8th Grader gets detention for sharing lunch with another student

[MCgrease08]

Eighth grader gets detention for sharing lunch with hungry classmate | Fox 59

I probably don't need to tell you that this happened in California. An 8th grader shared his burrito with a classmate at lunch and got detention for it.

The school says they have a no sharing policy to protect students with food allergies. Heaven forbid the schools give 14 year-old's the benefit of the doubt when it comes to knowing what foods might kill them.

 

[robmcguire]

 

[Bennettjh]

I guess I wouldn't expect much different from Commiefornia. They(their .gov) knows best.

 

[OakRiver]

Next time California has a ballot to split into smaller territories can the rest of us vote to have it form its own country separate from the US?

 

[Cameramonkey]

Thank you for further reinforcing our choice to home school. Every week that goes by I swear its more and more likely I'd end up in jail for my absolute lack of tolerance for a**hat school policies and staff if my kids were in public school.

 

[pudly]

At what point does sending your kid to government schools become child abuse?

 

[printcraft]

Remember, it's not charity unless it comes from and is controlled by the government.

 

[MCgrease08]

The new California mantra...

"Share the wealth, not your food."

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

Woooooow.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Zero Tolerance.

It's awesome.

 

[prescut]

CA is home to those who want to help other people do what's right. what's right is decided by those who want to help, not those that need the help. each new rule comes with, Now I'm doing this for your own good. help is not on the way. it gets worse day by day. no rules are withdrawn, only new ones added.

 

[Webster-dl]

I don't know if this is politics, but I am of the persuasion that California is a state run by politically appointed incompentents and idiots. From city government to state.

I am not saying that ALL California governmental administrators are possessed of unfathomable idiocy. There are competent, intelligent, conscientious governmental administrators in California. I've met both of them.

 

[MisterChester]

As someone with quite a few food allergies that could provoke an anaphylactic response, I think they overreacted. There was no ill intention. A simple talking to and a clear message to students would have sufficed.

 

[MisterChester]

Zero Tolerance.

It's awesome.

Zero tolerance is the basic "cover our a**es" policy of US public schools. It's about not protecting anybody but themselves and it's extremely shameful.

 

[Denny347]

Another instance of people more worried about doing things right than doing the right things. This is the motto of bureaucracies.

 

[david890]

Okay: how many of those posting comments have taught school? I did (HS science/physics and math). Yes, 14-year-olds do incredibly stupid stuff, as do the 15-18-y-o crowd. I was out sick for a few days and some kids broke into a cabinet to play with my Jacob's Ladder (a 15kV transformer with 2 vertical leads that produce a nice, sustained spark between them as the spark rises), and one kid got a bit to close. Took a spark to the arm, and the arm didn't work for the rest of the day! It could have killed him, and I suspect I would have been sued as a matter of course, even though: a) the item was locked up; b) the kid broke into the cabinet to get it; and c) I wasn't there. Some lawyer would have argued that such a dangerous device should never have been brought to a school, that it was an "attractive nuisance" (that kids - even 14-year-olds - lack the self-control to NOT break in and play with it) and the lawyer might have been able to convince your average jury! That would leave me out my job and on the hook for big $$$$, and likely unable to find a teaching job ever again.

I'll agree that many (most) of the decisions we bemoan (suspension for chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun, etc.) are idiotic, but when it's your ass on the line, you play it safe. A 14-year-old might know which foods cause reactions, but does the kid who offered his food know? What if he DID know the recipient would suffer a reaction, and did it out of spite/hatred? Without a rule in place, it would be difficult to justify or impose a punishment.

IMHO, it reminds me of many of the rules in the military. We would say those rules were written in blood, because someone usually had to die before the Top Brass would take action. Should the school wait for some kid to have a reaction before acting? What if it were YOUR kid with the allergy?

You can make something fool-proof, but you can't make it DAMN FOOL-proof!

 

[pudly]

I'll agree that many (most) of the decisions we bemoan (suspension for chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun, etc.) are idiotic, but when it's your ass on the line, you play it safe. A 14-year-old might know which foods cause reactions, but does the kid who offered his food know? What if he DID know the recipient would suffer a reaction, and did it out of spite/hatred? Without a rule in place, it would be difficult to justify or impose a punishment.

Just another example of why sending kids to public schools should be considered child abuse.

Another instance of people more worried about doing things right than doing the right things. This is the motto of bureaucracies.

 

[88GT]

Okay: how many of those posting comments have taught school? I did (HS science/physics and math). Yes, 14-year-olds do incredibly stupid stuff, as do the 15-18-y-o crowd. I was out sick for a few days and some kids broke into a cabinet to play with my Jacob's Ladder (a 15kV transformer with 2 vertical leads that produce a nice, sustained spark between them as the spark rises), and one kid got a bit to close. Took a spark to the arm, and the arm didn't work for the rest of the day! It could have killed him, and I suspect I would have been sued as a matter of course, even though: a) the item was locked up; b) the kid broke into the cabinet to get it; and c) I wasn't there. Some lawyer would have argued that such a dangerous device should never have been brought to a school, that it was an "attractive nuisance" (that kids - even 14-year-olds - lack the self-control to NOT break in and play with it) and the lawyer might have been able to convince your average jury! That would leave me out my job and on the hook for big $$$$, and likely unable to find a teaching job ever again.

I'll agree that many (most) of the decisions we bemoan (suspension for chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a gun, etc.) are idiotic, but when it's your ass on the line, you play it safe. A 14-year-old might know which foods cause reactions, but does the kid who offered his food know? What if he DID know the recipient would suffer a reaction, and did it out of spite/hatred? Without a rule in place, it would be difficult to justify or impose a punishment.

IMHO, it reminds me of many of the rules in the military. We would say those rules were written in blood, because someone usually had to die before the Top Brass would take action. Should the school wait for some kid to have a reaction before acting? What if it were YOUR kid with the allergy?

You can make something fool-proof, but you can't make it DAMN FOOL-proof!

You grew up in California, didn't you?

 

[david890]

You grew up in California, didn't you?

Born in Bedford, raised in Indy.