It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sweet Jolly Rancher turns sour, lands third-grader in week of detention

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
www.kens5.com...



ORCHARD, Texas – A third-grader has been given a week’s detention for possessing a Jolly Rancher. School officials at Brazos Elementary in western Fort Bend County are defending the seemingly harsh sentence. The school’s principal and superintendent said they were simply complying with a state law that limits junk food in schools. But the girl’s parents say it’s a huge overreaction. “I think it’s stupid to give a kid a week’s worth of detention for a piece of candy,” said Amber Brazda, the girl’s mother. "The whole thing was just ridiculous to me." 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.

This is just crazy. Apparently is fine to trample all over kids rights because , hey there just kids. Sheepole training 101 starts early in Texas I guess.




posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Talk about overkill. Things these days go from one extreme to the other.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:24 AM
link   
Wow that's ridiculous.

As a parent, I would put up quite the fuss over something like this. Although I don't think there's much they can do if it's the law.

A giant overreach of said law however.

~Keeper



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


kids have "RIGHTS" to eat candy in school?? you're using that for an arguement??...i would have simply had the "child" write "I WILL NOT EAT CANDY IN SCHOOL" a hundred times, it would get the point across, at the same time it would improve writing skills.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


kids have "RIGHTS" to eat candy in school?? you're using that for an arguement??...i would have simply had the "child" write "I WILL NOT EAT CANDY IN SCHOOL" a hundred times, it would get the point across, at the same time it would improve writing skills.

hmmmm ..... im guessing when you went to school you sometimes had cookies or sweets in your lunch?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I'm not surprised, they do this as my little sisters school as well. If they have a classroom party they can only bring fruits and vegetables ,when I went to school we could bring cookies, cakes, pizza etc, and I'm healthy as can be. In my opinion is it not the schools right to say what your son or daughter can or cannot eat.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
[edit on 9-5-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by EmperorZeno
when I went to school we could bring cookies, cakes, pizza etc,


Me too! Class party days were all about people bringing the most unhealthy junk food you could imagine. Hello, its party time! It's a time to let loose. Jeez, having only fruits and vegetables at a class party would be super lame.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by EmperorZeno
 


I understand that parents do not want the school to police every aspect of a child's life, but schools should have some say as to what kids eat if the kids' food affects the kids behavior in school. Giving a kid a week of detention for having a piece of candy may be too harsh, but schools have a legitimate interest in making sure kids avoid junk food while at school.

Kids that eat too much junk food do not perform well in school. Junk food makes kids act too hyper when it causes a blood sugar jolt, then it makes kids lethargic when the sugar rush subsides. Let us also not forget junk food makes kids fat. Fat kids are more likely to get hurt at school doing things like participating in gym class, which in turn creates higher costs for schools in the form of lawsuits.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 



School officials at Brazos Elementary in western Fort Bend County are defending the seemingly harsh sentence. The school’s principal and superintendent said they were simply complying with a state law that limits junk food in schools.School officials at Brazos Elementary in western Fort Bend County are defending the seemingly harsh sentence. The school’s principal and superintendent said they were simply complying with a state law that limits junk food in schools.


And then again, you could have just confiscated the candy, wagged your finger at the kid, winked at her to make sure she knew she hadn't committed a mortal sin, and let life go on.

I'll bet the feds would have never been the wiser.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


kids have "RIGHTS" to eat candy in school?? you're using that for an arguement??...i would have simply had the "child" write "I WILL NOT EAT CANDY IN SCHOOL" a hundred times, it would get the point across, at the same time it would improve writing skills.

hmmmm ..... im guessing when you went to school you sometimes had cookies or sweets in your lunch?


Yes we had them in our lunch, but it certainly wasn't our right to have them.

Show me where it says kids have a right to sweets in school.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Just another case of the establishment thinking they know what's best for everyone. They need to stay out of our houses and out of our lunch pails. If they want to regulate what "THEY" offer our children in "THEIR" cafeterias, by all means do so. But to punish a student for bringing a perfectly legal "treat" to school, one mother put there by the way, is definitely overstepping their responsibility to educate students in matters of reading, writing and arithmetic.

I just looked up the calories in a watermelon Jolly Rancher:
Serving size- 3pcs,
Calories per serving- 70.
Total % of Recommeded Daily Allowance (based on 2000 calorie diet):
Fat 0g; 0%
Carbohydrates 17g; 6%
Sodium; 10mg; 0%

So one piece is 1/3 of that... 23 calories. Doesn't sound very "junk food" to me, for just one piece.

I think mom should stuff a whole bag of those "sorbet" candies in the lunch pail next time- you now, the sugar-free ones with absolutely zero nutritional value, and let's see the school call those "junk food".



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Miracle Man
 



Show me where it says kids have a right to sweets in school.


Yeah, that's right! Who are these kids to crave a bit of sweets? Next thing you know, they'll be wanting dessert at suppertime!

Let them go outside and find a pebble on the ground, stick that in their yapping little mouths, and suck on it whenever they get a craving for sweets!

What is this world coming to, when children crave sweets?!



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Miracle Man
 



Show me where it says kids have a right to sweets in school.


Yeah, that's right! Who are these kids to crave a bit of sweets? Next thing you know, they'll be wanting dessert at suppertime!

Let them go outside and find a pebble on the ground, stick that in their yapping little mouths, and suck on it whenever they get a craving for sweets!

What is this world coming to, when children crave sweets?!



LOL Right ! If you dont eat your meat , you cant have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you dont eat your meat?



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
There are several questions that are not answered and the first one is: Does this child recieve any of the free or reduced lunch programs. If the answer is yes, then the school needs to be very clear as to what the child can and can not eat while on school property. If the answer is no, then the school has over stepped its bounds as to what the child can and can not eat, as then it is up to the childs parents to determine what the child can and can not have, not the school. If it was my child, the school board and I would be meeting in court and I would ensure my child would go to school every day with a packed lunch of gormet food, and something very sweet in the process, to include cake, pie, and other desserts for doing well in school and I would dare the school to take action with a lawyer at my side. It was just a piece of candy that her friend gave her. And I do not see what all of the problem is, as it shows that both children are getting along and sharing, a good sign for the future. All this did was tell the child that to share and be nice gets you into trouble.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Wow that's ridiculous.

As a parent, I would put up quite the fuss over something like this. Although I don't think there's much they can do if it's the law.

A giant overreach of said law however.

~Keeper


It not the law. It is the justification this school district is using to be dickish.

I have two kids in Texas schools. They both have had candy given out at school functions. They ask that we don't send sodas, but they don't do anything if you do.



posted on May, 9 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


I have a SOLUTION, take your damn kids out of propaganda school.

This is what these schools have become.

Vote with your feet.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


First, sugar does not result in hyperactive behavior, that myth has been thoroughly debunked. Here is just one of hundreds of articles stating as much.

Second, most schools don't even have gym anymore: source
and another

Deny ignorance.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by hotpinkurinalmint
 


First, sugar does not result in hyperactive behavior, that myth has been thoroughly debunked. Here is just one of hundreds of articles stating as much.

Second, most schools don't even have gym anymore: source
and another

Just denying ignorance.

---

The behavior on the part of the administration is indefensible, "just following orders" is never an excuse. The jobs of the administration have been put into a tenuous position. Undoubtedly, if they fail to uphold policy they face termination. Nonetheless, rather than set an example by defying an unjust law (which violates parents' ]rights to raise their children as they see fit, they elected to make an example of this poor child. This is typical cowardice and diffidence in the face of a paternalistic government nanny-state.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bluemooone2
 


Gahhhh! My brain hurts because instead of turning it into an opportunity to educate this child, they punished him. Really, this is the psycho self righteous christian soldier nut job mentality that has this country going down the drain spiritually.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join