Posted on 05/08/2010 1:18:07 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A third-grader at Brazos Elementary was given a week’s detention for possessing a Jolly Rancher.
School officials 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.
According to the disciplinary referral, she would be separated from other students during lunch and recess through Friday.
Jack Ellis, the superintendent for Brazos Independent School District, declined an on-camera interview. But he said the school was abiding by a state guideline that banned “minimal nutrition” foods.
“Whether or not I agree with the guidelines, we have to follow the rules,” he said.
The state, however, gives each school discretion over how to enforce the policy. Ellis said school officials had decided a stricter punishment was necessary after lesser penalties failed to serve as a deterrent.
Ellis said failing to adhere to the state’s guidelines could put federal funding in jeopardy.
According to the Texas Department of Agriculture’s website, “The Texas Public School Nutrition Policy (TPSNP) explicitly states that it does not restrict what foods or beverages parents may provide for their own children's consumption.”
(Excerpt) Read more at khou.com ...
oh for pete’s sake...of course that happens, but guessing it wasn’t in this case.....geesh.
I presume the legislators didn't intend to interfere with what parents could send to school with their kids, but what the school could provide to them or what they might trade with other kids for while under the supervision of the school, so this would be moot.
If the legislators DID in fact intend that, the only reasonable thing to do is ignore them. That would clearly exceed the authority of any legislature, and even a school administrator should know that.
Blame their dad.
You kept harping on it in other posts on this thread.
But calling her a pig when you know nothing about her is childish.
I saw her and heard her...did you?????
Of course I can. And so will most other people. Until proven otherwise, two people with different last names living together are just shacking up.
This may not be the case for everyone (that is, they may actually be married) but that is the perception given in most of the country.
I did not change my name when I got married. Sorry if that upsets some people, but they’ll just have to lump it.
And you will just have to accept the fact that until they are shown otherwise, they will assume you are not married.
In these united States the social practice is overwhelmingly for the bride to take the grooms name. It's OK to buck the social tradition but you have to realize that the rest of us still follow it, and likely always will.
As to children from prior marriages, why wouldn't they keep their father's name? We are a paternal society and their father's name should be a point of pride for them. (I understand that some 'fathers' don't deserve a name but generally the point holds). Why would they be upset if their mother remarries and takes her new husband's name? They aren't getting married, she is.
(on a personal note, that is one of the ways I knew my wife loved me. She gave up her 5 letter one-syllable name for my long, Polish, unpronounceable one! :^) )
The government never stops encroaching, never. Those FReepers that celebrated smoking bans can thank themselves for idiotic situations such as this.
She’s overweight and may have a slight speech impediment. Is that your criteria for calling someone a pig?
no...just a hillbilly pig.
Home School.
Yeah, the should probably give her immunity so she can testify against the teacher who caught her. Is Johny Sutton still on the job?
The teacher couldn’t just confiscate the Jolly Rancher, with a reminder to the third grader about the (rather vague) rules. Nope — this draws a weeklong suspension.
Meanwhile, a race-baiting mexican (yes, small “m”) teacher in CA openly calls for violent revolution against the United States and the powers that be meekly look the other way.
We are dying as a country.
Educrats are idiots, plain and simple.
YES IT IS!!! It’s sole purpose is to create slaves.
How can failure to follow the STATE guidelines put FEDERAL funding in jeopardy?
Is there something I’m missing here?
"...so we'll just screw around with this girl and her family, because the money is more important to us."
If her parents packed her lunch, I don’t think it is the state’s business.
A student is not a member of the state educational system, she is a client of it.
They can tell staff what not to eat or drink, but they can’t tell students what legal foods they are to eat or not eat.
Why not ban kosher hotdogs?
Why? Because they just won’t go there.....yet.
But is was LUNCH! Not during class, not in the hallway, not on the bus. Who was the busybody idiot that decided her candy was a crime?
You are somewhat on the insane side aren’t you? Keeping ones maiden name could be done for many reasons, one which is that the parents had no male children. Did Cass hire you recently?
Get over yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.