Jump to content
E.J.

Conn. Student Suspended for Buying Candy

Recommended Posts

Conn. Student Suspended for Buying Candy

LINK

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) - Contraband candy has led to big trouble for an eighth-grade honors student in Connecticut.

Michael Sheridan was stripped of his title as class vice president, barred from attending an honors student dinner and suspended for a day after buying a bag of Skittles from a classmate.

School spokeswoman Catherine Sullivan-DeCarlo says the New Haven school system banned candy sales in 2003 as part of a districtwide school wellness policy.

Michael's suspension has been reduced from three days to one, but he has not been reinstated as class vice president.

He says he didn't realize his candy purchase was against the rules, but he did notice the student selling the Skittles on Feb. 26 was being secretive.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press

Link to comment
Conn. Student Suspended for Buying Candy

LINK

School spokeswoman Catherine Sullivan-DeCarlo says the New Haven school system banned candy sales in 2003 as part of a districtwide school wellness policy.

A school wellness policy? Arrgh!

Student suspended for what?

I suspect they have a brainless policy too.

Just what is the policy actually teaching the kids?

Did anyone think to ask that?

Have they thought of an education policy, or is that banned too?

Is it a school or a jail?

Do they actually think that the kids are going to hurt each other with chocolate?

I wouldn't feel quite so stirred up if they hadn't used the ugly phrase "wellness policy."

To overlook the obvious "health policy" reeks of political correctness in the hands of the intellectually inept to say nothing of the uneducated and misguided.

Link to comment

That school district has become the Nazi Mommy to all the kids there. So fine, have a wellness policy. Stop selling candy in the cafeteria. Ban vending machines. But suspend a kid for buying candy from another kid? If I were the father of that kid (unlikely since I'm only 18) I'd be on the phone to my attorney and planning a lawsuit that would make the school dictators quake with fear. Or something like that.

Colin :hug:

Link to comment

Do Skittles have peanuts in them? Maybe it is because of the peanut allergy issue? Just trying to think if there may be some logic to this that isn't obvious. One wonders what length of time the kid would be banned for drugs. For that matter, is the penalty more severe for the candy pushers? What happens to the candy? Is it destroyed, even though it is a legal commodity, or is it retained by the child. What is the actual rule? No possession, no possession on 'campus', no purchasing, no eating? What if he had just been carrying for someone? Maybe it's because he's got a blood sugar problem and needs something sweet for emergencies.

Link to comment
Have they thought of an education policy, or is that banned too?

:icon_geek: Yes and yes.

If you ask anyone who used to teach, and most who currently teach, why they'd rather not teach, it'll be this exact ban. Tiresome but true. Too much media and political cr*p and not enough time for your students.

Bleh.

:bunny: TR

Link to comment
:icon_geek: Yes and yes.

If you ask anyone who used to teach, and most who currently teach, why they'd rather not teach, it'll be this exact ban. Tiresome but true. Too much media and political cr*p and not enough time for your students.

Bleh.

:bunny: TR

There's another reason, too, for teachers' current disaffection, and the irony is delicious. We've decided, legally decided, that no child will be left behind. Of course, if this is now mandated, then it must be tested to prove than no child really is being so abandoned. So, we test. And test and test to distraction, and to the point teachers I know say they don't have time to teach, they're too busy testing.

As I say, ironic. And so very sad.

C

Link to comment

No child left behind is a stupid concept. It is a political correctness, rather than being logical. Now if the rule was "no child abandoned" it would make more sense. Kids would continue to progress at their own rates, based around their abilities and challenges, getting specialized instruction and training where needed, and not one would be held back at the level of the lowest common denominator. "No child left behind" has effectively become "no child moves ahead".

Link to comment

I heard from one of my own high school teachers that they were told to categorise students into those, fit to take a place in society and those who were not. Those who were, would be assisted to reach top grades. Those who weren't, well, someone has to do the garbage collection.

In much the same way, doctors have been instructed to look for worthwhile values in a patient before administering curative measures, particularly after the patient reaches forty.

In both cases sufficient care must be taken to keep up appearances that all are equal under the education and health systems. :icon_geek:

Link to comment
Do Skittles have peanuts in them?

No peanuts in Skittles. But they "May be manufactured in a facility that also processes peanut, tree nut, and soy ingredients."

I have a friend who is violently allergic to peanuts (but not tree nuts or soy ingredients). If she were to eat one milligram of peanut she'd have to use her epinephrine injector within 60 seconds or she would probably die of anaphylactic shock. Even smelling someone eating a peanut butter sandwich makes her have breathing problems, and she needs to exit that space immediately. She did not eat in the cafeteria at school! :shame:

Colin :icon_geek:

Link to comment

Speaking as another long-term victim of peanut allergies, I can say I've developed enough resistance I can be in the same room with that nasty stuff, but the stench always turns my stomach. I, too, carry an epinephrine injector, but thankfully haven't had to use one in years.

I primarily wanted to comment on this whole skittles thing. It's entirely too easy to blame the "No Child Left Behind" stupidity, but the underlying root cause of the problem is that, as a society, we've decided that its governments responsibility to raise children. Speaking as someone who has worked with hundreds of kids over the years, I've seen far too many cases of people who have children and then assume that they are everyone else's responsibility and effectively wash their hands of the kid. Is it any wonder we have the issues we have today with so many absentee parents? I always found it to be a bit sad when I was spending more time with a kid than his own parents were.

I guess I was one of the lucky ones. My parents set rules and boundaries and enforced them. I may not have liked it much as a kid, but I'm much better off as a result, and my upbringing wasn't the result of some stupid government committee that would enact, and then attempt to enforce, a policy as moronic as this one.

As the old saying goes, God must have loved fools, 'cause he made so many of them.

Rick

Link to comment

I wonder what would have happened if he had bought a joint?

Firing squad? Witch Trials? Connecticut used to do that sort of thing you know. They just weren't as well known for it as their neighbors in Massachusetts...

Link to comment

Another example of a Zero Tollerance policy. Discretion is almost necessary to seperate people from the good ones (or kids in this example). Good people(kids) make mistakes, but sending them to the gallows for it is not needed in all circumstances. This also reminds me of the 2nd grader who was expelled for drawing a stick figure holding a horribly drawn gun and a 5th grader that was suspended for 10 days for having a pen with a Glock logo (given to her by her father) in school. Both punishments were later overturned with the threat of legal action, but it never should have come to that. Like I've said before, we're only sheltering our kids with these rediculous policies.

I can understand 'banning' foods becuase a kid has a certain allergy for liability reasons, but what is that kid gonna do when he goes to the food court in the mall and expects me to move becuase I sit next to him eating a peanut butter cup DQ blizzard? The kids allergies are not going to magically go away after highschool, so he needs to learn how to deal with them now. The whole allergy thing is another story, but I cannot stand people who expect me to change what I do to accommodate them. I'm all for the rights of the minority, but when you infringe on the rights of the majority in doing so you are in the wrong. Don't even get me started on all the PC bull-chit as of late, especially the whole religious holiday crap.

Link to comment
I wonder what would have happened if he had bought a joint?

Firing squad? Witch Trials? Connecticut used to do that sort of thing you know. They just weren't as well known for it as their neighbors in Massachusetts...

I watched an interesting documentary on the Witch Trials and it was something about the stuff they put in the Rye bread that has a mold that made them hallucinate. I've also been to Salem a few times. I went once on Halloween, but I won't do that ever again.

Link to comment
I watched an interesting documentary on the Witch Trials and it was something about the stuff they put in the Rye bread that has a mold that made them hallucinate. I've also been to Salem a few times. I went once on Halloween, but I won't do that ever again.

They didn't put ergot fungus in their grain, it grew there of its own accord. Anyone who ate it was subject to all sorts of hallucinations- but not the fun kind.

BTW- I love your avatar. That's one tough looking kat. :icon_geek:

Link to comment
They didn't put ergot fungus in their grain, it grew there of its own accord. Anyone who ate it was subject to all sorts of hallucinations- but not the fun kind.

BTW- I love your avatar. That's one tough looking kat. :icon_geek:

Several of the rye grasses are prone to infection with the ergot fungus, which contains the toxin ergotamine. It's the source of lysergic acid, which is used to make the hallucinogenic recreational drug LSD (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide). In the middle ages people died like flies of ergotism, food poisoning caused by milling flour from grain contaminated with ergot-bearing rye grasses.

Now, why do I know that? .... ?

Bruin

Link to comment
I wonder what would have happened if he had bought a joint?

Firing squad? Witch Trials? Connecticut used to do that sort of thing you know. They just weren't as well known for it as their neighbors in Massachusetts...

James:

Everyone's heard of the witch trials, but your note saying they were conducted in Connecticut too, which I hadn't known, made me wonder about something. Do you have any idea the total number of "witches" put to death after these trials? Was it a significant number of women, or very few?

C

Link to comment

Take a look at THIS little bit of information. It will show you that gays are not the only victims of hatred.

In the U.S., a person cannot falsely yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. But they are free to say just about anything else without danger of criminal prosecution. For example, a conservative Christian teleminister in the early 1990s advocated the execution of all Wiccans in the U.S. More recently, a Baptist pastor from Texas advocated that the U.S. army round up Wiccans and burn them alive with napalm. Both clergy were immune from prosecution due to the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment which guarantees almost complete freedom of speech in the country. (We do not wish to overemphasize genocidal advocacy of Wiccans by conservative Christians. However, we are unaware of any other instances in North America where genocide has been actively advocated in recent years.)

Canadians do not have this degree of freedom of speech. Legislation in Canada follows the British tradition, as do laws in Australia and New Zealand and some other former colonies. In particular, citizens are not allowed to incite or promote hatred, advocate genocide or actually commit genocide against certain specified groups.

Sadly, this protection in Canada does not include protection from those uttering it as a religious belief. Read the whole thing, here:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hat6.htm

Link to comment
...

The whole allergy thing is another story, but I cannot stand people who expect me to change what I do to accommodate them.

I'm all for the rights of the minority, but when you infringe on the rights of the majority in doing so you are in the wrong.

These statements might be considered as somewhat in opposition to each other, even though I sympathise with Insomniac in stating them.

However I think the sentiment is valid if we understand that the rights of the majority in a democracy are founded on the minority having the right to dissent from the majority.

Of course if this dissent becomes a matter before the law, then the dissenter must be prepared to accept the consequences.

In many cases the minority dissent has been known to bring about a change of both law and attitude.

Continuing, Insomniac writes:

Don't even get me started on all the PC bull-chit as of late, especially the whole religious holiday crap.

Unfortunately, the PC nonsense is at times confused with changes in the values of freedom of expression and thought on the grounds of personal belief, rather than realistic secular interests.

This situation returns us to a criticism of the education system for not encouraging comparison and understanding of the relevant historical, philosophical and legal implications that would hopefully see people equipped with an appreciation of common sense in debate on these matters.

To hope for this to be done with sophistication and intelligent objectivity is bound to leave one feeling a little, shall I say, frustrated.

:icon_geek:

Link to comment
This situation returns us to a criticism of the education system for not encouraging comparison and understanding of the relevant historical, philosophical and legal implications that would hopefully see people equipped with an appreciation of common sense in debate on these matters.

To hope for this to be done with sophistication and intelligent objectivity is bound to leave one feeling a little, shall I say, frustrated.

Three Little Pigs 'too offensive'

By Sean Coughlan

BBC News, education

A story based on the Three Little Pigs fairy tale has been turned down by a government agency's awards panel as the subject matter could offend Muslims. The digital book, re-telling the classic story, was rejected by judges who warned that "the use of pigs raises cultural issues". Becta, the government's educational technology agency, is a leading partner in the annual Bett Award for schools.

The judges also attacked Three Little Cowboy Builders for offending builders.

The book's creative director, Anne Curtis, said the idea that including pigs in a story could be interpreted as racism was "like a slap in the face".

'Cultural issues'

The CD-Rom digital version of the traditional story of the three little pigs, called Three Little Cowboy Builders, is aimed at primary school children.

But judges at this year's Bett Award said that they had "concerns about the Asian community and the use of pigs raises cultural issues".

The Three Little Cowboy Builders has already been a prize winner at the recent Education Resource Award - but its Newcastle-based publishers, Shoo-fly, were turned down by the Bett Award panel.

The feedback from the judges explaining why they had rejected the CD-Rom highlighted that they "could not recommend this product to the Muslim community".

They also warned that the story might "alienate parts of the workforce (building trade)".

The judges criticised the stereotyping in the story of the unfortunate pigs: "Is it true that all builders are cowboys, builders get their work blown down, and builders are like pigs?"

Animal Farm?

Ms Curtis said that rather than preventing the spread of racism, such an attitude was likely to inflame ill-feeling. As another example, she says would that mean that secondary schools could not teach Animal Farm because it features pigs?

Her company is committed to an ethical approach to business and its products promote a message of mutual respect, she says - and banning such traditional stories will "close minds rather than open them".

Becta, the government funded agency responsible for technology in schools and colleges, says that it is standing by the judges' verdict.

"Becta with its partners is responsible for the judging criteria against which the 70 independent judges, mostly practising teachers, comment. All the partners stick by the judging criteria," said a Becta spokesman.

The reason that this product was not shortlisted was because "it failed to reach the required standard across a number of criteria", said the spokesman.

Becta runs the awards with the Besa trade association and show organisers, Emap Education.

Merlin John, author of an educational technology website which highlighted the story, warns that such rulings can undermine the credibility of the awards.

"When benchmarks are undermined by pedestrian and pedantic tick lists, and by inflexible, unhelpful processes, it can tarnish the achievements of even the most worthy winners.

"It's time for a rethink, and for Becta to listen to the criticisms that have been ignored for a number of years," said Mr John.

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_n...ion/7204635.stm

Published: 2008/01/23 13:49:31 GMT

? BBC MMVIII

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...