<p>Inner city schools sometimes have very strict rules that you wouldn’t find in other schools. Like in NYC public schools you can’t have cellphones, but most suburban schools have no problem with them as long as they don’t disrupt. Maybe there is a huge problem in this particular school with obesity and diabetes and kids throwing Skittles around or choking on them.</p>
<p>It’s too bad this kid got in trouble; he sounds like someone who was succeeding in a difficult environment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have to admit I’ve never been to NH, but I live in Newark, NJ, also a poor city with lots of crime. Unfortunately, it’s more like XTC yesterday, today and tomorrow.</p>
<p>Skittles are not a problem, but wearing the wrong coat or sneakers can be.</p>
<p>Dangerous neighborhood or not, this is completely over the top! A three-day suspension, having his position as class VP revoked and being barred from an honors dinner is beyond ridiculous. This student should have been given a detention and nothing more. The rule sited says NOTHING about an individual student buying candy from another student. What did it cost him, maybe .50 cents? Huge amounts of cash were not exchanged here. I hope this kid sees some justice from his school district, and this administrator is reigned in from her power trip.</p>
<p>for perspective purposes, my power-crazy vice principal suspended me in 9th grade for what he called ‘attempting to incite riot/aggressive behavior’–I was yelling in the cafeteria at someone at the next table. I got one day for that.</p>
<p>this kid initially got 3 days for buying some god damn skittles. the punishment FAR exceeds the crime here. absolutely preposterous.</p>
<p>My D’s friend used to sell candy to kids in 8th grade all the time. He made a nice profit. We used to laugh about his enterpreneurial skills. I have no idea why a school would need a silly no-candy-sales-among-friends rule, but obviously it’s not silly to them (although legislating the no junk food thing to this degree seems ludicrous to me) … just the same, the punishment far exceeds the crime no matter how you look at it. If it were my kid, I would intervene, simply in the interest of what is “fair.” I am not saying no punishment … just one that fits the “crime” better. Like maybe leading obese kids in their school-required calesthenics!! 
After all, I am sure that this school must punish their overweight kids … obviously, they are living unhealthy lifestyles in direct defiance of the school rules.</p>
<p>While I do think the suspension is a bit harsh (maybe it should have been detention), the wellness factor aside, there are many valid reasons for this school and many others to have this rule in place:</p>
<p>If the child is selling candy, there is money exchanging hands. This opens the child up as to being robbed, beat up and targeted for having money both in and outside of the school.</p>
<p>Depending on when and where the sale occurs, it can be disruptive to the educational process (especially if it happens in the classroom). Even if the kid is selling skittles in the cafe or the playgroung during lunch, it won’t take long for someone in the class to say, “Syb, pass me a pack of skittles.”</p>
<p>While the student is selling skittles, who can say for certain if there are really skittles in the packet? There are many colorful perscription and over the counter pills which from a distance can pass for skittles. Also from a distance you can not tell as to whether or not the packaging has been tampered with.</p>
<p>Do you know that are forms of crystal meth that are pink , smells like strawberries and looks like pop rocks/nerds candy? There is also a form of crystal meth called strawberry quick.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Right about that. However, I think that everybody but me has a sidekick in school . A fight broke out between 2 girls on monday. Within 30 minutes, there were about 40 people outside of the building , who were not students of the school, waiting to fight. School safety and the local police had to clear the surrounding areas including the subway and parents had to be called to escort the 2 young women home.</p>
<p>Sybbie, if the school had been upfront & stated the reasons as you stated them, they would make sense. If that is really the case, the school needs to be honest. Couching it in some healthy snack ban - no money at school wishy washy babble is confusing. Cut to the chase. If it’s like sybbie says, then say it. Otherwise, it just sounds ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree 100%</p>
<p>"Superintendent Reginald Mayo said Wednesday that Sheridan Middle School principal Eleanor Turner just wanted to keep students safe. </p>
<p>He said she warned students repeatedly after the school experienced a rash of candy sales in the fall. There were also worries about those selling the candy, especially after a student’s wallet was stolen on the bus. "</p>
<p>Seems like fair warning. One day is nothing.</p>
<p>Except it wasn’t only a suspension (reduced from 3 days to 1):</p>
<p>[1010</a> WINS - On-Air, Online, On Demand - Conn. Student Suspended in ‘Skittles Scandal’](<a href=“NYC News Radio Station - WINS-FM | 1010 WINS ALL NEWS 92 3”>NYC News Radio Station - WINS-FM | 1010 WINS ALL NEWS 92 3)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Still think detention would have been sufficient.</p>
<p>Wow, that’s just ridiculous. A middle school student’s body of work shot up in flames over one stupid incident. I agree with detention being the proper punishment here. Not stripping someone of their honors for something that did no harm to the school or students.</p>