MR T3D said:
SakSak said:
Schools are supposed to be places of teaching.
Including healthy dietary habits. Suspension was perhaps a tad harsh (unless this wasn't the first or even second offense), but otherwise I see no problems with this.
sir, i disagree. A child should learn about healthy eating, but the choice to have less-healthy foods should not be removed.
and i must say props to the child for being a capitalist!
And I disagree with you.
Schools, private or public, are under no obligation to cater to the unhealthy whims of kids and teenagers. The schools did not entirely remove the option of crisps, fast food and such from the children, instead they simply make sure that if the child wants them it will be outside of school time. Nothing is stopping those kids from walking to a store right after school has ended to buy a chololate bar or a bag of chips.
The school simply decided that allowing such serves no goal and is in fact counter-productive to their purpose: kids on a sugar rush are hyperactive and harder to deal with, and once that sugar rush goes away they are tired and lethragic. Both hamper educating those children.
We do not hold children of the age twelve to be legally responsible for their actions, they are not mature and wise enough. The responsibility belongs to others. Why should we expect the children then eat normal, healthy foods if the option for eating something 'tastier' instead (but which we adults know are bad for them) remains? We shouldn't. And therefore, for the school hours, the choice is removed from them.
Yes, the kids has some entreprenurial spirit. But he blatantly broke the rules. And so was punished.