefore "it's not our fault."

Diabetics (2, Insightful)

Kraftwerk (629978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155976)

What if she were diabetic and her blood sugar was low?

I don't get it (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Cowpat (788193) | more than 4 years ago | (#32155982)

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.

Not an idiocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156002)

Idiocracy implies that there are idiots from top to bottom.

In practice, this is simply what happens when rules written by people who are quite intelligent and well-meaning and only part-idiot (because they don't anticipate the problems) are supposed to be carried out in practice by a lot of average joes.

"Have less candies in schools" is a good rule. Achieving this goal by expelling children with candies is a bad attempt at enforcing a good rule.

State Guidelines? (5, Informative)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156016)

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 [squaremeals.org] my big fat triple stacker cheeseburger. That would have had to been a school imposed Policy, according to this.

Re:State Guidelines? (1)

the_one_wesp (1785252) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156210)

Unless the candy was provided by another student, not the parents, as TFA says.

It was DETENTION (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156018)

It's not like she was expelled. People need to toughen up a little. I got detention for things my friends did that I got blamed for but I didn't make a state case out of it.

Not My Child You Don't... (4, Insightful)

blcamp (211756) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156054)

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.

Re:Not My Child You Don't... (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156308)

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.

And then you would arrested. And, given your vitriolic rage, you would fail the 'attitude test' and probably be beaten by the cops. You could try to get the public on your side by engaging the press, and that might might actually work. But as soon as the media's attention is elsewhere you would likely be forced to move away by the authorities.

Not to I wouldn't do the same thing :)

Re:Not My Child You Don't... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156364)

A simple chat with the Principal might be a better place to start, no?

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156068)

I'm only 12 years old and what is this?!

Fascism... (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156080)

And in Texas, no less.

There may in fact be no hope for our Union.

Re:Fascism... (2, Funny)

muckracer (1204794) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156282)

> 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... :-)

Reading the article (3, Interesting)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156090)

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.

Re:Reading the article (3, Funny)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156246)

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'm suggesting it. She should be charged as an adult with contributing to the delinquency of a minor - Punishment of up to 12 months in jail and/or a fine of up to $2500.00. Anything less and the terrorists will have won.

Re:Reading the article (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156386)

This did happen in Texas... somehow I doubt the teachers are exactly "liberal biassed"... in fact, on the contrary, this seems much more the type of bullshit you get from religious-right conservatives.

Personally... I stand by my belief that discipline is an illusory concept. It doesn't exist. Now SELF-discipline on the other hand, can exist and is actually usefull. If you teach kids to behave because they get punished otherwise - all you do is teach them to hide their transgressin (hence the suggestion that discipline is purely an illusion)... hell at my high school smoking was not prohibited BUT smoking in school uniforum or on school grounds was.
Nobody cared if you smoked, nobody cared about offering anti-smoking help to kids... but they had to maintain the ILLUSION that none of the pupils smoked.
A similiar rule prohibited makiing out in school uniform - even when you weren't on school property you couldn't hold your girlfriend's hand if you were still identifiable as students.

That's the illusion of discipline.

If I ever do decide to reproduce - I want my kids to go to a school that helps me to teach them SELF discipline instead. Don't follow the rules because you're afraid of punishment if you get caught. Do the right thing because you know it's right. Who knows... maybe we'll get a generation of young adults who don't think the only reason not to stab an old lady for her purse is "that you may get caught" (and then that becomes acceptable the moment the potential risk of getting caught starts to feel less than the immediate benefits of the crime) but who won't do that because they actually respect other people's rights as they demand their own to be respected.

Re:Reading the article (1)

Belial6 (794905) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156412)

Jolly Ranchers are a gateway crime. Today a piece of candy tomorrow MUSIC!

Obsurd (1)

DWRECK18 (1796294) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156096)

This has to be the most obsurd story I have ever seen. Honestly to say that we are banning all minimal nutrition foods, is rediculous. Why is it this country has started to give the Gov't so much power that now they decide what we are and aren't allowed to eat, and where we are going to eat it at? I know I love candy and hell in my old h/s the band kids sold some phenomenal chocolate chip cookies. We even had a snack line that you could get candy. What are the fundraisers now gonna be well were not gonna sell cookies or chocolate, we selling vegetables from now on and maybe some fruit. Seriously this is just rediculous. I don't blame the kid or the parents or even the kid that gave the candy to the girl. I would just skip detention and let them suspend my kid for however many days they want. This is just ludicrous. Hell even my kid whos 2 gets to eat chocolate and such every now and again. Its not like he gets it every day but really to have the gov't or the school or whomever step in and say its illegal is WRONG!

First Jolly Ranchers... (3, Funny)

mtinsley (1283400) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156128)

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... (2, Insightful)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156148)

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?

Liars (5, Insightful)

Jer (18391) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156150)

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.

Re:Liars (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156332)

And these are the people we're depending on to teach our children "critical thinking?" Zero tolorance, when applied in this way, is just laziness. As Jer said, it's easy to claim that it's a state regulation, but it's also easy to treach all infractions the same and thus avoid having to justify your actiosn to a parent.

Re:Liars (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156468)

Schools, like government, are full of idiots. These are people who are often incapable of getting a job in the real world. Why we put up with this with our kids, I have no idea ( I sure don't, but I'm in the minority ).

This aside from teachers, who are a whole different bag of fuckup. Most teachers are genuinely interested in doing their jobs, but the minority plus the unions pretty much guarantee that the best they can hope for is mediocrity.

Welcome to the future (0, Troll)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156158)

The more we socialize responsibility for health care, the more power the government needs to control costs...

Oh really? (1)

tekproxy2 (1386447) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156164)

Even more idiotic than, say, installing webcam surveillance software on laptops that are rented by children and then punishing children for "immoral acts" that they do at home? I'd say it's a tough call.

What would be the problem with... (2, Insightful)

drc003 (738548) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156212)

...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.

"Whether or not I agree with the guidelines", etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156218)

So, the state guideline banned Jolly Ranchers and the school was simply adhering to that, whether they liked it or not. Fine. Did the state also mandate a week's detention for possession? Wouldn't confiscation be enough?

Surprising? No. (0, Troll)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156232)

Really is this surprising to anyone? Coming from the same state that is thinking of not teaching evolution [slashdot.org] anymore and approved the editing of school books to push a conservative agenda [slashdot.org] ?? Everything is big in Texas, including the level of stupidity at all levels of education and common sense.

Perhaps it is time for Texas to secede from the union...this time we won't stop you Texas.

call Walker! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156280)

They're in Texas and if it's a law, a Ranger will enforce it... they will meet with Chuck Norris!

Wow! (1)

gsmraxe (442187) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156288)

And to think that when I was in school, we could take a knife with us as long as the blade was under 6", we had a smoking area in HS and if we got caught smoking pot in the bathroom, the teacher would flush it down the toilet and call our parents. We could buy sodas for lunch, bring whatever we wanted as far as food. Oh yeah, my "walkman" got confiscated once, I got it back at the end of the day tho...I also wore tshirts to school proclaiming "Yngwie F*cking Malmsteen that's who!"

I wish I still had my pee chee folder that had the knife rules on it...it would be hilarious.

What about the pusher? (2, Funny)

ExRex (47177) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156290)

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.

Entry level drug (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32156294)

Next thing you know she'll be doing Pixy Sticks lines and smoking chocolate cigarettes behind the school.

The Health Police vs Personal Accountability (2, Insightful)

Eddie Eights (1611709) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156368)

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?

knife at school (2, Informative)

tg (34562) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156378)

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...

Better than.... (1)

Hollovoid (942476) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156382)

A Jolly Roger cookbook that got our school evacuated for hours back in the day.. something about a guide for mass destruction laying around with notes handwritten all over wasn't found as amusing by our school staff at the time.

Well... (1)

clo1_2000 (1790952) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156400)

I'll be surprised if the ACLU isn't all over this like a bee on honey; oh wait, is honey on the list too?

Ahh, but... (2, Funny)

Lars T. (470328) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156402)

Do they get detention for eating the "food" from the school cafeteria?

Re:Ahh, but... (2, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#32156440)

Do they get detention for eating the "food" from the school cafeteria?

Nah, eating the food from the cafeteria is punishment enough.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...