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."

Re:Wow...

[ShakaUVM]

>>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.

State Guidelines?

[the_one_wesp]

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:This is Not all Bad News

[keithjr]

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.

knife at school

[tg]

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...

Re:Minimal nutrition foods?

[dubbreak]

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).

Bad summary, and intentionally misleading coverage

[natehoy]

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 [mysanantonio.com]

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.

Re:RTFA

[lastchance_000]

Then the friend should be punished according to the state's policy. Oh, wait, there's no punishment mandated for students violating the policy [state.tx.us] (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.

Re:RTFA

[natehoy]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html [mysanantonio.com]

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.

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy

[joeyblades]

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...

Re:Fascism...

[ElectricTurtle]

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).

Re:Parents like you are a problem...

[sconeu]

GP wasn't threatening personal and financial ruin on a teacher -- he was threatening school administration, as a proxy for the district.

Re:Bad summary, and intentionally misleading cover

[JohnnyComeLately]

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.

Re:I don't get it

[oddTodd123]

To Jack Ellis, superintendent of Brazos Independent School District, the story is simple: The district prohibits students from having candy and gum on campus, and the third-graders broke the rules. Ellis defended Principal Jeanne Young's decision to give the girls five days of detention, which they served during recess and lunch.

from http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html [mysanantonio.com]

Re:This is Not all Bad News

[oddTodd123]

This was not about children eating healthier. It was about gum and hard candy making a mess and being banned by the school district.

The small school district, which has three campuses in Orchard and Wallis, bans gum and candy because, [Superintendent] Ellis said, “It creates a mess. It's all over your furniture and your floors.”

from http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/education/Candy_is_dandy__but_not_at_school_3rd-grader_learns.html [mysanantonio.com]

I was a victim of the Texas Dept of Education

[Iknow Thisgirl...]

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.

Re:RTFA

[lastchance_000]

Interesting that that statement came after the story about the school getting a letter from the state saying they went too far. [khou.com]

Re:More "zero tolerance" idiocy

[IndustrialComplex]

First of all, children are NOT stripped of their rights in a school. They may have a reduced right set, but only as it pertains to 'In Loco Parentis'. As a government run institution, a school cannot legally make rules that strip away constitutionally protected rights outside of the 'in loco parentis' framework.

I'd think a better way to put it would be this:

Students have the same rights in school as out of school. The school however, receives additional, typically parental, rights.

Re:What were the parents thinking ?

[Rene S. Hollan]

Actually no, most "child protection" laws are civil laws. This means that children can be removed from homes, and parents punished for "abuse" or "neglect" without due process of law. Many people do not understand this and wonder why their children are removed without them being found guilty of any crime.

Realize that you have the right to due process prior to being deprived of life or liberty. But, one's children do not fall into either category. The best constitutional argument. I would think, would be violating a child's rights to associate with their parents, but as far as I know, such an argument has not been made.

Similarly, to give schools even more power over children is best served by civil laws and actions, and not criminal ones: the standards of evidence are lower (heresay is permissible, and preponderance is sufficient, instead of a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt").

Re:RTFA

[googlesmith123]

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.

Re:RTFA

[Mr. Slippery]

I'm so sick of this crap. The constitution applies to emancipated adults.

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." [bc.edu]

You may now apologize to the GP poster for your ignorance-based insults.

Re:RTFA

[palegray.net]

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 [usconstitution.net], along with countless others.

You are advised to educate yourself before continuing to post on this topic.

Re:RTFA

[palegray.net]

Why it is so difficult for you to comprehend the difference between "didn't apply to" and "is limited in its application to" is completely beyond me.

Given this, your attempted strawman fails terribly. Nice try, though. The chain between your original flawed statement and its subsequent correction remains intact.

I offer you this in closing: Advancing in Debate: Skills & Concepts [perfectionlearning.com]