quote:What I find most disturbing, aside from treating a bag of candy like it was a bag of pot, is the fact that the school stripped Michael Sheridan of his position of class Vice President, thus betraying the typical liberal mentality that if the cause is just, and politically correct, the choice of the people who voted is of no real consequence. The arrogance of liberal edu-crats is almost beyond comprehension.
I'm not sure if that's really funny or really scary.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, agreed. The blog post was more entertaining than the news article, which is part of why I linked it.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's inane. I'm all for wellness and avoiding candy, but this is just plain STUPID. They're not even elemnatary school kids; even then I think the MOST that should happen is confisctaing the candy until the end of the day.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember when the school used to sell suckers to us at lunch. or was it cocaine? I'm having a hard time remembering. Posts: 349 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sullivan-DeCarlo said Sheridan Middle School principal Eleanor Turner repeatedly warned students that she did not want candy to be sold or money to change hands during school. Turner referred all questions to Sullivan-DeCarlo.
Aside from the nutrition issue, Sullivan-DeCarlo said, students create security problems when they carry money.
Now they can't carry money either? Yes, and they could hang themselves for being in such a crazy school, better take their belts and shoelaces too.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that's only because they are forbidden. If eating skittles is made criminal, only criminals will eat skittles, see?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Psst... If your looking to 'take a ride on the rainbow" I've got what you're looking for right here.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:thus betraying the typical liberal mentality that if the cause is just, and politically correct, the choice of the people who voted is of no real consequence.
How is this typically liberal?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sometimes I miss K-12, I had a lot of fun there and it was certainly easier than the life beyond, but jeez, if I was hit with something like this my head would explode from anger.
With everything going wrong in our skills, contraband Skittles is what they're cracking down on? The principal needs to get his/her head screwed on straight and stop wasting everyone's time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, in all seriousness things like this annoy me because it makes no sense. Especially regarding the whole "obesity epidemic" I don't see the value in outright banning sweets from schools or things like that and placing this sort of wild punishment along with it. The detriment of eating candy and the severity of the punishment are simply... mismatched, incongruous. Can anyone make a good argument for why this sort of zero tolerance of sweets is worth enforcing? I'd be genuinely interested to hear that.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, that would have killed our annual JROTC fundraiser.
We weren't allowed to sell candy during class but we made a heck of a lot of sales in between classes.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The actual article (linked from the blog) opened with a statement (repeated in the body of the text as well) that the Superintendent of School is reviewing the Principal's decision and and that the punishment had already been reduced.
I suspect the outcome will be a quick and quiet resolution with no suspension, and no loss of honor's status, etc. Either that or a lawsuit which the school district would likely lose.
In any event, it does sound like the school district policies need some tightening up.
It'll be interesting to see how the makers of Skittles respond to this.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has quite the colorful range of opinions.
</bad puns>
But in all seriousness, this is crazy. Where they disrupting class? The fact that they weren't 'caught' until later tells me that it didn't disrupt class at all.
Granted, we can't base everything on what disrupts class. There are things which are an absolute NO and can't be allowed. But candy? Since when did a favorite afternoon snack become illegal? How does that hurt the child? We can argue obesity, or rotten teeth, but it's *candy* for goodness sake.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:As if banning the image of a perfectly legal firearm wasn’t stupid enough, there is this bit of inanity from some of our un-elected education bureaucrats
I'm trying to figure out which "bureaucrats" the blogger is talking about.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I assume that the blogger is referring to the principal/superindendent; some counties and schools do not elect these individuals-- they're appointed by the school board.
In fact, I think some school boards may be appointed positions.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eighth grade - according to Google that would make the kid 13-14 yeas old right?
Surely he's old enough to work out if he wants to eat Skittles or not. It might be a different kettle of fish if he was eating in class (a capital punishment in my old school) but mearly having them in his pocket, wherever he bought them, is ridiculous.
This sort of thing brings our the rabid libertarian in me...
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
I assume that the blogger is referring to the principal/superindendent; some counties and schools do not elect these individuals-- they're appointed by the school board.
In fact, I think some school boards may be appointed positions.
There are places where principals and superintendents are elected?!? Everywhere I've lived they've been hired by the school board.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Superintendents are elected in our district, as are school board members. Principals are then hired by those boards.
There are however, some school boards that are appointed rather than elected.
An interesting experiment - try finding out who is on your state board of education - then look at their backgrounds. Alabama's state board is headed by the governor - who has never taught school. And the board itself is full of lawyers and businessmen - and those that do have any teaching experience had it years and years - even decades ago.
Then talk to to a teacher about how much influence the state board has on the curriculum you teach and what you cover - it's a whole lot, at least around here. Teachers are expected to quote the Alabama Course of Study in every lesson plan, and send home notices to parents about what part of the COS they're studying with their kids. The COS determines nearly everything done in the classroom and it's put together by politicians, not teachers. Very frustrating.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
The superintendent revoked the punishment, for both kids. Using the lack of paperwork as grounds, for sure, but I doubt that he would have looked for grounds if he didn't think that the principal had over-reacted to the situation.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I assume that the blogger is referring to the principal/superindendent; some counties and schools do not elect these individuals-- they're appointed by the school board.
In fact, I think some school boards may be appointed positions.
Actually, I assumed that the principal and superintendent were hired by the school board. It's a pretty huge stretch though to call a principal a bureaucrat. The super, maybe, but he's the one who reduced the kid's punishment.
I could be wrong, but wouldn't this kind of policy be the work of the school board, which is elected?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well at least the kid got off. Maybe it shows the superintendant having some sense. But it's possible that there was just a fear of repurcusions.
As for the pixie stix, no matter what anyone tells you, don't snort it. It burns.
Posts: 349 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somehow I see religion as more of a controversial thing as candy. I understand some of the reasons for the French law although I don't agree with it. This I view as simply silly.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you *read* the reasons for each? Look, I'm not gonna argue in favor of a law I'm not actually in favor of; but equating buying skittles with concerns over keeping a secular system in public schools, with no divisions because of religions/philosophy, is beyond my understanding.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:equating buying skittles with concerns over keeping a secular system in public schools, with no divisions because of religions/philosophy, is beyond my understanding.
I'm confused. I keep hearing people insist that secularism does not mean barring people from making public expressions of faith. Accusations that it does are treated as hysteria from the religious right.
Yet here we have secularism being used as the justification for banning a public expression of faith.
It's silly. The justifications are silly. The idea that, even if the justifications were true, this would actually help with the problem is enormously silly. "We're afraid girls are being forced to wear headscarves against their will, so we'll kick them out of school if they do" doesn't pass the laugh test.
But let's grant each side their justifications. On the one hand, we have France's commitment to secularism in schools. On the other hand, we have numerous studies that sale of sugary snacks in schools contributes heavily to an obesity epidemic that is the number one health concern in the U.S.
Why is the former less of a justification than the latter?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: ... I'm confused. I keep hearing people insist that secularism does not mean barring people from making public expressions of faith. Accusations that it does are treated as hysteria from the religious right.
Yet here we have secularism being used as the justification for banning a public expression of faith....
"I'm confused. I keep hearing people insist that religion does not cause violence and suffering. Accusations that it does are treated as "strident", "extremist", or "fundamentalist."
Yet [in many places around the world], we have religion used as the justification for violence ..."
Seriously, these particular French laws have more to do with xenophobia than secularism. They are quite clearly targeted at Muslims which are immigrating in large numbers. Actually, we could probably turn around most arguments for religion not causing violence and suffering. (This is a perversion of secularism and not what we really mean, this is just people taking advantage of secularism as an excuse to promote other agendas, etc.) The sword cuts both ways
(Personally, I find the French laws *more* silly than the candy thing.
Edit to add: Also, for others, I wouldn't rest too easy on the belief that "it could not happen here." If Muslims came to the US in the same numbers as France, especially in the current political climate I have little confidence that we would not have similar problems integrating them and creating laws to deal with it. Just take the current immigration debate, multiply with religion issue, and stir with the religious right)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
