Just threaten to sue. Last year, I tried to tell the teacher in charge of our yearbook that I didn’t want to be in it, and she totally flipped on me. Apparently, I didn’t have a choice. Well, I didn’t even get a portrait done, so there would be no picture anyway. But, being a senior, we weren’t just dealing with a picture. What really upset me about it was that they were actually going to take it upon themselves to make up a quote for me.
They did their whole “We refuse to budge” thing, until I told them my parents would sue them (which I of course made up). Even after that, the assistant principal called me out of class into his office (he’s the discipline guy) to tell me that an apology on my part was expected for this whole mess. So, I told him my parents would sue him for harassing me. No more problems after that. Yeah, just threaten to sue. :rolleyes:
ASK? You should ASK for what is your civic right as a parent and a citizen?
The Constitution requires that public laws be made to serve a rational purpose. School districts should be held to the same standard; and their rules should be subject to the same scrutiny as any other public law. Laws which appear to be irrational should be decried as such. We are preparing students to become citizens in a democracy, not sheep.
Not to hijack-another story of ZT-zero thinking. In this case, a 12 year old girl is threatened with suspension for wearing “gang related” colors: the red, white, and blue necklace she made over the Christmas holiday to wear in support of her Uncle, who recently shipped over to Iraq. Words escape.
Well, if Florida is America’s wang, as I suggested in the thread about the girl in the tux in her yearbook photo, then Pennsylvania is right about at the proper level to be its armpit. (I like Pennsylvania, really, and we’re talking about moving back. But this is just ridiculous.)
Cindy’s girlfriend brought her all of the the homework assignments, etc. that she missed, and there were no tests yesterday or today, so Cindy did the homework and is going to turn it in anyway. The girl who ate the fries is doing likewise.
Here’s the kicker, with regard to the whole “this is because of childhood obesity” angle: Cindy bought milk and fries for her friend because those were the only things she could buy for her. You’d think that perhaps there would be fresh fruit, hard-boiled eggs, small salads or a la carte vegetables available from the food service but the only a la carte items were the fries and various desert items. In Cindy’s favor, she knew two things: her friend is diabetic (though Cindy didn’t know that diabetes makes it even more important to eat regularly) and therefore she couldn’t eat a sugary ice cream bar or pudding cup, so fries it was.
It doesn’t look like there will be any response from the school district until Thursday night, when there is an administrative meeting.
Cindy, her mom Sue and dad Joel appreciate all of your input. Thanks again, Dopers.
Um, all I can say is: if the school district is trying to “battle obesity”, why don’t they get rid of foods that are high in fats or will likely add risk to children become obese first?? And Cindy couldn’t buy anything else for her friend, anyways, so why are they blaming her?
What a :wally
I’ve never used that smiley here before…but I’m sure the circumstances here allow me to.
When I read the OP, I was trying to think of some reasoning to defend the school’s decision - not that I agree with it, I was just trying to figure out a logical explanation that may possibly have eluded Cindy’s parents (i.e. it’s so off-the-wall it MUST make sense in some way I am not aware of.)
But there’s holes in this post above. The school is offering what is basically junk food for sale, and from the OP’s account, there wasn’t much in the way of a healthy alternative. If they’re serious about battling obesity, they simply should not offer bad choices. Give the kids a choice between carrot sticks and apple slices, keep the damn french fries out of the choices. Even if the kid eats nothing BUT junk food at home, if they’re given two healthy choices and no crap ones at school, they’re going to choose healthy by default. This is what is known as a “no-brainer.”
I do not condone suing people at the drop of a hat for minor, piddly bullshit.
However, they did not just drop the hat, they kicked it into the corner and pissed on it, then rubbed it in a huge, steaming pile of bullshit. Get a lawyer and fry their collective asses sufficiently to where you will never have to worry about paying for your daughter’s education in private school or college.
The way I see it…either A: the kids in question are old enough to be responsible for their own dietary restrictions (allergies, diabetes, etc.) and their own means of procuring food (bringing money, borrowing, or packing lunch) or B: they aren’t and the school has to be responsible for providing everyone’s food. In my school days, elementary kids got lunch no matter what and parents paid by the week or month. If a kid was supposed to pack a lunch and forgot, the kid got lunch and the parents paid next week or month. In older grades, you brought money or a lunch or borrowed from a friend (food or cash) or starved. It sounds to me like the school is saying that the kids in question (if we know how old they are I missed it, but I am assuming HS) are responsible for procuring their food but are not responsible for procuring their food.
In a hypothetical to illustrate what I am trying to say the school’s current position is:
If Cindy’s friend got money from mom for a full lunch and bought pudding and ice cream instead, then fell into a diabetic coma from the sugar (or however that works) is it the school districts fault or mom’s? It can’t be the child’s because Cindy’s friend obviously isn’t smart enough to make food decisions for herself.
I’m not sure I made it any better…I’m going to quit before I make it worse. Did anyone get that?
Also, I am sure Cindy and her friend are smart enough to make food decisions, I don’t want to imply otherwise by my hypothetical.
It’s crap like this that makes me not want to have kids and expose them to this mess.
When my kids are born, I hope they won’t have to face stupid administration like this. It’s their SCHOOL for Christ’s sake! They’re supposed to learn some of their morals and values there! This isn’t what we’re supposed to be teaching them! :smack:
Any child with diabetes should be sent to school with an appropriate meal, or money to buy what she is able to eat. These actions are usually undertaken by a caring and educated parent. I can only guess what’s next - lawsuits related to candy and fried foods that caused a really bad case of acne. Why blame just the schools, let’s jump on 7-11 and every little junk food provider in the universe!
ahem, please excuse me, this does not come easily to this mild-manered Canadian:
Sue them for Cindy!
Sue them for criminal negligence & willful endangerment of a diabetic child
Complain to the health/children authorities for child abuse re. the diabetic child
and then…
…call the media!
[stirring *Les Miserables *-type music building to a crescendo]
:trupa climbs on an overturned apple cart:
To the barricades! hit the spineless brainless shoolboad politicians where it hurst! In their public image, in their pocketbooks, in their re-election chances! To arms!
[music swells: Do you hear the people sing? Singing the songs of angry men…]
But occasionally, people forget things. Kid thought mom stuck lunch in her bag, mom thought the kid grabbed it. Oops. Is the school supposed to let her go into a coma because of that? Yes, she should have had money and/or lunch with her. Should she have been suspended for not? Uh, no.
The OP says the girl forgot her lunch money, so I’m going to assume that she was given it in the first place. I can think of any number of scenarios. Mom hands it to her and she puts it down on the kitchen counter, child decides to change jackets at the last moment, money just plain falls out of her pocket, etc, etc.
I can’t really add much to the general outrage. I’ve got an idea, though. I don’t know if it’s the same all over, but the Canadian edition of Reader’s Digest has a feature called “That’s Outrageous!” This one would be a shoo-in!