Oh come on. There was a rule, the kids broke it, and the kids knew they were breaking it. Whether or not the rule is riduculous is another matter.

(I assume, by the way, that the rule was passed to stop those endless candy fundraisers for band trips, cheerleader uniforms, science club equipment, etc. etc.)

There's a King of the Hill episode where the principal explains to Hank why he's punishing Bobby for something or other at school. He says, paraphrased, "It's a zero-tolerance policy. We can't be even a little bit tolerant and still call it a zero-tolerance policy."

Right, muddgirl, that's how I see it. But OHMYGOD KID EXPELLED FOR CANDY!!!! makes news and "high school student receives expected punishment for breaking rule" doesn't. Rules are arbitrary--in life and in high school--and punishments are often crazy. When I was in high school, we recognized that part of the purpose of high school was teaching you how to navigate the arbitrariness of imposed order. We knew that high school was preparing us for coping with the dumb stuff adults have to cope with. Trying to show us to pay attention to rules, because even when they are dumb, you can be more dumb for breaking them, at least openly. Whence came the Breakfast Club.

As we geezers were complaining in the cutting in line thread that people seem to have no sense of rules and order any more, so expel more of them for breaking the stupid rules. They might learn better when it's worth it to break a rule and when it just makes you an asshole, and they might better learn how to write and enforce rules. (Personally, I think zero-tolerance policies are always bad rules, but I am not in charge of rules-making).

muddgirl: There was a rule, the kids broke it, and the kids knew they were breaking it.

"Michael had said that he didn't realize his candy purchase was against the rules"
That coupled with the fact that the principal apologized, said the rule should have been in writing, and cleared his record of any wrongdoing leads me to believe that no, he probably didn't realize he was breaking a rule and that school officials agreed that their efforts in communicating said rule were not up to par.

I assume, by the way, that the rule was passed to stop those endless candy fundraisers for band trips, cheerleader uniforms, science club equipment, etc. etc.

It says that candy was banned as "part of a districtwide school wellness policy." Similarly, high schools in my area have started putting in "healthy vending machines" and taking candy out of vending machines, and they're considering getting rid of soda as well. If I had heard that the school was getting rid of candy sales, it would be quite a leap for me to assume that buying candy off a classmate would get me in deep trouble.

Taste the rainbow on your own time, mister.

Connecticut mastery test? Obviously batshit insane.

"Michael had said that he didn't realize his candy purchase was against the rules but he did notice that the student selling the Skittles on February 26 was being secretive."

This reminds me of a CNN article I read earlier, wherein some kid brought pot brownies to school. Lots of kids were like, "Oh, I tried one, but it tasted funny so I didn't finish it. I didn't know it had pot in it!!!" Maybe it's true that Michael didn't know the rule the specifics of the rule, but he's already admitted that the Skittles seller was acting suspicious.

I don't really care that the punishment was lessened, but I don't take that article at face value at. all. The principal lowered the punishment because a gaggle of parents came to her office, complaining about their poor boy's future, how it was all a big mistake, how the rules were unclear yadda yadda yadda. I know this because the same exact thing happened multiple times when I was in high school. For example, a student in my band class once created and distributed faked images of our band director having anal sex with another student. The guys responsible for it were initially expelled (rightly, IMO), but after complaints from their parents, they were suspended for one day and sent to sexual harrasment courses. They weren't even kicked out of band class or anything, because "such a mark on their record could damage their future FOREVAR!" Now, I readily admit that sexually harrassing other students and a professor is a much more serious offense than selling candy in school, but the motivations of the parents and the school district are the same in both these cases.

There was a rule, the kids broke it, and the kids knew they were breaking it.

My WTF??? was not addressing the fact that this guy had gotten punished for breaking a rule. It was addressing the fact that this school, and apparently the entire school district it's in, thought it wise, helpful, or effective to institute a ban on candy. A school that promises to punish kids for the possession of sugar is, in my estimation, insane.

That story makes me want to go buy a giant bag of M&Ms and eat every. single. piece.

Then I'd probably barf, but, still.

I got the feeling from the article that students selling candy for profit is banned. In junior and senior high school there are always a few candy sellers. In my school, everybody knew who they were. If you were jonesing for some Nerds or a Blowpop you knew who to go to for your fix. The candy sellers buy their candy stock cheap and resell at a high markup. My husband did it when he was a kid. He sold Now and Laters and Mamba candy at lunch. He's always had an entrepreneurial spirit. Since seventh grade everybody knew if you sold candy in class you were in big trouble. Buying candy in class is distracting. A kid with a backpack filled with candy, ready to make his daily cash is a little much too.

I'm imagining if he brought the Skittles from home and consumed them at lunch none of this would have happened.

I hardly think the two acts and the way they were dealt with are similar in the least.

In your example, I doubt the principal apologized, I bet the rule was very clear and in writing, the students records were not cleared of any wrongdoing, the students probably knew they were breaking a rule (if not doing something ethically wrong), and school officials most likely still viewed the students as having been in the wrong. The students in your example received lighter sentences because their parents bartered with the principal.

The candy story is an example of unclear rules and a good example of the punishment being far more severe than the crime committed (most likely the reason the story has been picked up by the press). The student and the parents brought their case to school officials, who agreed with them, apologized for the ordeal and admitted they could have done better, and cleared the student of any wrongdoing. They didn't say "you're still in the wrong but we'll go easy on you because your parents are making a big deal out of this."

They banned the sale of candy five years ago, when the kid was in third grade. Five years and they had no written rule for it, only "verbal warnings" and who knows when the last time they ever mentioned it was or to what audience. That is something to apologize for and fix immediately so that the situation can be avoided in the future, which appears to be what they are aiming to do.

(Also in your example there are probably other factors, such as their previous behavior. If that was the second or third strike for them then hell yeah they should have been expelled. But I can see how parents might use the "he hasn't ever been in trouble or late to school and he's an A+++ student!" argument to lessen the sentence.)

The bans are probably the right decision. We saw what happened to Randy Wagstaff.

There's a King of the Hill episode ...

Bobby Hill would be totally screwed if he couldn't buy contraband candy at school.

My OMG here is that I can't tell if LoriFLA is serious or not. The only stuff that was sold like that in any schools I attended got you more than a sugarhigh!

me too, richat, me too.

Selling candy was banned at my high school because students held too many candy-selling fundraisers and spent all their class time walking around, looking at candy, talking about candy, selling candy, collecting money, counting money, and so on. Each fundraiser would last a week or two, and when it ended another club would begin one. Fundraisers were ongoing for half the year. So I have sympathy for the school.

We had independent candy-sellers like LoriFLA! I'd forgotten about them! Lots of kids sold Chiclets and mystery foreign candy with high lead content.

I am dead serious. This is what was happening in this article. The honor student was purchasing candy from another student that sold candy for profit. My husband would stop into a convenience store in the morning, buy a ton of 10 cent Now and Later and Mamba packs and sell them for a quarter or 50 cents. I'm almost certain that this kid knew what he was doing. Candy selling is popular in my neck of the woods. At least it used to be when I was in school. We had people that sold stickers, Sex Wax, and candy. Drugs too, of course, but I didn't know any teenage drug sellers.

I'm almost certain that this kid knew what he was doing

...was wrong

I actually used to sell candy in high school. I'd buy it from Costco and sell it at a 50% mark-up. I made a lot of money and funded quite a few Youth Group field trips that way.

Five years and they had no written rule for it

CF, where did you read this? Because, from reading the article posted above, all we have is this: "Turner said she should have reinforced in writing the verbal warnings against candy transactions." It DOES NOT say that the policy was not a written policy - it says that she should have documented verbal warnings given to students with written warnings, presumably sent home to the parents and placed in the student's permanent record.

I don't think it's that unreasonable to ban candy in school. On the other side of the coin, it's just as reasonable as any other policy regarding school culture and social mores (the dress code, for example).

Oh man, I have a bag of Skittles in the pantry calling my name.

I was the kid who took the orders, took off at recess and rode to the shop to buy the candy for the other kids (also illegal), for a 10% fee. The only lolly-type-things available at our tuckshop were carob buds and sultana balls (aka 'squashed flies').

I also sold cigarettes, stolen from my friend's parent's fish and chip shop. I was quite the entrepeneur.

I also don't think it's unreasonable to ban [lollies] at school, but I also think if you do so you must expect some black market activity.

When Skittles are outlawed, only outlaws will taste the rainbow...

Understandable rule, but over-punishment based on "zero tolerance" enforcement. It happens every day, once a week the media gets a hold of it and makes it a Federal Case. But brain-dead "zero tolerance" as a substitute for school administrators using judgment doesn't go away. Sometimes it does at a school that gets 'publicly embarrassed' by something like this, sometimes the administrators' brains can't be brought back to life. A 21st Century Cliché. Next story...

but over-punishment based on "zero tolerance" enforcement

But wendell, we don't know ANYTHING about this, except for a three paragraph AP article. That's my main beef with "news stories" like this one. It gets painted as "ZOMG NAZI SCHOOL" when no one knows anything about it. Yeah, it's just candy, but how many times were the children verbally warned about selling it? Was the principal getting complaints from parents and teachers? Were students openly flaunting it like they are wont to do?

The only side that gets reported is the student's view, or the parents' view, because often the principal's hands are tied when it comes to talking to the press. That's all I'm trying to say.

I did a google search to find other sources on the incident, and this version of the article appears to be more clear than the one on CNN (though they're both AP). You're right muddgirl, I interpreted the bit about written warnings incorrectly.

A copy of the district's policy states that "no candy or junk food fundraisers will be allowed on school grounds" and that only healthy snacks will be sold in vending machines.

The policy also prohibits bake sales and other food sales during school hours. The policy does not say anything about students sharing snacks when no money is exchanged.

I can totally see how the kid probably didn't think twice about buying the Skittles though, as the policy seems to be directed at the schools themselves rather than the students. Woops.

All in all, I guess the only point of the story was that the principal went overboard on punishing a well behaved and studious student, upon reviewing the facts school officials agreed it was gratuitous, apologized, and rescinded the punishment. All while under scrutiny from the press, which is pretty much the point of the press, watchdog and all that.

often the principal's hands are tied when it comes to talking to the press.
How so?

often the principal's hands are tied when it comes to talking to the press.
How so?

By the school district, I'd imagine. I'm not allowed to talk to the press in my job, and neither are the teachers and school administrators who work for the same employer. That's what the Media and Communications department is for.

I'm glad the kid got his post back.

I realise in my post above it reads as though I stole cigarettes from my friend's parents. I didn't, my friend did. My role was more that of fence.