Welcome to the Police State of Connecticut

[Change]

Conn. Student Suspended For Buying Candy In School
NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) ― Contraband candy has led to big trouble for an eighth-grade honors student.

Michael Sheridan was stripped of his title as class vice president, barred from attending an honors student dinner and suspended for a day after buying a bag of Skittles from a classmate.

The New Haven school system banned candy sales in 2003 as part of a district-wide school wellness policy, said school spokeswoman Catherine Sullivan-DeCarlo.

Shelli Sheridan, Michael's mother, said he is a top student with no previous disciplinary problems.

"It's too much. It's too unfair," she said. "He's never even had a detention."

Michael's suspension has been reduced from three days to one, but he has not been reinstated as class vice president.

He said he didn't realize his candy purchase was against the rules, but he did notice that the student selling the Skittles on Feb. 26 was being secretive.

An administrator busted Michael with the candy in his pocket. His mother says the student who sold him the Skittles out of a lunch box was also suspended.

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.

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.

 

[p5yph3r]

Wtf?

This has nothing to do with the official campaign. The local school system in the article is acting within its jurisdiction. How does keeping minors from carrying a bunch of cash around which could be stolen, and decreasing junk food availability in school make CT a police state?

 

[WilliamC]

This has nothing to do with the official campaign. The local school system in the article is acting within its jurisdiction. How does keeping minors from carrying a bunch of cash around which could be stolen, and decreasing junk food availability in school make CT a police state?

If you can't see the obvious that it teaches kids that they aren't allowed to have cash or make purchases without government approval then you are pretty deep into believing that the government is your friend.

When I was in 5th grade I used to volunteer to sell the ice cream to students after lunch. We carried cash to school and traded stuff with each other all the time. What, and now this is illegal and gets a kid suspended?

Nuts!

 

[Change]

Okay my mistake, no it is not part of the official campaign. Agendas within the public education system are pushed by "special interest" groups on the STATE and FEDERAL level. So let me get this right, our local board of educations can pass rules that actually take our liberties away, as to eat what we want? that is scary stuff. I am all for rules and regulations in schools, but how is this not a constitutional issue of the right to liberty. So easy, we allow the schools to decide what our children will eat and not eat?

Yes, complete police State. I stand by my posting. The school is now controlling what you eat and put into your body, not my idea of a free society. No one actually has free will anymore. In addition, this "food" was not being sold for a fundraiser or by the school. The child brought the food into school and traded it with another child for cash.

Totally out of control! How do we teach our children about our constitution, when we allow the schools to break it's most fundamental purpose of liberty.

 

[Change]

If you can't see the obvious that it teaches kids that they aren't allowed to have cash or make purchases without government approval then you are pretty deep into believing that the government is your friend.

When I was in 5th grade I used to volunteer to sell the ice cream to students after lunch. We carried cash to school and traded stuff with each other all the time. What, and now this is illegal and gets a kid suspended?

Nuts!

Thank you! I actually thought I was on the wrong forum for a moment. Liberty, freedom, teaching children about free will and positive and negative consequences. This story is exactly what is wrong with our schools on so many levels.

 

[ItsTime]

One of the 1000s of reasons my child will be learning at home.

 

[hawks4ronpaul]

Skittles is a well-known "gateway candy."

This policy is necessary make-work to prevent schools from concentrating resources on dangerous distractions such as reading, writing, and arithmetic.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

 

[WilliamC]

Thank you! I actually thought I was on the wrong forum for a moment. Liberty, freedom, teaching children about free will and positive and negative consequences. This story is exactly what is wrong with our schools on so many levels.

While I agree that this is a terrible abuse of power on the part of the schools it is perhaps a topic better put into a different subforum than news about the official campaign.

I just tend to use the new posts feature and don't pay as much attention to where theads are as some do.

 

[Change]

Sorry for placement. It just blew me away, I had to share this simple story. Back to business.

 

[ItsTime]

too bad we do not hold our REAL vice president up to these same standards.

 

[p5yph3r]

If you can't see the obvious that it teaches kids that they aren't allowed to have cash or make purchases without government approval then you are pretty deep into believing that the government is your friend.

When I was in 5th grade I used to volunteer to sell the ice cream to students after lunch. We carried cash to school and traded stuff with each other all the time. What, and now this is illegal and gets a kid suspended?

Nuts!

Allow me to clarify my statement. I don't agree with what that district is doing; however, people are elected to the school board, giving them jurisdiction over school related matters in their district. If they say students can't sell candy in that district, they're exercising authority that others will freely cede to state or federal government in a heartbeat. As long as the Department of Education has such a heavy handed role in determining how we educate our kids, I'm afraid you guys that think I don't love liberty as much as you do are beating a dead horse. Liberty, free will and free market capitalism are not guidestones for how public schools are teaching our children right now. The OP clearly states that the policy said nothing about students sharing snacks when no money is exchanged, so to tacitly imply that the school district is telling people what they can and can't eat is going a little too far. I would much rather see a local school district make a stupid decision like this, that can be remedied in a number of ways: parents can move, people can run for the school board, or people can vote to replace people that set rules like the one in the OP.

 

[I Am Weasel]

Aside from the nutrition issue, Sullivan-DeCarlo said, students create security problems when they carry money.

Gee, wonder when we'll hear the treasury say this? and Bush baby impliment it?

 

[ItsTime]

I heard the IRS is auditing the kid that sold the candy

 

[p5yph3r]

Okay my mistake, no it is not part of the official campaign. Agendas within the public education system are pushed by "special interest" groups on the STATE and FEDERAL level. So let me get this right, our local board of educations can pass rules that actually take our liberties away, as to eat what we want? that is scary stuff. I am all for rules and regulations in schools, but how is this not a constitutional issue of the right to liberty. So easy, we allow the schools to decide what our children will eat and not eat?

Yes, complete police State. I stand by my posting. The school is now controlling what you eat and put into your body, not my idea of a free society. No one actually has free will anymore. In addition, this "food" was not being sold for a fundraiser or by the school. The child brought the food into school and traded it with another child for cash.

Totally out of control! How do we teach our children about our constitution, when we allow the schools to break it's most fundamental purpose of liberty.

According to your post, this happened in a single school district in CT, not the entire state. This policy applies to minors who are not yet fully responsible for their actions. I don't think suspending a kid for selling candy teaches a valuable lesson, but the kid's not serving jail time either. Rules are rules. What lesson would it teach those children if they made exceptions to rules that are on the books? Every one of you that read my first reply in disgust forget that your eyes have been opened; not everyone sees our country as you do now. The public school system is still broken, teaching our kids to be obedient workers and tax payers, and to blindly submit to authority. Again, please understand that my point is that the district in the OP has jurisdiction over school matters in their district, according to the current state laws. Revolution starts at the individual level. Many more hearts and minds still have yet to be won before we can restore the Constitution.

 

[Change]

Allow me to clarify my statement. I don't agree with what that district is doing; however, people are elected to the school board, giving them jurisdiction over school related matters in their district. If they say students can't sell candy in that district, they're exercising authority that others will freely cede to state or federal government in a heartbeat. As long as the Department of Education has such a heavy handed role in determining how we educate our kids, I'm afraid you guys that think I don't love liberty as much as you do are beating a dead horse. Liberty, free will and free market capitalism are not guidestones for how public schools are teaching our children right now. The OP clearly states that the policy said nothing about students sharing snacks when no money is exchanged, so to tacitly imply that the school district is telling people what they can and can't eat is going a little too far. I would much rather see a local school district make a stupid decision like this, that can be remedied in a number of ways: parents can move, people can run for the school board, or people can vote to replace people that set rules like the one in the OP.

Why should a parent have to move, and you are right about the board of education. People don't fight the system, they most often walk away. the system is heavy loaded with Unions and Politics from both parties. Just look at the fact that the Teachers Unions endorse political candidates. There is no collective Union for Parents to back political candidates. The special interest groups also lobby the State and Federal government for access to contracts within the public schools, i.e. Behavioral Health Vendors. I worked on a bill regarding informed consent and to prohibit schools from recommending psychiatric drugs to parents for their children in public schools. The teachers union and TED Kennedy and Christopher Dodd opposed the bill and fought it the entire way. In the end, parents did win, but it took efforts that were so draining to the victims families, etc....

But you are 100% right, the Board of Education Members are elected. Again, saying education is a political machine. More parents should be involved, but they are not. Sad.

 

[p5yph3r]

Why should a parent have to move, and you are right about the board of education. People don't fight the system, they most often walk away. the system is heavy loaded with Unions and Politics from both parties. Just look at the fact that the Teachers Unions endorse political candidates. There is no collective Union for Parents to back political candidates. The special interest groups also lobby the State and Federal government for access to contracts within the public schools, i.e. Behavioral Health Vendors. I worked on a bill regarding informed consent and to prohibit schools from recommending psychiatric drugs to parents for their children in public schools. The teachers union and TED Kennedy and Christopher Dodd opposed the bill and fought it the entire way. In the end, parents did win, but it took efforts that were so draining to the victims families, etc....

But you are 100% right, the Board of Education Members are elected. Again, saying education is a political machine. More parents should be involved, but they are not. Sad.

Agreed. The Revolution will continue. Hearts and minds of individuals; that's the key. My wife's getting tired of listening to me ramble on about the Constitution and civil liberties. And I'm ok with that.

 

[d03boy]

The War On Candy

L M F A O

 

[Infamouswoodster]

Skittles is a well-known "gateway candy."

This policy is necessary make-work to prevent schools from concentrating resources on dangerous distractions such as reading, writing, and arithmetic.


http://hawks4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

that was hilarious ! ahaha

 

[BCalla]

Candy?

Have all the people who have common sense left government? Candy in school or what kids eat is up the parent and the children to make up their own minds. The rules in place are the example of people who give us a ban on cell phone driving, seat belts and child bike helts. Laws for the common good to protect yourself from parenting and for the government to be the moral teacher of society. These people believe in control and all people should be controlled and molded into their view of the world. Selling candy is not an issue schools should be worried about. If you would like to bring up the candy issue with the parents do so, but dont make these policies that clearly don't give the choices to the kids to eat or not eat candy. I can assure that most kids are able to make choices if they want to eat green beans and vegs and how much candy to eat or not eat.

 

[sratiug]

The War On Candy

L M F A O

The "War on Candy" is a natural extension of the "War on Drugs."