Austin High has some smart kids... and some very dumb administrators. It all started when candy were removed from its vending machines, as a step toward (get this) fighting obseity. Obviously these yutzes never read The Great Brain at the Academy, because what happened next surprised them:
"Soon after candy was removed from vending machines, enterprising students armed with gym bags full of M&M's, Skittles, Snickers and Twix became roving vendors, serving classmates in need of an in-school sugar fix. Regular-size candy bars like the ones sold in vending machines routinely sold in the halls for $1.50.
"There was no sugar in the vending machines, so (student vendors) could make a lot of money," said Hayden Starkey, an Austin High junior who said he was not one of the candy sellers. "I heard kids were making $200 a week just selling candy."
This is what happens when the educator class believes that experience in and understanding of business and economics are somehow beneath them. And having created a more educational situation than anything in their classes, with timeless lessons about governance, math, capitalism, and responsibility, what did these genuises do? They reversed the ban by declaring milk chocolate and candy with peanuts nutritious. Frankly, I think I'd rather be educated by their kids (Hat Tip: James Taranto's Best of the Web Today).
UPDATE: Hey, these guys are teaching Intelligent Design!
Ruh-Roh! LOL!
My kid goes to a Round Rock school, subject to the same "healthy" restrictions on vending machines. I think I'll point out to her that she could take her bag of left-over Halloween candy and make a killing. Or, next time they start selling band candy, she needn't go from door to door in the neighborhood.
Sounds like my highschool. Some time in sophomore yaer, they got rid of the free softdrinks from the cafeteria because it was a health issue. A week after the ban, I started selling coke cola and sprite to my classmates. Made some descent money too.
Of course, the school caught on started selling softdrinks outside the cafeteria from a small foodstand. So, somehow it could keep the parents happy by getting rid of the free sodas at the cafeteria and keep their pockets happy by selling them outside the cafeteria at a foodstand.
Crazy.
Next move these geniuses will make is banning selling candy, which will create an extremely lucrative black market. And they will be just as surprised.
I don't think you prove your point.
So the school is actively providing candy to students. They worry (rightly) that they shouldn't be doing this, because candy is unhealthy and a lot of their kids are fat. So they stop, and a black market develops.
First question: Were kids eating less candy? The article doesn't address this, but it does say that candy bars like the ones sold in the vending machines were going for $1.50 on the black market. That's a very high price for a candy bar, and so consumption probably did decrease.
Second question: What's your basis for making fun of the school district? They didn't try to ban candy, they just stopped supplying it directly to students. That's probably an extreme position, and they remedied it by making some candy available in vending machines. Do you think they're obligated to supply candy to their students, even though they're worried about negative health effects? Let's take it a step further: a lot of their students probably drink on the weekends, and the state's prohibition of underage drinking probably distorts their drinking behavior. Does this mean the school should be selling 40s in the cafeteria (I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad idea, but I think you catch my drift), and any failure to do so indicates their shameful inability to grasp basic principles of economics?
Teachers in this country wade through swimming pools of sh*t on a daily basis. They do an incredibly important job with insufficient resources, and get almost no public support. It really pisses me off to see them crapped on by some comfortable blogger for the dubious reason that "the educator class believes that experience in and understanding of business and economics are somehow beneath them." Teachers in America are grossly underpaid given the level of education they're expected to attain and the amount of work they have to do, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the educator class." But on further reflection, I think you might have a point: if educators understood economics better, they'd be working at Enron bilking people on their electricity bills rather than teaching your kids how to read. Show some respect, as*holes.
I didn't see anybody crapping on any teachers hear. Any criticism was directed at adminstartors which, one can assume, would be the target of similar abuse from teachers. Cool your jets dude.
BTW, my child has benefitted from some really good teachers and has been beat down by some really bad ones. Teachers as saints is not a universal theme.
Actuslly, I think they should have kept the ban, and incorporated its derivative lessons into the curriculum.
Sean does address at least one of the arguments for prohibition of harmful substances: that despite its effect as a price-support structure for those willing to supply the market anyway, consumption probably decreases and this is a net good. I would encourage people not to dismiss the argument out of hand: some coherent cases have been made for that proposition in the drug war, for instance.
Of course, given the effectivly unlimited and uninhibited supply of candy in the outside world compicates this scenario. A real economist would predict new entrants into the market, eventually driving prices down toward and so leaving consumption more or less unaffected.
Unless, of course, the administrators followed Mark's predictions and started punishing students for trading in candy. This risk factor would handily drive prices right back up again, and create an artificial barrier to entry.
About those administrators... they're a classic case of the nanny state in action. Supposedly good intentions that require interfering with the free choices of others for a "higher purpose" that only the "enlightened" can see - and which prove unworkable with sharp side effects because they don't really understand what they're dealing with.
At that point, do they look for opportunities in the situation and ask about working with the forces they've set in motion? No, that isn't their mindset. Do they take responsibility by standing up and admitting that they did a stupid thing, and repeal the ban entirely? No, because then there goes their moral authority, and with it their implicit mandate to meddle. Do they wonder about better ways to accomplish their goal, other than edicts, and accept that some people will choose not to play? Oh, you have GOT to be kidding.
So what DO they do? They implement a clearly nonsensical ruling that directly contradicts their earlier efforts - and expect everybody watching to keep a straight face and pretend not to notice.
That's why they're boobs. And that's why I'm proud - proud, Sean - to mock them without mercy. They've earned it.
As in loco parentis schools probably have (or ought to have) some obiligation to look out for the health and welfare of the students - though creating black markes would seem to be ill advised. Rather than ban candy or soda, a more effective policy might be to increase the amount of physical activity the kids get: more PE classes, or after school intrmarual sports or the like. Furhter attempts should be made to ensure that all students get plenty of physical activity, not just those who are naturally drawn to athletics.
But see, now there are vested interests in the status quo. The teachers have been getting paid off to look the other way, and if candy is decriminalized, they'll lose their nice new perk. That, and the vending machine guy has been receiving threatening e-mails. . .
That said, a school where teachers and principals didn't "interfere" with the "free choices" of students would be. . .interesting.
Teacher: So Johnny, where's your homework?
Johnny: Oh, this is a classic case of the nanny state in action. Supposedly good intentions that require interfering with the free choices of others for a "higher purpose" that only the "enlightened" can see - and which prove unworkable with sharp side effects because they don't really understand what they're dealing with (I paid Timmy to do it).
FWIW I don't really have a problem with banning candy. But of course it will prove as effective in preventing obesity as banning condoms does teen pregnancy.
"Teachers in this country wade through swimming pools of sh*t on a daily basis. They do an incredibly important job with insufficient resources, and get almost no public support"
No public support? Teachers are the most boo-hooed and lionized people on the planet. Im sick of hearing how bad they have it. Where else do you get a guaranteed job for life, summers off, and a retirement plan most middle class folks would kill for? Teachers work hard, yes. But so do ditch diggers and nobody wrings their hands about how hard they have it. And ditch diggers work all summer.
Roublen... you should have had at least one quote with "...now we see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, i'm being repressed!" I'm disappointed.
As an aside: do you know there really are anarcho-syndicalist collectives out there? Met a member of one at a Dead concert in Hamilton once, who apparently hadn't seen Holy Grail. Poor guy couldn't understand why my friend Dave and I nearly killed ourselves laughing as he attempted to explain how the commune worked...
All that aside, there's a valid question out there re: the school's proper role in this particular area. Is it really the school's province to impose restrictions in the name of combatting obesity? I don't think so.
About 10 minutes of thought from an educated person (if you know nothing of economics or business in a capitalist society, you are NOT educated even if you have a PhD) would have predicted the likely consequences of their approach. Now add the blatant hypocrisy at the end, and if you were with them before (especially if you were with them before), you ought to be plenty mad too.
Like I said, the mind of the buraucratic nanny-state in action.
That's my Alma Mater!
We made hundreds a week in 1971 but we weren't selling skittles.
AHS '88
Candy selling is no new phenom. My brother ('93) made hundreds a month. Austin High has a large spread of economic classes. We were po' folks from the south side. The west Austinites were, in general, much better off. We knew how to scrap and work the bulk aquisition chain. They would pay for it. Redistribution the capitolist way.