Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Idiotic School Ban on Candy Mirrors Stupidity of Drug Prohibition

By Tony Newman, AlterNet. Posted April 10, 2008.


Whaddya know? As soon as CA schools started banning candy, students started dealing it on the "underground market" at a marked up price.
Advertisement

Sugar has long been a popular drug consumed and even sold in schools nationwide. But concerns over health, obesity and the risk of diabetes have led some schools in California to institute a ban on sugary snacks. In response to these candy sales bans, some students are starting to deal candy bars on the "underground market" at a marked up price.

In the United States today, more than 12.5 million children and adolescents -- 17.1 percent of young people ages two to 19 are overweight. They are more likely to develop high blood pressure, high cholesterol and Type-2 diabetes. It is admirable that schools are trying to get a handle on this problem by replacing unhealthy foods with healthier options. But, as schools attempt to replace sugary treats with healthier alternatives like granola bars, business savvy students have stepped in to meet the demand by bringing candy from home or stores and reselling them at school.

Whether it's banning alcohol consumption 75 years ago, keeping illegal drugs off the streets (and out of the pharmacies) today, or the banning of sweets from the schools tomorrow, there most likely will be someone to step in and fill the void. But aside from the Economics 101 lesson of supply and demand, there are a number of important take-home lessons to be learned from the consequences of prohibition -- even the well intended prohibition of sweets.

1) Prohibition rarely works.

Despite their schools' junk-food ban, Jim Nason, principal of Victorville High School, says he sees as much soda and candy as ever. The ineffectiveness of Victorville High's ban on chocolate is not surprising when we consider the much more intense effort by all levels of government to prohibit other potentially harmful substances like illicit drugs.

After 40 years of "Just Say No" and fantasies of a "Drug-Free America," we are a country swimming in drugs. Our government spends tens of billions of dollars a year locking up hundreds of thousands of its citizens for simple drug law violations and drugs are still as plentiful as ever. Despite harsh "drug-free school zone laws" half of all high-school seniors will have tried marijuana before graduation. In fact teenagers say it is easier to get marijuana than it is to get alcohol as drug dealers don't check for IDs. By prohibiting candy, we may be contributing to its allure by creating a certain taboo around it.

2) Prohibition usually creates new and potentially worse problems.

While it is clear that prohibition rarely works, it may be less obvious how it usually creates new and possibly more dangerous problems. So how should the school punish the rule breakers who are dealing the candy? Victorville High confiscates candy and issues punishment for sales, usually detention. And what happens if this punishment doesn't work? Should repeat offenders be suspended? Should they be kicked out of school? How far are we willing to go to enforce this ban? And whose job is it to enforce these rules? Are overwhelmed teachers who are dealing with 30-plus students per class now going to spend class time searching students' bags for candy?

3) Educating our teens to make responsible choices makes more sense.

I appreciate schools and advocates who are tackling the obesity issue in our society. I understand the desire to keep our children safe and the fear of our teens developing unhealthy addictions to a range of things they consume from food and sugar to alcohol and other drugs. As a society, we should do everything we can to encourage healthy choices and after-school programs that have been shown to reduce student drug use and keep kids fit.

But let's not let our good intentions and legitimate concerns lead to solutions where the cure is worse than the disease. No phony horror stories ('try marijuana and you will turn into a homeless heroin addict') or "zero tolerance" policies that expel otherwise good students, and end up causing much more harm than good. At the end of the day, prohibition of candy -- or drugs -- while making us feel good, is simplistic and superficial and avoids the hard work of educating our children to make responsible choices.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: drug prohibition

Tony Newman is communications director for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
What they need is a time machine
Posted by: supercrisp on Apr 10, 2008 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To stop this, or slow it down, they could hop in their time machine, nip back to the 80s, and warn themselves to stop yabbering about the "entrepreneurial spirit" in school assemblies, stop allowing sales of candy to raise money for the school band's tuba polishers, get some healthy menus in the cafeteria (no catsup as a vegetable). And while they're back there, they can tell the Channel One folks to go soak their heads. It'd be great!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

labels that incite reactions
Posted by: WyrdSister on Apr 10, 2008 6:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They should have not called it a "Ban".

Here in Minnesota, junk food such as the candy, chips and soda, were removed from all of our high schools and ya know what? We've done just fine. We, as staff and administrators, did not make a big deal of it, they were just removed. The students have been just fine.

The building where I work is actually the Community Center, so we still have the machines in our lobby but are turned off between the hours of 8 and 3, water and juice are still available.

No one puts up a fight because we didnt make a bid deal of it, its just the way it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: labels that incite reactions Posted by: xconservative
blackmarket candy
Posted by: WyrdSister on Apr 10, 2008 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
isnt the school's problem. The school is not the one providing the snacks anymore. That's all the law says.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am kind of floored
Posted by: Lauren on Apr 10, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all the hottest, most important drug related topics bubbling up in the mainstream press, I really am shocked by this week's expose' - dealing illegal sugar.

My daughter and her friend started a thriving business selling original drawings of popular Pokimon characters. I was shocked to find the school shut them down right quick. I realised teaching children valuable life skills and lessons was not the goal of the school, no the actual goal of the school was nothing but confinement and control.

They also taught her sugar was good for her to load up on before any kind of test. I tried to fight that teaching with fruits and vegetables and lost the argument big time. The road to many a future case of diabetes was developed in those elementary classrooms, sugar 'cramming' for their never-ending tests.

DARE too taught her things about how to treat vulnerable people, with distain.

So I guess this uninspiring story is where I announce my first anointing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I am kind of floored Posted by: Lauren
» I think you missed the point Posted by: LeeAnnG
» This is the new version of fascism Posted by: Persephone8
» RE: I am kind of floored Posted by: HelperMonkey
Banning
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Apr 10, 2008 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here in West Virginia schools do not dispense sweets or soft drinks during school hours. In addition, when parties are held for elementary school kids, parents are asked to abide by the healthy food guidelines established by the school system.

Students are not banned from bringing any food from home, but they are discouraged from bringing soft drinks or other sweets.

This seems to have worked quite well. The school does not provide unhealthy snacks, but a black market for sugar has not been opened.

Making something illegal (or "banning" it in the schools) is almost certain to create a backlash. Amazing that the Powers That Be haven't caught on to that yet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Backlash Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Banning Posted by: xconservative
the american dream...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Apr 11, 2008 7:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is to get rich or die trying...
or was that fifycent's dream...
or maybe it was his American nightmare?

Why is it always about money with some societies and cultures?
We all live in a macro environment where PEOPLE emulate everything around them.
but in a school or learning environment its always about how the young see the world around them and how they want to emulate and fit in with it... school is an institution where children emulate;
idols, stars, athletes, teachers, parents and
yes, gangsters, pimps, ho's
...and of course drug dealers...

Children learn from whats around them... they are a reflection of us and our immediate neighborhoods suburbs municipality, city, county, state/province... country...
it's like when you grow up you become a citizen...

When in real life the lessons that need to be taught but rarely are, are on;
taking responsibilities,
finding empathy and
learning the values of compassion...
once a child has learned these values, only then can they truly be called adults...
and citizens.

Don't you see them everyday?...
the children in our midsts...
dressed in adult skins but in reality aren't anything like adults...
and then these children have children of there own... and its all downhill from there!

Both of the Republicans "Wars on concepts" were conceived in stupidity and born out of pain...
and now... this child runs amok amongst us...
A child in an adult suit...

Where's the Kool-Aid

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Using a high school as an example is a pretty weak argument.
Posted by: MamaPantz on Apr 11, 2008 10:39 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is being done starting with preschoolers and is a really good idea. There is no reason to have candy and pop at school, as they are treats and not food. Food should be served at school along with water or healthier drinks.

Starting children off correctly in elementary school is actually what should be getting the attention. That is what is effective, and what will encourage them to be healthier as they grow.

By the time kids get to high school, they've already received much of their values and influences. They are almost adults, and are being encouraged to start acting like them. They also have money, and access to vending machines, and make most of their decisions for themselves. So banning candy and pop is not going to change their minds at that point in their childhood, but again, there's no reason to have that stuff in school. So yeah, for these obviously bored students, it's a little late to start.

But the point is keeping it out of schools to begin with, from the first year on that will make a difference for the younger ones.

It may be amusing or even sad to see this "underground" behavior, but don't throw the whole idea out with these already corrupted high school kids. They are not the one's that will benefit. Why not see the whole picture and think about the younger kids that will benefit from this? The kids that aren't old enough to make these decisions yet and depend on adults to show them what's healthy. That's who this is for.

My daughter is very young and her school has what they call a "wellness policy", which means no candy. I put a lot of time and effort into making healthy choices for my kids and teaching them why it's important, so I shouldn't have to send them to a place that will contradict that when they're in their care. That's what their grandparents are for!

It's not like they're being deprived of anything they actually need or should be getting in school. We should be more worried about what they're not learning in school, rather than crap they shouldn't be eating anyway that's ruining their health.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SUGAR IS ADDICTIVE
Posted by: bryangalt on Apr 12, 2008 10:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sugar is the most addictive substance on the planet. Heroine, coke, crank, weed, all pale in comparison.

If you think that's nuts, try stopping your consumption of sugar cold turkey: no more pepsi, cereals, sugar in your coffee, tea, cakes, candies, no more ice cream, etc. Let's not forget the complex carbs (sugar as well): potatoes, most fruits, and on and on.

The real issue is the fact that our society is filled to the brim with Puritan Do-gooder's who are constantly trying to force their sense of morality over onto their neighbors. And, like a schizto these same Do-gooders expect that their way will be adopted by everyone regardless of how often their way fails to produce the desired results.

When will people realize that the best way to operate A FREE COUNTRY (I laugh even as I type that fallicy) is to leave people to the PURSUIT OF THEIR OWN HAPPINESS! If I want to sit home and get stoned, minding my own business, it shouldn't be anyone else's business. If you want to sit home and pray for the sinners (leaving yourself out of course) then fine by me, that's what A FREE COUNTRY is supposed to be about.

As for the kids selling the candies, THAT'S WHAT AMERICA IS REALLY ABOUT-fuck the rules if there is a dollar to be made...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: SUGAR IS ADDICTIVE Posted by: obliu222
You Folks Are Missing The Point
Posted by: thornwolf on Apr 14, 2008 2:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Prohibition NEVER works

2) Prohibition ALWAYS creates worse problems

3) Education about something is more effective than prohibition, which never works and always creates worse problems.

Get it? It's not about high school or sugar or kids being overweight. The article is about the failure of prohibition to achieve its purported ends, and uses the example of a high school's ban on sweets to illustrate the point -- the point about prohibition's failings.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You win First place!!!!! Posted by: garry minor
» So are you Posted by: realist
off the mark
Posted by: HelperMonkey on Apr 14, 2008 3:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I almost never read an alternet article I disagree with as completely as this one. Why on earth you think that selling sweets to children at school is a good idea is beyond me. High sugar intake and bad food in general wreak havok on childrens concentration span and ability to learn. And kids are kids - supply them with chocolate and they'll stuff themselves with it, that's just the way it is. Last but not least there is the ever increasing threat of child obesity to take into consideration and that is no small concern. Teach kids to eat crap when they're young and they'll do it their whole lives - it is no coincidence that this is the basis for most mcdonalds advertising campaigns.

Where I went to school we didn't have a 'ban' on sweets, so much as they just weren't there. No deep fried crap either - you just had things like ham and salad buns, and they were great. And for my own sake, I am so glad that was the case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Very resourceful.
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 14, 2008 3:40 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is childhood without candy? What will Big Brother and the Soccer Fraus try to take away next? Will they ban paper so you can't make spit wads and pass notes in class?

I went to catholic school, and I think some of the repression made rebelling more fun. Hopefully that's the case here, and it will give some kids the opportunity to make a little money and learn about the real world.

Still, I feel bad for today's kids. Every whacko interest group seems to have their dirty fingers in the schools, turning them into Hitler Youth Camps. I have some pretty scary nightmares of being back in school, but I don't wake up screaming, as later generations probably will.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As with drugs, the main issue here is the marketing
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Apr 14, 2008 4:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article neglects one rather important feature of the food & beverage industry's role in bringing junk food advertising on campus.

For those really interested in the issue, here is a good study FOOD AND BEVERAGE MARKETING ON CALIFORNIA HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUSES SURVEY: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS March 2006

. . . Since the 1980s, the food and beverage industry has made children and adolescents the targets of intense and specialized food marketing and advertising efforts. As a result, children are exposed to multiple food advertisements every day, and foods marketed to children—from highly sweetened cereals to cookies, candy, fast foods, and soda—are predominantly high in calories, sugar and fat.

. . .Commercial activities in U.S. public elementary and secondary schools have expanded during the last decade as a result of marketers’ taking advantage of schools’ financial vulnerability due to chronic funding shortages, coupled with marketers’ wish to increase sales and generate product loyalty. In-school marketing activities related to food and beverages include product sales, direct advertising, indirect marketing and market research.

. . .This study found indications of food and beverage marketing in many locations throughout the high school campuses visited. Each of the campuses had multiple layers of marketing and advertising from visible signage and logos on vending machines and equipment to more subtle food and beverage industry presence in the form of donated products for fundraising or corporate sponsorships of activities or scholarships.

This assessment found very little marketing for foods such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, water and milk that are lacking in children’s diets and that health professionals, parents and educators would like to encourage children to eat more of. Overwhelmingly, the food and beverage marketing found on the campuses came from companies and brands associated with foods that are discouraged in children’s diets including soda, sports drinks and other sugary beverages, chips, candy and fast food.

This finding is consistent with other reports that have found candy and snack food manufacturers, soft drink bottlers, and fast food restaurants, are among the companies that market most heavily in schools . . .


Thus, to make the comparison to drug use, you'd have to have schools that were heavily marketing drugs to children (the marketing of the amphetamines Ritalin and Adderall to parents of children is another example), and then decided to ban the practice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"snickers"
Posted by: Sy Ence on Apr 14, 2008 5:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so...cold...must...have...candy...need...candy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who cares?
Posted by: PJAW on Apr 14, 2008 6:18 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Warning: Junk Food Lobby has infiltrated Alternet
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Apr 14, 2008 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course they shouldnt go all Nazi in the process of eliminating junk food from schools. But removing the junk spewing vending machines has been long overdue.

This is not at all like the black market for narcotics. First of all, the government ships in the illegal narcotics, and that's what creates the market for it.... it is essentially a government monopoly.

With junk food, there is already an excess in supply. It's everywhere. That eliminates the profit motive for a black market. Sure, some kids will pay a dollar for a snickers bar, but it wont take long for them to realize that they can buy their own and sneak em in. There is no way anyone can get a monopoly on junk food supplies. That will allow prices to reach an equilibrium.

So the only thing that will have changed, in the long run, is that there will be no vending machines calling out to every kid who walks by. That's what will reduce the sugar consumption. Out of sight, out of mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can anyone say STEVIA?
Posted by: maxpayne on Apr 14, 2008 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a better idea. Parents should be informed about the all-natural sweetner Stevia that can be used in just about any sweet recipe. From there, make some good sweets from stevia and encourage kids to do the same and share each other's recipes. In time, that'll put the petroleum-manufactured candy business on the economic defensive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Stevia tastes like crap Posted by: Illiteratilumen
So THAT's why they call it the Food and Drug Administration
Posted by: Elmo409 on Apr 14, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always wondered what food has to do with drugs. Now I know. Food is a drug.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

candy is sugar - full stop
Posted by: aislinnluv on Apr 14, 2008 11:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but more than half the food you can buy in any grocery now contains high fructose corn syrup. just try to buy salad dressing, hot dog buns, even "seven grain bread" (sounds healthy, right?) without high fructose corn syrup as a major ingredient. of course i don't recommend a diet heavy on candy, but for the most part, a little bit of candy in a kid's day is not likely to cause major harm. if a child gets a good and balanced diet at home (breakfast, dinner) and has a lunch brought from home or bought at school that is nutritious, why can he not have a freaking mars bar at school? maybe if you really want to control that so badly, you can instigate a system of cards, like debit cards, to be used to buy candy from the machines. each card could be used only once a day in any machine. there you are - limits without repression, some common sense. go after the food manufacturers and the hfcs. leave the kids alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I began school
Posted by: willymack on Apr 14, 2008 12:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the fall of 1945. I graduated from high school in the spring of 1958. In all that time, candy, gum, or any other comestible in the classroom was prohibited and enforced with instant seizure of the offending material and a visit to the principal's office for repeated offenses. The time to eat was LUNCHTIME, and no other time, period. I don't recall any problems with this rule. It was good then, and I think it's good now. This is in no way, shape, or form related to alcohol or drug prohibition, but one of the controls the teacher MUST have to maintain an orderly classroom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

seller
Posted by: coxxy333 on Apr 14, 2008 2:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a few years ago in middle school they banned candy and me and another friend got in the candy selling business. in one week i made $175, so kids are willing to pay for candy with their parents money. so if you want someone to blame its the parents for giving the children the money to spend $5 a day on candy unless the child decides to skip lunch and instead eat skittles and starbursts all day

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

candey truck
Posted by: wittler youth on Apr 14, 2008 4:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i robbed one and took the poceeds to school and sold the shit out of my school locker...to this day i wont ever eat a reese peanut chocolate cup..i o.d. on them back then..and learnd my lession..it was the best lesson i ever learned..suger sucks no matter how you coat it...it was like crack..u got that 2min. buzz then hey weres the next candy bar..the shit sold itself..of couese surger is a gate way drug..i moved on to safer ones like pot//hey i aint sporteing diabeates today..and all the caffine addicts all end up in aa..and nicotine..wear that 19.95 pacth and line the fucks pockets that put it out...war on drugs..preach on you fucking hypocrits..im voteing for the most repulsive lire thats out there..that would be john mc cain..or should i say mc cocain?..money dont grow on trees..but it sure as shit grows on bushes..and if you think differnt you need to defalt on your house..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Profit Motive
Posted by: gellero1 on Apr 14, 2008 6:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Selling candy and sodas in school is stupid, period. They do it because they make some money. (the school systems, that is ).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of Course it is Idiotic!
Posted by: Gravitas on Apr 14, 2008 7:32 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Besides the lessons of history, like prohibition, how many psychological studies do they need to convince them banning something makes it more attractive??? The journals are full of them!

People should also be aware that much of the child obesity hysteria is being sponsored by Pharma to get customers earlier. Say one thing about banning candy and get accused of being on BigFood's payroll, but the same Casandras give Pharma free reign.

If they want to do something about childhood obesity, they should start looking at environmental estrogen, growth hormones in meat, and mom's weight loss dieting. All have found to INCREASE obesity, yet we refuse to address them. Could that possibly be because weight obsession is one way BILLIONS get channeled from the middle class to the power-elite each year and they don't want it to stop despite all the lip service????


p.s. California, deal with your secrets and you won't have to project your "lack of control" fears on your kids!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» alcohol deaths Posted by: e rice
» RE: alcohol deaths Posted by: EagleMB
In my son's high school...
Posted by: tdog8 on Apr 15, 2008 9:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...they have begun a program using drug sniffing dogs to stop the (so they claim) drug crisis on campus.

Maybe the schools now need candy sniffing dogs to stop the flow of contraband sweets finding their way into the hallways of secondary education.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Back to 'Good ol' Days'
Posted by: Andie927 on Apr 16, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WE, the American public fund schools, with our tax-dollars! It is not a 'baby-sitting' service, nor Social Hour! Kids are there to learn! NOT drink soda, eat candy, or find a boy friend.

Let's go back to school dress codes, you eat in the cafeteria, or not at all, you don't leave the school grounds with out a permission slip from your parents, and if you do you don't come back!

Schools are for Learning! If your NOT there to learn, STOP wasting OUR money!

If parents aren't going to teach their children, 'there's a time and place for everything' (schools neither the time nor place, for short-shorts, nor baggy pants and underware showing) then the school should! In the real working world, which school is suppose to be preparing them for, this kind of conduct wouldn't be tolerated!

No wonder, we have school shootings, and all kinds of discipline problems!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Back to 'Good ol' Days' Posted by: e rice