the rule is stupid

[actsnoblemartin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_fe_st/odd_skittles_suspension

[Perspicientia]

The New Haven school system banned candy sales in 2003 as part of a districtwide school wellness policy

I think rule is good, but the punishment a bit hard. Why do you think the rule is stupid?

[DragonStryk72]

I agree with Martin, here. This is a ridiculous, useless rule, there's no point to it. Teens, and some adults I might add, will eat candy, whether by trade, or by buying it. Turning the students into candy dealers seems to be the only effect of this phenomenon, aside from hurting good students with overly severe consequences.

[Perspicientia]

I agree with Martin, here. This is a ridiculous, useless rule, there's no point to it. Teens, and some adults I might add, will eat candy, whether by trade, or by buying it. Turning the students into candy dealers seems to be the only effect of this phenomenon, aside from hurting good students with overly severe consequences.

I don't understand. The rule is a step to counter a growing health problem. If this shows result, isn't it good?

Eating candy decrease performance in school since blood sugar levels tend to roller coast. For some pupils that lead to problems with concentration. So candy is actually contra productive in school.

[Hagbard Celine]

We live in a police state. Nobody will admit it.

[Classact]

We live in a police state. Nobody will admit it.
Thinking those thoughts may just qualify you as a hater... Hate charges should adjust your thought process perhaps.

[diuretic]

Thinking those thoughts may just qualify you as a hater... Hate charges should adjust your thought process perhaps.

Have the re-education camps opened already?

[5stringJeff]

What's funny is that the school distrcit banned candy, and there evolved a black market for candy within the school, complete with "dealers."

HC is right - this is a police-state type of rule.

[Gaffer]

Take you a glass of water

Make it against the law

See how good the water tastes

If you can't have any at all

John Fogarty

[Dilloduck]

We live in a police state. Nobody will admit it.

yes--we have to have police because we have laws. Agreed --many are stupid.

[Noir]

They did this in our school aswell, and in all schools across the UK as far as i know, and I think it has worked very well, I know for a fact I am eating allot less chocolate, crisps and fizzy drinks. it was also part of a wider operation to get kids eating healthier in schools, so our canteen no longer serves chips or turkey twislers but pasta’s and proper cooked meats. All in all a resounding sucess

[MtnBiker]

Hey Noir, enlighten us to some of your UK lingo.

Crisps - potato chips and the like?

Turkey twislers ?? I have no guess on that one

[JohnDoe]

Hey Noir, enlighten us to some of your UK lingo.

Crisps - potato chips and the like?

Turkey twislers ?? I have no guess on that one
Slim Jims is my guess or something like Beef Jerkey only with turkey?

[Hobbit]

I don't understand. The rule is a step to counter a growing health problem. If this shows result, isn't it good?

Eating candy decrease performance in school since blood sugar levels tend to roller coast. For some pupils that lead to problems with concentration. So candy is actually contra productive in school.

The bad part is that oppressive laws passed for their perceived 'good' effect are the worst kind of tyranny. It's nannying at its finest. Now, the school can promote good health by removing cokes, candies, chips, and other unhealthy crap from all vending machines, but to tell students that they are forbidden from exchanging such things with each other on school grounds is authoritarian. You know, it would probably also improve their performance in school if they were gagged upon entering and the gag could only be removed with the teacher's permission. It would probably improve their performance if the government mandated a homework hour every day when all entertainment devices had to be turned off and all minors were required to either do homework or read. It would probably improve their performance in school if bad grades were punishable by canings. However, we don't impose those laws because they're authoritarian and infringe upon human dignity and individual rights. The ends do not justify the means.

[DragonStryk72]

I don't understand. The rule is a step to counter a growing health problem. If this shows result, isn't it good?

Eating candy decrease performance in school since blood sugar levels tend to roller coast. For some pupils that lead to problems with concentration. So candy is actually contra productive in school.

Okay, you see, I admit in high school, I didn't do all that well, and you why? Because I didn't want to do homework or study, because they were boring. Candy had absolutely nothing to do it with it, and as far as "crashing", that's more likely attached to the large number of students who are drinking red bull and Starbucks, than it being attached to candy.

The other problem is that it is not the school's job to teach children to eat right, it is the parents' responsibility. This county has become addicted to government solutions to parenting, and the problem is getting worse. This is not a police state, but it is a nanny state. Don't bother teaching your kid to eat right, the underfunded, overworked school will take care of that. We cannot keep passing off our parental responsibilities on a government that is crumbling under the strain of all the programs it is already supporting, and cannot be depended upon to care for our children.

[JohnDoe]

I personally do NOT see a problem with schools not having candy or sodas in them for the students to buy. I don't see schools taking that step as anything that is infringing on anyone's rights.

I do see a problem if the school then decides to make rules that restrict the students that may be selling the stuff or even eating the candy during lunch if it is their own candy from home or an outside source other than the school.

Punishing students for this kind of stuff is just plain wrong.

But I do not think the school not providing these bad foods for the students is a violation of anyone's rights and ALL that the school can and should do, regarding this.... other than maybe offering night school available for parents on good nutrition habbits or something like that....

jd

[Dilloduck]

The bad part is that oppressive laws passed for their perceived 'good' effect are the worst kind of tyranny. It's nannying at its finest. Now, the school can promote good health by removing cokes, candies, chips, and other unhealthy crap from all vending machines, but to tell students that they are forbidden from exchanging such things with each other on school grounds is authoritarian. You know, it would probably also improve their performance in school if they were gagged upon entering and the gag could only be removed with the teacher's permission. It would probably improve their performance if the government mandated a homework hour every day when all entertainment devices had to be turned off and all minors were required to either do homework or read. It would probably improve their performance in school if bad grades were punishable by canings. However, we don't impose those laws because they're authoritarian and infringe upon human dignity and individual rights. The ends do not justify the means.

Kids are forced to go to school by law. If they go everyone bitches about what goes on there. Close the schools and let parents teach and babysit their own kids.

[5stringJeff]

Kids are forced to go to school by law.

Only in California have parents been thusly emasculated. :)

[Hobbit]

Only in California have parents been thusly emasculated. :)

Technically, every child in America must, by law, go to school. Homeschooling is considered school, provided there isn't proof that no actual learning is occurring.

[5stringJeff]

Technically, every child in America must, by law, go to school. Homeschooling is considered school, provided there isn't proof that no actual learning is occurring.

Oops, I thought he meant public school. My bad.

[Perspicientia]

The bad part is that oppressive laws passed for their perceived 'good' effect are the worst kind of tyranny. It's nannying at its finest. Now, the school can promote good health by removing cokes, candies, chips, and other unhealthy crap from all vending machines, but to tell students that they are forbidden from exchanging such things with each other on school grounds is authoritarian. You know, it would probably also improve their performance in school if they were gagged upon entering and the gag could only be removed with the teacher's permission. It would probably improve their performance if the government mandated a homework hour every day when all entertainment devices had to be turned off and all minors were required to either do homework or read. It would probably improve their performance in school if bad grades were punishable by canings. However, we don't impose those laws because they're authoritarian and infringe upon human dignity and individual rights. The ends do not justify the means.

"Nannying"? Those are kids. This is not a law passed to opress people. I think the punishment was a bit off, I mean - Hey, we don't eat candy in this school would be sufficient. This is a rule of a school.

Any teachers out there? Opinions?


Okay, you see, I admit in high school, I didn't do all that well, and you why? Because I didn't want to do homework or study, because they were boring. Candy had absolutely nothing to do it with it, and as far as "crashing", that's more likely attached to the large number of students who are drinking red bull and Starbucks, than it being attached to candy.

Any teachers out there? Opinions?


The other problem is that it is not the school's job to teach children to eat right, it is the parents' responsibility. This county has become addicted to government solutions to parenting, and the problem is getting worse. This is not a police state, but it is a nanny state. Don't bother teaching your kid to eat right, the underfunded, overworked school will take care of that. We cannot keep passing off our parental responsibilities on a government that is crumbling under the strain of all the programs it is already supporting, and cannot be depended upon to care for our children.

I agree, school is not about parenting. This school doesn't say anything about eating candy at home. It isn't parenting - it is schooling. Kids need to learn that there might be different set of rules out there. From dress code to nutrition. No hard stuff. No punishment required. Those are 5th graders.

A telling schould do.

[Kathianne]

I teach. Seems to me the schools are within their rights to not sell the stuff, they can also have rules that students may not sell stuff at school-most do. On the other hand, monitoring a regular lunch from home, even augmented with the kid's Hershey fix, is beyond nannying.

On the other hand, When I see a kid with a huge bag of chips, no sandwich, I'll tell them, "Sorry, not dealing with the effects of that, put them away. They I'll get him a sandwich," (yes, I'm afraid it's always boys with the 'huge' bags of chips, at least so far.)

[Abbey Marie]

:rolleyes:We must be dinosaurs in our district. We parents actually sold candy in and out of school as a fund-raiser, thereby paying for most of our daughter's band trip to Disney this year.

So, when it comes to candy, what happened to the "they're going to do it anyway" philosophy that always is applied to teen sex? To be consistent, the school should be discussing the dangers of eating candy, teaching how to unwrap a bar, and handing out toothbrushes in the nurse's office.

[Perspicientia]

On the other hand, When I see a kid with a huge bag of chips, no sandwich, I'll tell them, "Sorry, not dealing with the effects of that, put them away. They I'll get him a sandwich," (yes, I'm afraid it's always boys with the 'huge' bags of chips, at least so far.)

That is what I mean... not exactly parenting or nannying, but rather... you know: - This is school. Should be sufficient.

Is there ever arguing over such matters?

[Perspicientia]

So, when it comes to candy, what happened to the "they're going to do it anyway" philosophy that always is applied to teen sex? To be consistent, the school should be discussing the dangers of eating candy, teaching how how to unwrap a bar, and handing out toothbrushes in the nurse's office.

That was funny!

[Kathianne]

That is what I mean... not exactly parenting or nannying, but rather... you know: - This is school. Should be sufficient.

Is there ever arguing over such matters?

I'm in a Catholic school, and umm, no, the kids wouldn't think of telling me, 'No,' or 'You can't make me...' :laugh2:

To be perfectly honest, I'd never go to the lunch room to 'monitor' such, I'm the 'detention lunch teacher'. ;) For some reason the kids most likely to have these weird eating habits are with me for lunch, in my room.

Ever try to keep 5-25, 12-14 year olds, silent for 40 minutes? I was elected, so no, they wouldn't 'argue' with me. :laugh2:

In my defense for not being Hagress the Horrible, the 8th grade is dedicating their yearbook to me, for the 3rd time in 6 years. I'm nice when allowed to be, but can be a bear when it's for a good reason.

[Yurt]

Kathianne;217179]I'm in a Catholic school, and umm, no, the kids wouldn't think of telling me, 'No,' or 'You can't make me...' :laugh2:

You're right. I first went to a private/religous school in the 4th grade, and you had better believe that discipline was something taken seriously there. GASP, they actually called my MOM on stuff on did. I've blocked out the whoopins....

I am willing to bet, given my small andectotal experience (knew a few kids that went to wealthy boarding schools or military schools) that kids do not, absolutely do not behave or treat teachers the same way.

the fact they force public school on people shows that state run crap like that doesn't work. have a great friend from england, is from money, but like he always told me, the difference between american schools, private and public, is appalling.

[Abbey Marie]

I'm in a Catholic school, and umm, no, the kids wouldn't think of telling me, 'No,' or 'You can't make me...' :laugh2:

To be perfectly honest, I'd never go to the lunch room to 'monitor' such, I'm the 'detention lunch teacher'. ;) For some reason the kids most likely to have these weird eating habits are with me for lunch, in my room.

Ever try to keep 5-25, 12-14 year olds, silent for 40 minutes? I was elected, so no, they wouldn't 'argue' with me. :laugh2:

In my defense for not being Hagress the Horrible, the 8th grade is dedicating their yearbook to me, for the 3rd time in 6 years. I'm nice when allowed to be, but can be a bear when it's for a good reason.

That says a lot about you, Kath. :clap:

[JohnDoe]

You're right. I first went to a private/religous school in the 4th grade, and you had better believe that discipline was something taken seriously there. GASP, they actually called my MOM on stuff on did. I've blocked out the whoopins....

I am willing to bet, given my small andectotal experience (knew a few kids that went to wealthy boarding schools or military schools) that kids do not, absolutely do not behave or treat teachers the same way.

the fact they force public school on people shows that state run crap like that doesn't work. have a great friend from england, is from money, but like he always told me, the difference between american schools, private and public, is appalling.
i went to schools paid for by the public or through our taxes, and got a FABULOUS 1-12 education from them! NOOOOOOO complaints on my end regarding the Public schools I have attended....

I suppose it depends on where one lives, or what school, but I went to a different school near every year of my life, so I have experienced over 12 different publicly paid for schools as a minimum, all over the United States from the south to Brooklyn, New York....

I am not a kid or a Spring Chicken anymore :(:(, so maybe it has something to do with the era in which I was raised?


jd

[DragonStryk72]

"Nannying"? Those are kids. This is not a law passed to opress people. I think the punishment was a bit off, I mean - Hey, we don't eat candy in this school would be sufficient. This is a rule of a school.

Any teachers out there? Opinions?



I agree, school is not about parenting. This school doesn't say anything about eating candy at home. It isn't parenting - it is schooling. Kids need to learn that there might be different set of rules out there. From dress code to nutrition. No hard stuff. No punishment required. Those are 5th graders.

A telling schould do.

I know schools around here that won't allow cupcakes on holidays. Seriously, that's what's wrong, cupcakes? I mean, do you remember the days in school where there would be that special treat? It rocked, even if the cupcakes weren't that good, they were still cupcakes.

I still think it's funny that the school now apparently has a black market for candy. I just keep imagining this kid in a trenchcoat sitting in study hall, palming a snickers bar, and going, "Hey, not going anywhere for a while?"

I think if we would stop being so damned afraid of this stuff, and stop bringing it up every ten minutes or so, that the appeal would die down, seriously. yes, kids and teens will eat candy from time to time, but if the subject of snacks weren't being crammed down their throats regularly, they'd probably just snag whatever's in the vending machines.

[Noir]

Hey Noir, enlighten us to some of your UK lingo.

Crisps - potato chips and the like?

Turkey twislers ?? I have no guess on that one

Crisps are indeed 'potato chips'

Turkey twislers are a bizzare concoction of turkey meat and rubber covered in bread crumbs and made into a springy 'twisler' shape as shown bellow. The staple food of the working class in Britain

http://bp0.blogger.com/_az27QWJPdkA/RzH4n5ruZsI/AAAAAAAAAJw/ry3XZbn6LfM/s400/1512turkeyb.jpg

Actual ingredients-
Turkey (34%),
Water,
Pork fat,
Rusk,
Coating (sugar, rusk, tomato powder, wheat starch, dextrose, salt, wheat flour, potassium chloride, hydrogenated vegetable oil, citric acid, spices, onion powder, malt extract, smoke flavourings, garlic powder, colour [E160c], mustard flour, permitted sweetener [E951], herb, spice extracts, herb extracts),
Vegetable oil,
Turkey skin,
Salt,
Wheat flour,
Dextrose,
Stabiliser (E450),
Mustard,
Yeast extract,
Antioxidants (E304, E307, E330, E300),
Herb extract,
Spice extract,
Colour (E162).

Tasty.....

[Gunny]

They did this in our school aswell, and in all schools across the UK as far as i know, and I think it has worked very well, I know for a fact I am eating allot less chocolate, crisps and fizzy drinks. it was also part of a wider operation to get kids eating healthier in schools, so our canteen no longer serves chips or turkey twislers but pasta’s and proper cooked meats. All in all a resounding sucess

So what you are saying is you need the government to control your diet because you do not have the self discipline to do so?

:popcorn:

[mrg666]

Have the re-education camps opened already?

:) hole in 1

[mrg666]

Crisps are indeed 'potato chips'

Turkey twislers are a bizzare concoction of turkey meat and rubber covered in bread crumbs and made into a springy 'twisler' shape as shown bellow. The staple food of the working class in Britain

http://bp0.blogger.com/_az27QWJPdkA/RzH4n5ruZsI/AAAAAAAAAJw/ry3XZbn6LfM/s400/1512turkeyb.jpg

Actual ingredients-
Turkey (34%),
Water,
Pork fat,
Rusk,
Coating (sugar, rusk, tomato powder, wheat starch, dextrose, salt, wheat flour, potassium chloride, hydrogenated vegetable oil, citric acid, spices, onion powder, malt extract, smoke flavourings, garlic powder, colour [E160c], mustard flour, permitted sweetener [E951], herb, spice extracts, herb extracts),
Vegetable oil,
Turkey skin,
Salt,
Wheat flour,
Dextrose,
Stabiliser (E450),
Mustard,
Yeast extract,
Antioxidants (E304, E307, E330, E300),
Herb extract,
Spice extract,
Colour (E162).

Tasty.....

staple food ?
where do you live ?

[Noir]

So what you are saying is you need the government to control your diet because you do not have the self discipline to do so?

:popcorn:

Close but no biscuit my friend, but nicely placed trap :)

My school had a privet company owning the canteen (BeeGee's) meaning they had one thing in mind, profit. So they happily ordered in the turkey twisslers ect. but the goverment improved the minimum quality of the food that canteens legally had to serve, i would have happily chosen the pasta they serve now to he crap they use to sell, but back then we had no choice as the pasta would be less profitable, but now we do and the schools much better for it.

[Noir]

staple food ?
where do you live ?

In a council house in peckham :(

[gabosaurus]

My school had a privet company owning the canteen (BeeGee's) meaning they had one thing in mind, profit.

I had no idea that the BeeGee's invested in cafeterias. Was this before or after they went disco?

[Noir]

I had no idea that the BeeGee's invested in cafeterias.

I had no idea they did either =/