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?

[chinchuckchick]

My daughter attended a camp earlier this year, everyone was required to sign a behaviour contract. I asked the teacher about the ban on lollies/chocolate, wanting to know whether a blind eye would be turned. I didn't want my daughter to be the only one there without a stash of goodies.

I was told that all banned items would be confiscated, I didn't bother asking what the punishment would be.

[i-need-a-martini]

There is a big difference between a law and a rule bob so your analogy sucks lol.

[i-need-a-martini]

I was told that all banned items would be confiscated, I didn't bother asking what the punishment would be.

I think confiscation is the standard punishment. Having a parent come collect her child is extreme regardless of what an 11 year old signed in an agreement.

[the_bob_delusion]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

There is a big difference between a law and a rule bob so your analogy sucks lol.

---

Not really, both law and rule describe actions which has consequences. Just coz' it's not legistlated doesn't mean there's no punishment for it. So your rebuttal fails horribly against my analogy. 

[i-need-a-martini]

Whilst I would encourage my kids to challenge rules that don;'t make sense to them, I would never ask them to treat the law lightly.

My kids take lollies to camp with my approval. They (we)  know the rules - no lollies. If they get caught then they accept the consequences - confiscation.

[*elizabeths-mum*]

What if the consequences are a phone call requesting you to remove your child from the camp?

[chinchuckchick]

I think confiscation is the standard punishment. Having a parent come collect her child is extreme regardless of what an 11 year old signed in an agreement.

Parents/guardians had to co-sign the contract, same as any contract sent home from school.

The only reason I approached the teacher was I know on another occasion at a different school (sleepover pj party) nearly every kid bought junk food, except our poor kid (who is a stickler for rules anyway) The difference with this school was the contract that we all had to sign, but I still felt I needed to check (just in case)

[this-one-time-at-bandcamp]

Getting back to your analogy, Bob........what if, in gathering evidence to arrest the druggie, the authorities used illegal wiretaps?  Would you like some sticky beak listening in on your conversations?  One could argue that opening private correspondence falls under the same purview as illegal wiretaps.

That's not to say that the young lady didn't break the designated rules, rather that the process of proving her culpability was compromised.

[azureline**]

4 kit kats, 4 fudge bars and 4 freddos???? and the friends who ate 1 each got a warning. The rule was no eating in the rooms, so all should have been sent home? or none?

[cherry*135]

There is a bit more information in this UK link. I often find the Aust media publish these sorts of stories from overseas and just focus on the printinig the parts that will make readers oh and ah over it, usually more from the side of the person complaining about something.

..............Holli admitted taking four Kit Kats, four Fudge bars and four Freddos on the break.

Her two best friends ate one chocolate bar each but escaped with warnings.

Kerri withdrew her daughter from school for the rest of the term.

She has complained formally to the governors and also written to Education Secretary Michael Gove.

She claims the school still has the letter Holli wrote and has asked for it to be returned.

The school has refused to comment but a Hertfordshire county council spokesman said: “Parents and pupils were asked to sign a behaviour charter.

“It was made clear breaking any of the rules would result in parents being asked to take their child home.”

A council official added: “The room was searched only with the child’s agreement and because she said she did not have any more sweets.

“It is normal procedure to check the contents of a letter with the child before it is posted.

"The rule about not eating in the rooms is a guest house rule and is clearly stated on the charter all pupils signed.”

http://www.capitalbay.com/uk/365833-holli-mccann-girl-aged-11-sent-200-miles-home-from-primary-schoo...