Yet another Zero-Tolerance Makes Zero-Sense school case.
 

Where a 10 year old gets a week's detention because a fellow student had given her a jolly rancher candy.

http://www.khou.com/news/Candy-Gets-...-93033319.html

The school’s principal and superintendent said they were simply complying with a state law that limits junk food in schools. Jack Ellis, the superintendent for Brazos Independent School District, declined an on-camera interview. But he said the school was abiding by a state guideline that banned “minimal nutrition” foods.

It doesn't restrict what the parents allow the kid to have.. but another kid giving them a jolly rancher=a week's detention??

This was over before it began, according to the other article linked in the cited article.

how about giving the kid a warning? jeez

So do schools have no discretion on whether or not to apply 'no/zero tolerance' policies?

Shouldn't the other student who provided it get in trouble too?

I'm wondering if the teachers told these kids about the policy. That'd be my question before I went ape shit on someone.

In Texas, they punish the user, not the pusher.

That's kind of getting overlooked here.

My question is - "What does that mean?"

Does that mean this girl was pestering other kids for candy constantly? Or that the kid handing it out was in trouble for supplying before (but if so why not this time)? Or that there was some massive market for jolly ranchers that kids were bringing into school and selling (and if so, why punish the users instead of the distributors)??

Or just a general problem where they don't want kids sharing their lunch candy?

Too little information, but the fact that only one kid got suspended for it (that we know of) makes zero sense.

The penalties for a school or teacher violating the FMNV laws are pretty strict. There was a school district in Texas that was fined hundreds of thousands of dollars. Basically, as a parent you have the right to decide what you send your child, but at school, the school is responsible for making sure that whatever else they eat is nutritional. In elementary school, we only get three days where those rules don't apply, Christmas/Winter party day in December, Valentine's Day, and end of the school year party day.

Do I like the rule? No, but it's there, and I really wouldn't want to be the teacher who caused the district to have to pay that large of a fine. The most important sentence in that article is:

Ellis said failing to adhere to the state’s guidelines could put federal funding in jeopardy.

It's just detention, who cares?

Plus this paragraph:


"The state, however, gives each school discretion over how to enforce the policy. Ellis said school officials had decided a stricter punishment was necessary after lesser penalties failed to serve as a deterrent."

I don't much give a shit what their reasoning is, it was a stupid reaction to a piece of fucking candy. If it came in with a child the school shouldn't have any right to do anything about it. The statutes appear to be in place to keep the schools themselves from feeding the kids crap.

This punishment is fucking idiotic. Another issue of overzealous administrators sticking their nose up someones ass for no valid reason.

Why does this law even exist? This is another case of out of control government with too many stupid laws.

We don't need government to run our lives for us...

In the article:


So sounds like there is no such law as the school/school district is interpreting. The intention of the policies is to keep school or vendor supplied junk out of schools. It is up to the school to decide that kid to kid candy is a violation against the spirit of the policy.

Let me twist this a hair: what if that piece of candy had peanuts in it, and the kid was allergic? It doesn't take much.

The school had a policy of no candy sharing, they tried lesser means that didn't work, so they stepped it up. This school was just as likely to have some parent get ticked off that their kid was able to get candy from someone else at school (some parents are pretty militant over this, as I think we've seen in other recent threads), and so it's a case of the school caught between a rock and a hard place.

shouldn't the kid sharing the candy get in as much trouble as the kid that took it though?

To be quite honest I'd have thought they should get in more trouble myself .... target the pushers not the users, the pushers can supply 100 users, the users are victims .... man :popcorn: ;)

As stupid as this whole situation seems on the surface, I've got to agree with Greg here. Sometimes the school ends up in a no-win situation where even *they're* going to find themselves punished for using common sense if they take less than a hard line.

Sucks, but there it is.

As my kids are just about done with school now, I can only sit back and be thankful that most of our school admins were perfectly content to stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la, what I don't hear didn't happen" most of the time.