CNN Reports today that an honors kid in Connecticut got suspended from school for 3 days and stripped of his class vice president title for (wait for it)…
…for buying Skittles from another kid.
Read the Article from CNN here
You know, skittles. candy. that's it. sugar coated high fructose corn syrup in 6 different colors.
School spokeswoman Catherine Sullivan-DeCarlo says the New Haven school system banned candy sales in 2003 as part of a districtwide school wellness policy.
that's it. a districtwide school wellness policy. What's good for the teeth and body isn't necessarily good for the emotional well being of the student. I guess the district wide policy does not worry about his mental health.
to be fair, he probably won't run away from home, and will probably go to college. he probably won't be one of the homeless teens we have on our streets in Portland. And the school district did reduce his sentance to just 1 day of expulsion. Maybe this will qualify him to run in a DNC Primary some day.
I don't know if we should really care at all. Maybe it's a good thing, but it seems a little extreme to me.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone but me believe the inflexibility of our nation is what's ripping it apart?
13 Comments
On the school's side of things:
When parents, media, the federal gov't all blame schools for kids being overweight, what are we (the schools) to do? If we allow candy, it's our fault kids are fat. If we ban candy, we get blasted for giving kids consequences for them not following the rules. We can't win!!!
while what you say is resoundingly true, that wasn't really my point. I remember when you and I were in high school we sold M&Ms for our SciFi club, even though we weren't allowed to sell candy on school premises. We would've gotten in trouble if we'd been caught probably. (btw, for the record I never sold a single box, but I remember Melanie selling a few).
My point is that a kid eating a bag, even a halloween-size bag of candy that he buys from another student is not really the problem. The rigid "this is the way we're going to fix the problem, even though it only addresses .75¢ worth of a $500billion a year problem" I think is the issue.
zero tolerance didn't work for Ming the Merciless, and it's not going to work for us either. You'd think after a few thousand years we'd learn that.
It would be better for the kid if instead of expelling him, they sent him to re-alignment school where they could train him on the horrors of high fructose corn syrup and early onset diabetes.
…Keep in mind I'm eating a snickers bar while I'm saying that…
Seems to me that "zero tolerance" is a kind of cop out. You don't have to worry about understanding the circumstances of the infraction. A rule has been broken; therefore, punishment must be meted out.
Zero tolerance creates an environment of rule followers and rule breakers. Yeah, some rules are certainly black & white – like 'don't bring a gun to school.' But should all rules be like that?
For this honor student who bought the candy, what if the kid selling it was desperately poor and that the honor student bought it for $10, which gives the kid a little face saving dignity? Or what if the honor student lived in an abusive home and buying the candy was the only food he could afford?
Unfortunately, I'm guessing that schools have little choice in implementing zero-tolerance policies. As funding gets cut more and more, the ability to create a healthy environment diminishes. They have less resources to understand and deal with a root cause.
I wonder what a high-school kid will remember most 10 years from now….
The kids know there are consequences. If that kid didn't want to be expelled, he shouldn't have broken the rules. If the kid (either one) was desperately poor, breaking the rules isn't the way to help. The consequences may not fit the crime, but the consequences were there before the kid broke the rule. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Perhaps it's because I have some crummy kids in my classes, but I have very little sympathy for kids who break the rules.
I do agree with you. If one can't do the time then don't do the crime.
However, when I look back on my own personal school days, almost everything that stands out involves the times when we pushed the envelope. I remember the things where we broke the rules and got away with it. I remember getting caught. I don't ever remember being expelled for candy issues though.
Often rules are set by people that don't consider all of the consequences. This looks like a clear example of that to me. When you talk about the crummy kids in your class, I have to ask are any of them honor students? what if one of them was and then she got expelled for breaking a silly rule? how would you fill about that rule then?
In this particular case, the kid lives in America. America is where our government has decided to subsidize our farmers by putting high tariffs on sugar and natural sugar substitutes, so that almost every single thing that is sweetened has corn syrup or worse, high fructose corn syrup, in it. Along with some other really odd political decisions that involve scratching each other's backs, these things that really do affect our food intake have made many more people fat. It's not caused by a kid eating candy at school.
It's not like the schoolyard is the only place in the whole world to score skittles. The eighth grader probably passes 15 or 20 places on his way to and from school where he can stop and buy skittles.
So because this rule is in place, they may have damaged a kid's future, they may have damaged a kids emotional health, they may have planted the seeds for the next virginia tech or columbine, over a bag of skittles. But the rules are the rules.
The only other thing that comes to mind is that when the rules don't make any sense logically, they become easy to break. When someone breaks the first rule for any reason, then the next rule is easier to break. As more and more rules are broken, it begins to matter less if the rule has a purpose or if the rule is just someone imposing their opinion on someone else.
We get so few chances with middle school and high school kids. We should make every one we get really count, instead of just doing something because it's the rule.
So, what happened to the kid who was selling the Skittles? He should be in more trouble. BTW, the honors kid did notice the seller was being "secretive." Clue!
I think the kid who was selling the skittles was probably an undercover FBI agent…
Or an undercover school district spy. Next thing you know they'll have candy-sniffing dogs on campus.
good thing they didn't care when we sold candy at school!!
Hum, ok, just read all the comments…duh.
I think alot of our rule bending came from our contempt for the silly, draconian rules, or rules we deemed hipocrytical (sigh, spelling chip still burned out) or just plain stupid. In the infamous candy sale, it was an extremely winked at that 'outside' organizations could sell, and naturally, the BAND could. Yes Paul, you sold none, but you bought a few!
I remember, in all my 17 year old wisdom, feeling quite judgemental and contempteous of our school administration. But they pretty much felt the same way about us, too. Ah, the brilliant hindsight of "I've slept once since then, and I probably remember it wrong!"
And if any of my children are reading this, I didn't drink or smoke anything. And I never thought about sex, at all. Pardon me now, while I go powder my new six foot long nose.
ok, I THOUGHT about sex…
a little
kinda
sometimes
This is why "zero tolerance" works. You read a story like this and your first reaction is "Well, that's stupid." Then you start reading the so-called justification for the action. "Oh, okay I guess it isn't bad."
You should stick with your first instinct.
It is stupid. There is not justification for this. Would adults put up with this kind of law? Well, not yet, but as more and more of them go through the schools, they will.
This is why some states have the idiotic "three strikes laws" where you get life for three felonies. It doesn't matter whether they were three minor felonies and that even if you added the sentences together they would add up to less than ten years. We must be "fair" and give everyone life in spite of the circumstances. If we let one guy off (even if his latest offense was stealing a $1.50 pizza slice, as in a recent California case), then we have to let off the guy who was involved in three armed robberies. Why? Because it wouldn't be "fair" to the violent criminal if the other guy got off. [Just another thought--why THREE strikes instead of one, or four. Is this based on some sociological study or something? No. It's three strikes because, ya know, it's like baseball and baseball is America's Favorite Pasttime. Duh.]
I understand the schools feeling like they have to do something because they are getting blamed for children being overweight. But just because other people blame them (even if those people are lawyers), doesn't make them responsible. Kids are fat because their parents are fat. And their parents are fat because they don't eat and exercise properly. School are supposed to be in the business of education. Why not teach kids that it is their responsibility to take care of themselves? Nobody else can force them to eat healthy and exercise, and nobody else is going to feel lousy and get sick when they don't do those things.
Anyway, this whole situation could have easily been remedied with a simple, "Hey, guys no candy on campus." And the school official could have confiscated the "contraband" and told the customer he could pick up the candy after school. Or if it made the school official feel better, he could confiscate both the candy and the money and keep it for himself.
So, everyone shake off the spell and tell yourself–this is STUPID. And even the school officials are having to admit that too. Although, in statements they are supporting their decision, they have had to back off of just about everything except striping the guy of his vice-presidency.
Okay, I'm stepping off my soapbox now. **End of Rant**
Yes. What she said.
We can't teach kids to take care of themselves…it isn't on the TAKS test!!
dlt