Kid Sent Packing for Candy Bar at Camp

Note to ShortWoman:
Bears? Isle of Wight? Really?
Let’s Wikipedia that, shall we?!

I think the person who sent the girl home needs a psychiatric eval.

They should have had some intermediate punishments short of kicking kids out for stupid stuff like that.

I could see them being concerned about rules and safety if there was something very unsafe or naughty about how she got the candy. For example, if she stole it, snuck out in the middle of the night to go someplace iffy to buy it, rowed a boat alone to the snack store or whatever. (Never been there, I have no idea what the concerns might be.) But even then, they could have given her some unpleasant chores for a day or something. Making her mom come and pick her up over chocolate was crazy.

Okay.

There might be all kinds of reasons why this trip was declared ‘sweets free’. Maybe because there are obese children in the group that are fighting their addiction and it’s a show of solidarity not to eat sweets in front of their face. Maybe because some of the children will have more sweets from their parents than others and that will hardly be fair (it always annoyed me when I was on school trips – forty years ago, my god, I’m getting old! – that there were always certain, more priviliged kids, that got bags and bags of sweets from home while my dear mom would pack me a sandwich lunch and an apple. I was always felt vindicated when those ‘rich kids’ would inevitably throw up at the end of the day). Maybe that rule is in place because sugar is poison and highly addictive. Or maybe it’s just Because. I don’t care. It’s a rule on this trip, so the kid should’ve obeyed that rule.

HOWEVER.

1) Reading sealed mail is an absolute no-no. Bad teachers! Bad school!

2) Their reaction was totally over the top. A firm reprimand would’ve been enough. Only when the children would openly defy the rules set to them should the staff discipline. Openly, that is. As in ‘in their face’. Which the kid hadn’t. It had secretly enjoyed a 20p snack.

As I’m typing this, I longingly remember those wonderful boardingschool stories by Enid Blyton. Anyone remember those? The Malory Towers series, for instance. One of the set happenings were the ‘Midnight Feasts’; the girls would aquire, sneak in or recieve (in food parcels from home) all kinds of goodies and candies and would organise an illicit feast in the middle of the night. Inevitably the staff would know about it, but they would just smile and turn a blind eye. They knew that every child needed to exercise their ‘naughty bones’ now and then, they knew ‘their girls’ and also knew that they would not abuse the privilige.

As a child I dreamed of going to Malory Towers. Frienship! Hard work! Responsible adults! Midnight Feasts! And what do the children dream of now? Trips to the Isle of Wight? Adults who read your mail and rip up your luggage in search of Kit Kats?

It may be worth looking into this story a wee bit more… It would appear that the chocolate was the straw that broke the camel’s back…

I hate to say it but I’m tentatively with the camp here. The parents signed a document saying that bringing chocolate would result in expulsion. No idea why they had that but they did. Kid beings chocolate. Kid gets expelled. Somewhat like moving into an HOA and complaining about the rules being enforced.

More information would help. The fact that such strict rules existed in the first place makes me wonder if this wasn’t a “normal” summer camp as we generally think of them – but that’s just idle speculation.

If there’s a rule against something – and it’s important enough to be called out in a code that you’re asked to sign before paying – then either follow it or send your kid somewhere else. It’s obvious that the parent knew of the rule, the punishment, and the fact that her kid was going to break it (it was “her job”) to bring the chocolate. So… less than sympathetic here.

As for the mail being read, again I’d like to know more about what’s behind such a strict summer camp before passing judgement. If it was spelled out in the contract because this is a camp for reforming troubled youth or something that’s different than if the staffers just took it upon themselves to do so.

@Natalie

That presumes that the school recognizes children as people. This is clearly not supported by the facts.

How can they read personal letters sent to parents?
What a horrible invasion of privacy- is this Camp Gestapo?

Searching her luggage like these candy bars were made of crack cocaine is probably the most moronic thing I’ve heard. Too bad this kid didn’t stay in a hotel in Hershey, Pa where they turn down your bed and put some Hershey kisses on your pillow each night.

“Is there a chance that the rule was in place to avoid attracting pests such as bugs, vermin, or even bears? I ask because many camps are in the freaking WOODS. This would make following the rules a matter of safety for all rather than a petty infraction.”

what are the odds what you are short on is intelligence and common sense as opposed to height.

“They immediately searched her room at Beaufort House hotel…”

you wouldn’t know a black bear from a Chicago Bear.

H.O.T.E.L.

I’m with the school on this one, too. They had a rule. Everyone agreed to follow the rule or face the consequences. This kid broke the rule, knowing what those consequences would be. If I were the mom, I would be ticked off, for sure — with my daughter. If there was an objection to the rules and the consequences for breaking those rules, it should have been addressed before the trip.

While I disagree with the reading of the sealed letter (unless of course this was agreed to in the official rules that were agreed to and signed), it is absolutely imperative that kids don’t bring stuff like this on these kind of trips. It is a matter of safety. If my daughter had been with this girl and her friends while they were eating the contraband chocolates and presumably paying no attention to where crumbs fell, what they touched, washing hands, etc, then my daughter could have died.

It isn’t just about the bugs and pests. It is a safety issue for the children who have food allergies.

I dunno … if I’d saved for six months to send my child to camp, and my child and I both knew that the campers were not supposed to pack chocolate, and then I learned that my child had planned a whole sweets party with her friends and that my child was “in charge of the bringing the chocolate” — well, I’d be more than a little disappointed in my child. (And if I’d known all about this party, which the mom says the girls had planned “weeks before the trip,” and had even helped to pack the chocolate, then I’d have nobody to blame for it but myself!)

“They were not being naughty,” the mum says. What is it called, then, when you knowingly break the rules? When you plan in advance to break the rules? And after your mother has saved up for six months to pay for this adventure for you?

Personally, I think the camp overreacted (although of course I don’t know the whole story). I’ve been a camp counselor (in woods, not in a hotel), where the policy was no electronics. A camper had a walkman, I took it from her and told her that she knew the policy and that I’d return her walkman on the last day of camp before she went home, and she said she was sorry, and that was the end of that little incident. It was no big deal.

Then again, I didn’t find out about it by reading the camper’s mail, and I didn’t then search the camper’s bags for more contraband, so there’s that.

Still, the mum seems to be more upset about the fact that her daughter got caught and had a consequence than about the fact that her daughter (and friends) (and maybe mothers) planned even before the trip to break the rules, and then broke them.

And it seems the mom didn’t actually *have* to borrow money to go right away and fetch her daughter, driving through the night with the ferry crossings and all; she could have let her stay there. Daughter might not have been able to participate in the activities (or eat any more chocolate), but she’d still have the pleasure of her best friends’ company between activities and after hours.

Well I know there is always more to the story, but I’m surprised at how many FRK folks believe it was OK to apply zero tolerance to a chocolate violation. Since when is “all or nothing” ever appropriate when it comes to raising / disciplining children? Sending her home punished her mother far more than her. It was stupid for camp organizers to set up the discipline policy this way, knowing that “expulsion” would be such a burden on families. No way am I saying that rule-breaking should not be punished. It should. But who ever heard of expulsion being the only punishment option? It sounds crazy to me.

The fact that the mom signed the paper with the fine print is not convincing to me. Normally those papers are just a CYA in case something really bad happens. Usually you read those as “up to and including expulsion” or whatever.

Now if this really was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and she had committed a string of exasperating offenses before this one, then obviously whatever I said is void.

About the alleged hotel policy – I call BS. I just don’t believe people are not allowed to bring a candy bar to eat in a hotel room. I always bring food because I may not find anything worth buying when I travel, or I might miss the time cutoff for ordering food until the next day. What about people who are on diets or have medical needs, such as diabetics who need to keep candy bars on hand? I mean, I could see them asking the camp not to bring its own food, but not at the individual candy bar level. Please.

As rediculous as I think the rule is, they were informed of it beforehand, were made aware of the consequences and signed on the dotted line.

Last summer my daughter went on a trip to New York with her high school choir. I was expected to attend two different meetings where the rules, policies and expectations were discussed and we both had to sign an agreement in order for my daughter to go. Now, I thought several of the rules were over-the-top (although, not to this extent), but my daughter wanted to go so badly she agreed to put off Driver’s Ed for it. (I couldn’t afford both)

I laughed at some of the rules, told her I thought they were a little overboard, then told her that if she broke the rules, got kicked out and it cost me anything to get her back, SHE would be reimbursing me the money. She agreed to the rules in exchange for the opportulity, she is responsible for following them.

When I was in 6th grade, we went for an overnight trip and stayed in hotel rooms without adults. We were told not to do abcdefg. Not to make noise, make mess, and act like animals, leave the room, etc. We all agreed and we really meant it at the time.

So what we ended up doing was staying up late, jumping on the beds while laughing hilariously and singing at the top of our lungs, sneaking out in the night to go get ice and buy pop, and probably a few other things that have faded in my memory.

Nobody’s parent got a call, and nobody was sent home.

This was a strict Christian school.

Where has the adult imagination gone?

I’m with SKL: you need some rules, breaking rules should have consequences, but rules and consequences should be reasonable and realistic. Sending kids home is a last resort, and forbidding 11yos to bring candy on a camp is just stupid.
I remember my brother’s stories about camp in 10th grade, where it was kind of a public secret they were smuggling beer in (most kids would have been 16 by then, so it wasn’t illegal). So the teachers kind of knew, they may have suspected something, but they never caught the kids with beer, so they just let it go. The rule did ensure the kids didn’t let it get out of hand. It was just a part of the whole camp experience.
So, same for Holli: no harm was done, they hadn’t made a mess, and the teachers wouldn’t even have known about it until they went Gestapo on her.

@SKL – The mother doesn’t specifically say whether she knew or not before hand. I believe she knew. First, if mom didn’t already know, why the heck was child telling her in a letter from camp? What kid rats herself out for no reason like that? She managed to keep it all quiet for weeks before and just can’t contain herself any more on the first night of camp?

Second, the mom’s statement about her daughter being so excited and planning this feast o’chocolate for weeks in advance definitely makes it sound as though the mother knew about the plan.

Third, the child allegedly had approximately £30 worth of chocolate outside of what they had already eaten. I find it hard to believe that an 11 year old child could manage to acquire the equivalent of more than $46 in chocolate in a couple weeks WITHOUT a parent playing some role. Maybe this kid has a job and her own money that she controls but that seems like an extreme amount of money to spend on candy at that age without help.

@Gary – Wow. Are you really arguing that because people don’t read the fine print, there can be no penalty for violating the fine print? Too funny.

That being said, from the way the story is framed, it seems like expulsion is an extreme punishment.

@Katie
Is cafeteria food in the UK healthy? Here, I’d prefer to provide a packed lunch a few times a week as a counterbalance. We don’t have that much processed food at home.

The thing about the fine print is, OK, even if you read it and actually intended to follow the rules (or for your kid to follow the rules), you have to use common sense. An 11yo kid is not going to do exactly what she’s supposed to do all the time. I don’t care how many times she signed a paper saying that she would.

If you’re running a camp full of 11yos, you’re an idiot if you think all the kids are going to follow all the “agreed-upon” rules all the time. Especially if the rules involve such micromanagement as whether a kid is allowed to eat a candy bar in her hotel room.

The people in charge of the camp were incompetent if their whole concept of discipline is “expel anyone caught violating the rules.” I think the mom should get her money back – again, unless there is “more to the story.”

The daughter was not expelled. The intended punishment was that she would stay under the direct control of the teachers instead of participating fully in the activities. I’d bet that if she behaved herself under those circumstances, she would have been given a pardon well before the end of the trip simply because being a prison warden would be a pain for the teacher. The MOM chose to drive all night and incur the additional expense to protect her precious darling from the consequences of her own actions. I refuse to pass judgement re: the letter-reading and suitcase-search since we only have one side of that accusation.

@skl
Agreed. My fine print post was directed towards the mom, as it appears she supplied the candy.

@Natalie To clarify I don’t live in the UK, but I watch the BBC because the quality of the news is much higher and you actually get informative news about the world that isn’t full of the “be afriad” stuff that fills US news. I also like to travel to London. Given that I don’t know the answer to your question, sorry.

Hmm.. It’s interesting what will come up if you google for this story in other (more local) newspapers.. In this one (http://www.watfordobserver.co.uk/news/10557968.Girl__11__thrown_off_school_trip_for_flouting_school_s_chocolate_ban/) there are comments by parents of other children on that school trip. Some quotes:

“My child was on this trip. Lets put it this way, it was no loss to the class. Taxi for Holli!”

“My child was also on this trip and believe me, if anyone was going to ‘push the boundaries’ it was going to be Holli. From all the years my child has been in the same classes as her I can assure you she is far from the wronged angel she appears in this photo. I’m really surprised the Watford Observer printed this story.”

“…she was brought to my attention at the age of 8 for her foul language in the recreation park. Also for threatening other children and calling her older brother to deal with them when she was challenged back.”

“I have had experience of Holli and her mother through our 6 years at Bromet so we know exactly what we’re talking about. I too was scared to voice an opinion due to the fear of a violent backlash from Holli’s mother – believe me, it has already happened in full view of other parents and children. I can assure you I don’t work at Bromet and am not on the PTA or a Governor – my views are based on the facts of what I have witnessed over the years.”

“My child has spent 6 years in the same class as Holli and my goodness, there have been so many issues. As I previously mentioned but everyone has chosen to ignore, I witnessed first hand mum beating up another mother just outside Bromet – even though the other mother had a baby with her. This is probably why no-one has reported the case – they are too scared. Yes, the charter may well have been drawn up because of the behaviour of Holli McCann – it’s happening in a lot of schools because each has a ‘Holli McCann’ – a child who will never behave in a decent manner because her family don’t encourage her to. And yet there are no penalties for such parents and absolutely nothing the school can do. The future scares me – it looks like it will be natural selection – survival of the bolshiest.”

“Maybe that rule is in place because sugar is poison and highly addictive – ”

Umm, no. The human body *runs* on sugar in the form of glucose. It’s pretty much what fuels you cells and is the power source for most major things going on in your body.

Table sugar is sucrose, a double sugar that breaks down into glucose and fructose. Many carbohydrates are complex sugars that also break down into various simpler forms.

No glucose, you die, ask any diabetic or scientifically trained nutritionist.

Oh, by the way, I read the comments on the original article. Apparently, Holli’s “misbehaving on the beach” consisted of putting her head underwater. The teachers took the kids to the beach, and allowed them to wade, but not actually swim, because it was “dangerous.” Jaw, meet floor.

@Marion

Never trust a comment section for any facts. I would be more inclined to think the comments by mothers are that of snobs who do not like having the child of an unemployed single mom in their school. And kids will rant about even the fairest of administrators.

It sounds like the students from this school are expected to be seen, not heard, and speak only when spoken to.

Just when did it become normal to have to sign a contract of behaviour for a class trip. These are kids, not some celeb being paid millions to endorse a product.

And Jim thanks for seconding the hotel food ruling.

“Wow. Are you really arguing that because people don’t read the fine print, there can be no penalty for violating the fine print? Too funny.”

What’s too funny is you missed the point…

Am I really the only person who thinks that (a) yes, she knowingly broke a rule, (b) yes, she should be punished, and (c) that still does not mean she should have been sent back home?

Or am I weird to think that making a mom drive for a day to retrieve a chocolate smuggler is extreme?

Or maybe this mom is just coming from a completely different culture from the rest of the school, and there is no tolerance for her different-ness. It’s sad. Obviously her kid is not the only kid in the group who ever broke a rule. There is no kid who hasn’t. Most of the time there is grace.

By the way – did they send the other kids in her group home too? After all this was a conspiracy.

Right there with you SKL.

To those defending the school… This is no different from suspending a student for bringing a pocket knife to school. Yes, the kid may have broken a rule, maybe even knowingly, but zero tolerance rules are idiotic, and the consequence isn’t reasonable just because it was defined ahead of time.

I can see both sides but am leaning towards the school. Most of us take risks and break rules on a regular basis. My daughter’s school has a no cell-phone rule but she takes one anyway because I want her to have it in case of emergency. I’m fully prepared to accept the consequences if she gets caught.

This girl and mom knew the consequences and chose to break the rule anyway. That’s great and its too bad she got caught … but that’s the risk she took. I’m having a hard time with the mom trying to look like the victim in all of this. Seems like she’s just upset that she was inconvenienced and throwing the “single mom” thing out there for sympathy. I’m a single mom and I still make my kids deal with consequences even when its not convenient for me. I’m afraid the only thing this girl has learned is she can do whatever she wants and mom will rescue her.

Wow Warren – it’s really hard to take your opinion seriously when you present it with condescension and name-calling.

Try again?

I agree with Warren this time. It sounds like this wasn’t intended as an educational field trip during the school year, but rather, an end-of-the-year trip for the Year 6 students. Also, since Year 6 is the last year of primary school in the U.K., it must have also been a graduation trip. So, for something like that, I think a bit of leeway is in order–let the kids have a bit of chocolate in their hotel rooms, as long as they clean up after themselves, and let them actually swim when you take them to the beach, and don’t suck all the fun out of what should be a fun trip, by micromanaging every single aspect of it to the point that normal childhood exuberance becomes “misbehaviour” that somehow warrants being sent home. Also, zero tolerance has one fatal flaw–if you yank a kid out of a field trip over candy, then what’s the punishment if it was beer, or a pack of cigarettes? If you suspend or expel a student for a butter knife, or a Swiss Army knife, then what do you do to the teenager who brings a switchblade or a gun to school? Seriously, not all infractions are the same.

So I’m really curious. What was it about this case that makes so many of us open to the “zero tolerance” aspect of it?

In most of the “no tolerance” outrages we discuss here, the rule had previously been expressed in writing, and for whatever reason, the violator didn’t take it seriously / forgot / didn’t read the small print / decided to defy the rule assuming they wouldn’t really get the stated punishment. In most cases, our sympathy is with the child. So why is this case different?

From personal experience, I’ll bet you that the chocolate incident was just the tip of the iceberg. I’m not a rigid person, but have learned that you have to hold a firm line with some people because they always want special treatment and its not fair to the rest of the group that is working together.

I’m a former teacher who has chaperoned quite a few of these types trips and agree with Lisamarie. That’s not the time or place to start negotiating every infraction and sometimes it just needs to be zero tolerance. We always looked the other way on the last night too, so its not like we were complete fun-suckers.

My guess is that there is a lot more to this story than was reported.

SKL –

I don’t think this is a zero-tolerance rule. It is just a rule possibly a dumb rule, but just a rule nonetheless. Zero-tolerance is argued when everyone is treated the same regardless of the nature of the violation of the rule. When bringing a toy gun is treated the same as bringing a real gun. When accidentally bringing a knife is treated the same as intentionally bringing a knife. When bringing a knife to cut an orange is treated the same as bringing a knife to threaten a classmate. When a pop tart is considered a violation at all just because it is eaten into the shape of a banned item.

Here, there is no dispute that this was a premediated, intentional violation of the rule. This is not a kid eating a pop tart into the shape of a gun and getting in trouble. She didn’t buy a candy bar because she was hungry while out and forget it in her pocket. She didn’t even spontaneously decide to break the rule on the fly and pick up a couple candy bars at the beach. She knew the rule, planned to violate it for WEEKS and acquired the equivalent of almost $50 of contraband to do so. In fact, it seems like violating the rule and having the feast was a big part of why she was so excited to go on this trip based on the mother’s comments. I have no qualms whatsoever with punishing her in some way for violating the rule.

As for whether the punishment fits the crime, if the facts of the situation are what the mother described, I think the punishment was somewhat harsh, but I really am just having a hard time finding this particular case that sympathetic. The weeks of planning, the copious amounts of candy and the letter home bragging about it all just seem to me the acts of a girl who couldn’t possibly care less about rules so I’m not sure why I should be sympathetic that she got slammed by them. I’d be far far far far more sympathetic to a girl who had just sneaked a couple candy bars into her bag at the last minute.

If the facts are as the other parents are saying, I have no sympathy at all and think the punishment fits the crime.

We need to remember something. These hoodlums created such a disturbance that other hotel guests could not sleep, the cops had to be called in with tear gas and riot gear…………….oh wait no…………the only way anyone discovered anything was violating the child’s right to privacy, by opening her sealed correspondance with her mother. Well after the fact. So obviously actual behaviour, other than being in possession of highly dangerous contraband, behaviour does not seem to be an issue.

When as coaches we travel with the teams, we are routinely over 4 hrs from our home town for the weekend. The odd time for the week depending on what tournament it is.

15 and 16 yr old boys softball team, at a weekend tournament. 2 successful purchases of beer with fake ID, caught by us, a couple broken curfews caught, and a wannabe smoker busted.

The beer was a group purchase with pretty much the whole team pitching in for it. Myself and the other coach talked about it, and came up with the following solution. We brought them all into our room, spoke to them about properly representing our town. We took six of the 24 beers and split them amongst the 12 players. Then made them pour the rest down the sink. As they sipped their half a beer each, we explained to them that although what they did was wrong, it was nothing we hadn’t tried ourselves.
We also explained to them that had someone else caught them, us coaches could have been in some serious trouble.
The next day our team capt. apologized on behalf of the team.

Boys will be boys, girls will be girls, teens will be teens, kids will be kids, and the world needs to remember that, and stop trying to prevent life.

Yes we did. 1/2 a beer each at 15 and 16, is not going to hurt them. Most of them already shared a beer here and there with their dads.

This was 16 yrs ago now. They were treated with respect, and not like criminals. We gained a great deal of respect from the boys, and never had a repeat occurance.

And guess what, each dad was told upon our return, and out of 12 dads, all 12 thought it was handled well.
So Yvette take your uptight attitude towards alcohol and don’t worry bout it.

If we had simply pulled a storm trooper and confiscated it all, lectured them and sent them to their rooms, they would have learned nothing, hated us coaches, and spent the rest of the night cursing us. Our way turned out so much better. Lessons learned, respect given both ways, and no hard feelings. win win.

Yvette,
Alot of the people around here do not have a carefree attitude towards booze. What they/we have is a respect for it. We also know that kids who are told in absolutes that drinking is taboo, will sneak around, an without role models to follow tend to way over indulge when they become of age. The teens that get to share the odd beer or glass of wine with adults do not make a huge deal of being able to “finally” drink. Because it is nothing new to them.

And if I was put in the same situation again with a team, I wouldn’t change a thing.

@Warren–I think your way of dealing with youthful indiscretion (buying beer underage) on that trip was spot-on. I’d probably have handled the chocolate thing the same way–I’d take the candy, and tell Holli and her friends that they can have it back at the end of the trip, in exchange for good behaviour throughout. After all, the candy is still the girls’ property, even if there’s a rule against outside food on the trip, for whatever reason–vermin, health reasons, jealousy, potential mess, or whatever. Then, after taking the candy, I’d probably just have them explain in writing why what she did was wrong. After that, once I was sure they understood, we’d be back to having fun. Maybe that sounds too lenient, but honestly, I probably wouldn’t have had a whole list of crazy rules in the first place. I wouldn’t have banned outside food unless there was a very good reason for it, and I wouldn’t have banned actually SWIMMING on a trip to the beach either. For the outside food thing, I don’t think I would have been able to comply with that, because I’m mildly anemic, and sometimes, I need a protein/iron fix NOW, and not in a few hours at the next scheduled meal. So, if I was attending a group trip like that now, I’d bring a box of Clif bars or something, explain in advance why I had them, and be mightily ticked off if I was banned from the trip for taking care of my health. As for the beach incident, if I was going to be taking a group of young people to the beach, I’d be encouraging them to enjoy the water fully, and I’d probably be in there swimming with them. Since I’m a good swimmer, and I’ve actually had to do a rescue in the middle of the water before, I know that I could do it again, so that would make the situation safer. Also, most camps here don’t have a “nobody can swim, ever” rule; instead, they do swimming tests on the first day, and they assign participants colour-coded wristbands according to swimming ability.

Donna
Different strokes for different folks.
Senior year for us, and the cast and crew of the play were having a party after the final performance. Our english teacher, and director was in the hall, and one of our drummers set his large drum bag down near him. With the telltale clinking of bottles. Our teacher grinned, “Your seniors, and Im old enough to claim hearing impairment..” And he walked away.
This is the very same teacher on day one of his gr. 13 english lit class stood before us and announced, ” I am not here to deprive you of your right to fail my class.” He had my respect for that, and even more for his silence, at the play. He could have very well busted a bunch of us, making life hell. But he didn’t because he knew there are just somethings you let go as rights of passage.

Actually, SKL, I don’t know what my vote is because I don’t know all the facts. We know what mom said. We know what some commenters claiming to the parents of other kids in the school said. I’d be incredibly surprised if EITHER version is 100% the truth.

Sometimes I get a little tired of this site jumping on these things and being outraged, knowing only one side of the story. And what appears to be a lot of making your own snap decisions and then picking and choosing who to believe and who is discredited based on absolutely nothing other than who supports your particular view. In this case, you discount what all the parents are saying in comments but in the daycare story were so sure that the teacher was cooking her lunch because someone said so in the comments.

I’m just not overly sympathetic to this particular kid. I think, even at its best description, her behavior deserved consequences and I just don’t think the consequences were all that harsh. She had to leave a school trip early for breaking rules (we know she did something at the beach and the candy thing) on that trip and nothing more. She missed some enjoyment in life but her freedom wasn’t at stake and her education wasn’t at stake. All those things that make the gun zero tolerance rules so extreme. The number of times that I’ve threatened to remove my child from some activity because of her behavior are numerous. I’ve only had to do it once or twice because she started behaving but I’d willingly do so so I don’t think that removing a kid who can’t even make it through one day without violating the rules is really so god-awful harsh.

If some of the other facts given by the other parents are true, I really don’t think the consequences are too harsh. If my belief that the mother knew and supported the actions are true, then I have no sympathy for the mother at all but do have sympathy for the kid as she doesn’t have a very good role model.

This whole beach thing is troubling. If the incident on the beach was severe enough to make candy the breaking point, then why wasn’t the situation remedied right there and then, on the beach.

The beach incident screams of “we screwed up, and better find more ammo to cover our rears”. Even more so considering the correspondance being opened, and the invasive search, resulting in property damage. Maybe just maybe they realized they jumped the gun, and now are doing whatever they can to protect themselves.

“This whole beach thing is troubling. If the incident on the beach was severe enough to make candy the breaking point, then why wasn’t the situation remedied right there and then, on the beach.”

Who says it wasn’t? Not sure where you are getting the idea that nothing was done at the beach.

And the letter thing is questionable. The mother simply says that the letter was read. The other parents all say that the letter was part of a writing assignment and was, of course, going to be read. And, proper letter writing is part of the curriculum in about this grade (or was when I was in school) so the idea isn’t completely unbelievable. Again, I don’t know which version to be true.

The destroying the suitcase and throwing things around the room was totally uncalled for and the people who did it should be called out and the school should replace the suitcase.

I’m skeptical about the claim that the letter writing was a school assignment meant to be read by the teachers. If that is the case, then why would the girl have spilled the beans in the letter? Too dumb to know better (I doubt that) or was it the height of cheekiness? Or was the letter really supposed to be private?

@Donna “The kids were told that bringing food would result in expulsion from the trip. No objection was raised before going that this penalty was too harsh”

You can not mean that seriously. Do you really expect 12 years old kid to objects something like that? That would require huge bravery from the kid and the kid would be labeled as disrespectful and that would be it.

Kids do not get to have say in such things and faulting them for not trying is unfair.

Or they would call her entitled. Most likely entitled. I’m sick of the word entitled. It lately means only that someone young happened to think he is treated unfairly or too harsh. Or not be perfect.

please excuse the spelling been a long day doing service calls, and sitting in truck stops between them.

“This school’s idea of rules would have me suspended for the season, for a minor infraction. ”

And if hockey worked that way, I’m assuming you wouldn’t play under those rules. But this mother chose to allow her child to do the activity under those rules — it’s too late, regardless of whether we agree that the punishment was unfair, to complain about the punishment they knew about in advance.

If you feel strongly enough about the rules being stupid, you shouldn’t sign something saying you agree to let your kid do it under those rules. (We’ve declined to let our kids do things on that basis before.) If you agree to let them do it, you have no grounds to complain afterward, though it would certainly make sense to try to get the rules changed before you are affected by them.

On one hand, people (Americans) complain about kids being spoiled and coddled. Having no discipline and being allowed to do whatever.

On the other hand, when the topic of punishment and rules comes up, the punishment is too often disproportionately big. Much bigger then what I would face for the same act as a kid. And people seem to be perfectly ok with it.

Half of the time, I would not even have the rule. You would have to replace chocolate by a lot of alcohol or attempt to escape to even talk about sending the kid home from trip without looking crazy.

It would happen if the kid would be seriously out of control and prevent normal flow of the camp. “Brought in chocolate and nobody found out until she wrote it in a letter” does not count as such.

I do not remember school rules being treated as rigid mini criminal system, as it seems to be in these topics. It is as if punishment itself would be primary goal, not teaching kids how to behave.

The message repeatedly send seem to be “If I have power over you, I’m free to use that power in any way I like. Any no matter how small show of disrespect means that I do not have to care about you at all. I’m the one with power. ” I do not want future generation to learn that.

I’ve signed behavior agreements before. I interpret them to mean that I will make sure my kid understands these expectations. I don’t interpret them to guarantee that my kid will never do something stupid like break a known rule.

And also, I would assume the listed consequences to mean “up to.”

Usually the rules list include stuff like “respecting fellow campers, obeying counselors’ instructions, being prepared for xyz.” Sure I agree that my kids should do all those things, but there will be times when my kids’ behavior choices don’t match the adults’ view of what constitutes compliance. Like, my kid may need to be told more than once to do xyz before she does it. I don’t expect my kid to be expelled for behavior that is within a range of age-appropriate foolishness. I expect a camp to be prepared to deal with such things.

This summer, my kids have been in a number of camps, all of which had effective policies for dealing with foolishness. Neither my kids nor the other kids behaved perfectly, but nobody was sent home or expelled as far as I know.

@ Andy –

The issue for me is some level of personal responsibility for your own choices. If you are told “if you do X, Z will happen” and you do X, it seems completely idiotic to be outraged when Z actually happens, particularly when you didn’t seem upset about the potential for Z prior to it occurring. (Again, I am talking like the outrage of the mother and not the child).

And you are going to have different opinions on whether a punishment is actually overly punitive. I don’t think that this one is horribly overly punitive and I think simply taking the candy away too minor. If it had been my kid, I would have told the camp to keep her and not make it my problem, an option that this mother had but chose not to take.

Keep in mind that the details of the suitcase search came directly from the 11 year old girl who was upset about being asked to leave the trip. Not saying she made it up as there was obviously some damage to the suitcase, but it seemed a little dramatic in the retelling from the mom.

@puzzled What you wrote sounds reasonable. But, the desire to punish seems to me as defining American feature. Any time there is a problem, the discussion is about who should be punished more then already is.

I mean, states have biggest prison population in both absolute and proportional terms. Almost any punishment in states is bigger then the one in Europe. That desire to punish any transgression or non comformity as hard as possible seems to be targeted to more then just kids.

Eh.

There’s more to this story than what’s printed.
If another kid had been caught with candy, I don’t think they would have been punished the same, but that’s just my speculation.

One thing is for sure, this isn’t a zero tolerance rule.
This is a rule.
There is a difference.

Nobody is being punished for making candy bar hand gestures with their hands, or talking about candy bars, or cutting paper in the shape of candy bars, or wearing a t-shirt with a candy bar on it.

SKL – Based on what you wrote it sounded like you always took penalties in these types of rule books to mean “up to.” My kids school and camp both have some rules that list penalties as “up to” and others that specify a specific penalty, sometimes expulsion, will occur for a certain act.

We have no idea what this rule says. It seems pretty asinine to draw a line in the sand and say food automatically means expulsion as the commenters who claim to be other parents assert occurred in the pre-trip meeting. But we also don’t know the basis of the rule or what has come before. There were a couple times in my high school days where some rule suddenly became extremely important to enforce for some reason, usually a result of some group before stepping too far over the line. Heck, I’ve even seen it at just about every place I’ve ever worked. Managers look the other way for silly policies until things go one step too far and then they rein everyone back in by being real sticklers for awhile.

Do we know if anyone knew at the time what part the other girls played? We don’t know what the letter said. We don’t know if this girl ratted out her friends. It appears that just her luggage was searched so whatever the other kids had was never found. Clearly they know now that her roommates were involved but the trip is over.

Andy – good and fair points. You’re right, I did overstate the degree to which such things are unique to kids – but the fact remains (and in fact is highlighted by your point) that what is done to kids remains, in spite of this, far more draconian in terms of process than is done to adults.

Yes, plea bargains, for instance, have taken away, in some 96% of cases, the evidence requirements – but at least a plea bargain gives the defendant some sort of break. Kids are expected to plead guilty, and to name names, with no deal. They are not treated as defendants in the process, with something akin to rights.

I agree with your second point entirely, except to say that I think I worry more about the future after I’m gone than I do about my future treatment. Both are concerns, though.

@puzzled and Andy – This fear of conformity at all costs in the future is just funny to me. I see nothing wrong with what was done here and am yet give me a rule and I am liable to break it. Except in games, I hate following rules (for whatever reason, I am a stickler for rules in games and am miserable to play with).

That said I do understand that there is a potential penalty for my choice to break the rules. Granted I do the best that I can to minimize the effect on me – ie. I am very good at what I do so my employers have generally tolerated the fact that I am going to just do my own thing regardless of what they say. And I stay out of corporate America where conformity is required. But at the end of the day, I am willing to accept what my rule breaking deals me.

What I have a hard time grasping is the attitude here that seems to be “I can break any rule I don’t agree with and expect nothing to happen … or at least only something I think is reasonable even if the potential penalty was explained beforehand.” If I am nailed for breaking a rule, I don’t whine about it. I knew what the risk was going in.

Donna, I don’t accept the logic that this year’s kids should have higher expectations because last year’s kids went way over the line. This year’s kids are still 11yos and they deserve a clean slate and a realistic set of age-appropriate expectations.

If an organization can’t run a camp with age-appropriate, reasonable rules and discipline, they should not be running a camp. Period.

The whole “you could have opted out” also doesn’t impress me. Yeah, I could have kept my kid home instead of letting her go with her friends and risking the possibility that she would do things that kids do. So my kid gets left out of all the fun. How is that a solution to stupid rules? Well, I guess if nobody was sent to camp, and instead of applications all the leaders got were complaints about their policy, maybe the leaders would change the policy. But even if that happened, the once-in-a-lifetime sixth grade trip would be a lost opportunity for that group of kids.

I really hope you all are right, that this girl is just a little hellion and it was high time she got her comeuppance.

1.) Do you seriously expect 12 years old to do risk benefit calculation? Especially when in situation that is out of ordinary normal expectation she learned up to know? (Being sent home for chocolate is out of ordinary expectations).

2.) If you create penal code that prescribe unfairly huge punishments to small infractions, that criminal code is unfair even if we know about it up front.

None of us broke that rule and was punished. So please, do not call our disagreement whining. The way you treat it makes it almost impossible to talk about punishment appropriateness.

If I try to negotiate punishments before activity, I’m told that discretion and brain will be used. That I’m difficult cause of course they will not use maximum possible punishment. And the form is there mainly to protect them against lawsuits from suit happy parents.

Once they do use maximum punishment, then everyone should be ok with it, cause we have been expected to bring lawyer and negotiate those details before it.

3.) It is fear of word where small infractions automatically lead to big punishments. A world where those in power put on so many arbitrary rules, that you can be sure that many people will be punished in a big way in one point or another. That is what we are teaching kids.

It is not fear that everyone will be the same, I would not mind it that much anyway. Rather, it is fear that those who are not perfect will be treated exceedingly harshly.

* The world where kid gets week of suspension because the kid was late to school once. (Should have know school rules.)

* Where you get fired from job because heavy object fallen on your leg once and you used swear word. (Should have read employee manual page 134.)

* Where you get CPS called on you cause you allowed your 15 years old to play computer game labeled 16 years and older. (Should have read parenting best practices.)

* Where you go to jail for paying monthly bill one day late once – and no one cares you forgot cause you have been sick. Or where you get fine big enough to bankrupt you.

It is the world where I can not go to different employer and find different school, because harshness and rigid legalistic view of discipline is a norm.

I think, assuming there is not some weird factor we don’t know about and that I can’t personally imagine, that the punishment is excessive.

I also think that any parent who signs something saying that her kid would get kicked out of an event for having candy there has to bear *some* responsibility for signing such an agreement, rather than blaming it *all* on the institution that asked (not forced) her to sign the agreement.

I understand that kids will do things they’re not supposed to. That’s why we, as parents, should think long and hard about signing things that allow institutions to impose harsh punishments for small infractions, particularly when no one is forcing our child to engage in the activities covered by the agreement. If a school requires such an agreement to attend school, and we have no other good options for our child’s education, we have a problem. If a school requires such an agreement to attend a pleasure outing, we should say, “No thanks, I’m not making my child subject to those rules.” Do the parents have NO responsibility up front? Or are we just supposed to say that we can sign anything we want on behalf of our kids, even subjecting them to excessive punishment, and then it’s 100% someone else’s fault and 0% ours when they take us at our word?

SKL — I can agree that if the wording was open-ended or vague, the parent might have a leg to stand on, and could possibly make the case that the punishment was applied unfairly, if it wasn’t clear that it was a fixed punishment for the offense that actually happened. I’m just saying that if you agree to something like that with the clear understanding (or at least the understanding should be clear) of what the requirements and penalties are, it’s completely reasonable to say the punishment is too harsh, but you still have to bear the responsibility for accepting it in the first place.

Andy – that’s a great point. Why do I expect that, if the mother asked about that line beforehand, she would have been told “well, we have to include such things, lawyer and such, state the maximum, you know, but we’re reasonable people…”