Ooooo, a parenting/school Dilemma.

[the_bob_delusion]

The Telegraph reports that Holli McCann and two of her fellow Year Six classmates tucked into the contraband on the first night of their excursion to the Isle of Wight.

While she wasn't caught eating the chocolate, teachers opened a sealed letter to her mother, Kerri, telling her about the sweet treat.

After reading the letter teachers removed the lining of her suitcase and tipped out her toiletries bag to find the hidden stash.

Kerri McCann was ordered to drive 260 kilometres through the night to come and pick her up, otherwise Holli would be forced to sit and watch her classmates undertake the week of fun activities.

The children were all forced to sign a behaviour contract before the trip of which Holli was found to be in breach of.

 http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/holli-mccann-kicked-off-school-trip-to-isle-of-wight-for-...

Who's right or wrong in this circumstance? or more right or more wrong?

[***super_nova***]

The part about reading the letter is strange; why would a teacher read the kids letters?  I mean they have all these kids to look after 24/7  surely they have no time to read all of their letters.  I am sure there is more to that story. 

It seems that Holli was the one who smuggled the forbidden stuff in, but I cannot see in that article that the other kids were not punished, and sent home as well.

As for people who condone their kids breaking rules; well do not be surprised when your kids run amok when they get older.  Why should they obey your rules when you teach them that rules are made to be broken?  Why should they drive within a speed limit, or listen to anything  you tell them?

Even if an allergy is not an issue in this case, why should kids feel they cannot survive for a couple of weeks without eating rubbish?  No wonder so many kids are obese, and diabetes is becoming so common.   

[serendipityricho]

Whats the go with -nut allergies.

Went through school in the 1950s-60s.

3 kids did the 1970s -80s.

Never heard a mention of it until recently in the papers and on these threads.

It it a modern thing?...................................................Richo.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

Part of me feels the school went too far but if the child signed a behaviour contract, I think there should have been consequences when she broke it.

Richo, I think the current theory is that now children aren't being exposed to specific microbes found in the soil which help build up the immune system. I read this recently as the same thing could be causing the increase of depression.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@*elizabeths-mum* wrote:
Part of me feels the school went too far but if the child signed a behaviour contract, I think there should have been consequences when she broke it.

Richo, I think the current theory is that now children aren't being exposed to specific microbes found in the soil which help build up the immune system. I read this recently as the same thing could be causing the increase of depression.

---

I 'm suspecting the contract would say something like kid would be sent home and picked up by the parents.  Point of comparison, schools warned year 12s about breaking rules on muck up days will be banned from taking exams. What would you think of a school if they didn't? 

SHouldn't have signed the contract then.

Rules are for breaking, it's OK as long as you don't get caught according to Martini. 

But if you do and you know the rules and get caught  then the mom should shut up about it. 

[*elizabeths-mum*]

I agree they did the right thing and believe that it is time for a firm line to be drawn on behaviours we have let slide for a long time (not chocolate eating specifically but breaking rules generally). I just felt sorry for the mother.

I do wonder how it came about that they read the letter. Maybe it is policy that ALL letters are read and the child shouldn't have sealed hers?

[lis351]

The part about reading the letter is strange; why would a teacher read the kids letters?

I think the letter is possibly a cover up story for another child who perhaps dobbed on Holli and her friends and was a convenient piece of evidence afterwards.

There are all sorts of reasons why junk etc. was banned from the camp. Immediately springing to mind are 1, it had something to do with healthy living etc. included and 2, to make it fair and even for all. Maybe some couldnt afford lollies and chips or their parents place more stock in the rules. Why should one have and no others??

And, on the back of possibility 2, where did Holli, whose Mum scrimped and saved for months to send her daughter on camp, borrowed money to drive to pick her up from it etc. get the money for the 'contraband' she was in charge of bringing??

For the record, if the child knew the punishment when agreeing to abide by the rules, she should have to suffer the consequences, I would have made her stay at camp, at least a few days, to serve her punishment of sitting on the sidelines while everyone had fun. Whether or not I agree with those rules or the punishments doesnt enter into it, do the crime do the time.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@lis351 wrote:

The part about reading the letter is strange; why would a teacher read the kids letters?

I think the letter is possibly a cover up story for another child who perhaps dobbed on Holli and her friends and was a convenient piece of evidence afterwards.

There are all sorts of reasons why junk etc. was banned from the camp. Immediately springing to mind are 1, it had something to do with healthy living etc. included and 2, to make it fair and even for all. Maybe some couldnt afford lollies and chips or their parents place more stock in the rules. Why should one have and no others??

And, on the back of possibility 2, where did Holli, whose Mum scrimped and saved for months to send her daughter on camp, borrowed money to drive to pick her up from it etc. get the money for the 'contraband' she was in charge of bringing??

For the record, if the child knew the punishment when agreeing to abide by the rules, she should have to suffer the consequences, I would have made her stay at camp, at least a few days, to serve her punishment of sitting on the sidelines while everyone had fun. Whether or not I agree with those rules or the punishments doesnt enter into it, do the crime do the time.

---

I think your punishment is much worst and cruel. Why get her to see others having fun if she can't participate. 

[lis351]

*shrugs* I dont care if you think Im cruel. My sons' school has a whole school reward day twice a year. If you have a long enough record of not behaving, you dont go. You sit in the class doing work or assisting a teacher with something while the other kids have fun. My sons have each missed 1 of these events, not for any serious misdeeds, but their behaviour chart racked up enough points to be excluded. I toyed with the idea, the first time, of allowing them the day off school so he didnt have to see his mates off enjoying themself, but decided that they wouldnt learn anything that way. He knows the rules, he knows the punishments and he makes his choices.

You call it cruel, I call it tough but fair.

[freakiness]

For the sake of a few choccies I think a day sitting on the sidelines would be fair.

[the_bob_delusion]

I just thought up a good analogy. 

THe penalty for smuggling drugs into some country is capital punishment. 

You can argue that it's not that big a deal, and the punishment is too harsh but what good does that do if you knew the punishment beforehand. 

so there Martini. Consider your arguments crushed. 

I came in the thread sitting on the fence. It's amazing which side you end up on when you really look at the arguments.