# Phone Confiscated in Primary School



## shipibo (1 Dec 2006)

My friends son had his mobile phone confiscated in school, he was in hte toilets , and the phone was swiched off.

His parents spoke to Headmaster, and explained ,as they both work on shift, he needs the phone to contact them/grandmother if he gets into trouble.

Headmaster stated this changes nothing, and they can have phone back in Month !!!! , she suggested they buy another phone for him !!!!!

Garda Liaison Officer said this was stupid, and if they wished, he would go to school to get phone back.

Just wondering, should he get legal advice on this, and if garda gets Phone , will Head Teacher get the hump and suspend / expel the son.


----------



## dats_right (1 Dec 2006)




----------



## envelope (1 Dec 2006)

Ill probably be slated for this but we didnt have mobiles when we were in school and we got by. I think that if the school has a rule its important for the parents to respect that. good training for the kids too. its always good to have a good relationship with school authourities.


----------



## ubiquitous (1 Dec 2006)

Your child will have to learn to respect authority and to observe more and more rules (whether correct or incorrect, just or unjust) as they get older. Going to the Guards or to legal advisors every time someone crosses them is hardly a good approach to equip them to deal with life as an adult.


----------



## momomo (1 Dec 2006)

crumdub12 said:


> His parents spoke to Headmaster, and explained ,as they both work on shift, he needs the phone to contact them/grandmother if he gets into trouble.


 
Come on! He isnt the only child with parents working shift work.  If the child gets  "into trouble" as you put it, the school will contact his parents/grandmother.
There is no excuse for a mobilephone to be in school


----------



## cambazola (1 Dec 2006)

I presume the OP's concern is that the child doesn't now have a phone at all (for a month) so if he gets into trouble _outside_ school he has no means of calling parents etc.

Crumbdub, why did they confiscate it if it was turned off?  Are you sure this was so?


----------



## Vanilla (1 Dec 2006)

I think it depends on whether there was a clearly stated policy of the school already in existance as regards mobile phones or not. If there was not, then its unjust, if there was, then the principal is right. Although having said that I do feel that the school should, if possible, have a place where students could deposit their mobile entering the school and take it out again with them when leaving because presumably the phone is for outside the school anyway.


----------



## CCOVICH (1 Dec 2006)

Does the school have any right to withold the phone from the child's parents?


----------



## momomo (1 Dec 2006)

I know in some schools you have to pay to get your phone back, like 5euro in one school I know.  
1 month is unfair, I would go back to the school and explain that you understand it was wrong for the child to have the phone blah blah blah, but as his parents responsibilty when they are outside the school, you would not be comfortable with the child not having a phone for a month.


----------



## shipibo (1 Dec 2006)

I think the issue is the phone is being withheld for 1 month .... , only Gardai can confiscate and hold onto things in the medium term.

I agree in principle to no mobiles in school, but a bit of flexibility , and return of someones property are real issues.


They have spoken to everyone on school side, and given " We Understand, but", and were told to buy a new phone if it was that much of a problem.

The phone was off (Principle stated this), it is for outside school (they live in a rough area of Tallaght).

And yes the world has gone mad , where a school believe it has the right to illegally hold onto someones property.


----------



## rmelly (1 Dec 2006)

did he have the phone out of his bag? if so, why?

surely the world has gone mad when parents are talking about seeking legal action where a child breaks rules and they are not willing for him to face the consequences.

as other posters have pointed, nice life lesson for the child to learn - break the rules then threaten legal action if caught.


----------



## demoivre (1 Dec 2006)

Vanilla said:


> I think it depends on whether there was a clearly stated policy of the school already in existance as regards mobile phones or not. If there was not, then its unjust, if there was, then the principal is right.



Totally agree with this - I know it's clearly stated in the rules at the primary school our lads attend that no mobile phones are to be brought to school and if kids are caught with one it's confiscated until the end of the school year in June.


----------



## shipibo (1 Dec 2006)

RMelly,


Read the mail, he was in the toilets, if he left it in his bag it would be stolen.

Why should school hold onto this phone ??? , and when you have exhausted every rational route, what else do you do ??


As for your smart comment about life lessons, If you feel you are in the right, you should fight your corner.


----------



## shipibo (1 Dec 2006)

Demoivre,


     If kids are using phone in school time, I would understand, but taking your personal property for a school term .....


     If this happened in the workplace, there would be murder.


----------



## rmelly (1 Dec 2006)

crumdub12 said:


> RMelly,
> 
> 
> Read the mail, he was in the toilets, if he left it in his bag it would be stolen.
> ...


 
I am aware he was in the toilet, but doesn't mean he had to have the phone in his hand - could he not put in his pocket? His having the phone in the toilet raises issues about students privacy if it was a camera phone...even though it was 'allegedly' off.

Can you confirm whether this policy of confiscation is a school rule that all parents & students are made aware of, as this is the crux of the matter.

As per my 'smart comment', I would be the first to admit that I ignore rules sometimes but if caught I accept responsibility, I don't threaten them with my solicitor. We have gotten to a ridiculous PC bu****it state where students can run riot over teachers but can't be expelled etc. because the parents take legal action to have the students returned to school.


----------



## demoivre (1 Dec 2006)

crumdub12 said:


> Demoivre,
> 
> 
> If kids are using phone in school time, I would understand, but taking your personal property for a school term .....



Yeah but the point is if that's one of the rules of the school then there's not a lot he can do about it. On the other hand if there is no stated policy re. mobiles then it's a different matter but imo far to trivial  a matter to involve  guards, solicitors etc.


----------



## pjryan62 (1 Dec 2006)

What is cheaper? Engaging the legal profession or another phone.


----------



## fatmanknows (1 Dec 2006)

If it were my child I'd go up and commend the Principal. No child should have any need for  a Mobile phone in the confines of a shool property. If the child cannot keep his phone off and in his/her school bag for fear of it being stolen then I'd find a new school. Teachers have enough work cut out teaching in today's society without the distraction of mobile phones. Merely having it in his hand is good enough for me to warrant a breach of the rules. If you feel so strongly why not just get another for €29 rather than resorting to the Guards, Laywers etc. The message you send out to challenge the School Authority is infinitely more damaging than forking out another €29. Why dont the Parents  take responsiblity for not informing their child about the nuscience and distraction mobile phones cause to teaching staff. Next thing we'll hear is a claim for compo for psychological damage suffered by little Johnny from being without his phone for a month. There's absolutely no sympathy from this corner.


----------



## shipibo (1 Dec 2006)

RMelly,

   This is,nt an issue of PC , its an issue of property retention, and the fact he is even talking about legal advice shows the level of frustration he feels after dealing with the school.

    Your point of a phone in the toilet is a good one, but this boy has no previous disiplinary issues, and is not the type.


Dem, PJ,

            Would new phone be cheaper, yes .. but it is the principle of the matter,  


Fatman,


       No one is looking for sympathy, and phones can be confiscated, but the fact of keeping for a month  ........

     As for phone / MP3 / computer theft in school , it happens everywhere, if you were to move school for this , you would never stop.


----------



## ubiquitous (1 Dec 2006)

"property retention", by which I presume you mean confiscation, is nothing new in schools. The best part of 25 years ago I remember having a copy of "Smash Hits" confiscated because I was caught trying to read it during class. I wouldn't have dared tell my parents about the incident, let alone had them consult Gardai & solicitors on my behalf, because I knew they would have taken a dim view of my stupidity rather than trying to undermine the teacher's authority.


----------



## Alias (1 Dec 2006)

There's a similar arguement going on across the pond: 

http://www.kten.com/Global/story.asp?S=5688199


----------



## shipibo (1 Dec 2006)

Bit of a difference between a comic and a mobile phone ....


And that link is scarily similar ,unfortunate that things have to go this far


----------



## ubiquitous (1 Dec 2006)

...only in scale. I thought you said it was the principle that matters?


----------



## jasconius (1 Dec 2006)

As a parent myself, I don't normally have a lot of sympathy with teachers. However in this case school rules is school rules and you should abide by them - why should you be the exception? 
I have little sympathy for you - I am sure that you were informed at the beginning of the school year.
As for buying another one - be prepared to lose it again.


----------



## Billo (1 Dec 2006)

I do,nt think we are getting the full picture here. I would like to hear the headmasters version of events. I am sure he had good reason for his actions.


----------



## Mr Toad (1 Dec 2006)

Posters seem more or less unaminous that the Principal's action was, _prima facie_, reasonable in the circumstances presented.  As to the legality of same I would hazard to guess that are school rules as to use / possession of mobile phones on school property and that the Principal has ample scope for confiscation as a temporary measure (one month seems reasonable - even excessively lenient)

I think that our police force have more immediately demanding activities to engage their time such as the odd gangland killing perhaps?

To answer the orginal poster I suggest that his friend indeed takes the matter further and seeks advice - although not of a legal nature.  Any one suggest a good parenting class?

Can we consider thread closed?


----------



## Theo Goon (1 Dec 2006)

Almost every school has  rule about mobilees so i am sure the OP's son broke the rules in this case.  SO he should be prepared to pay the fine e.g. give up the phone for the month or whatever.

What's the problem?


----------



## Brianp (1 Dec 2006)

Theo Goon said:


> Almost every school has rule about mobilees so i am sure the OP's son broke the rules in this case. SO he should be prepared to pay the fine e.g. give up the phone for the month or whatever.
> 
> What's the problem?


 
quite right! i would have to agree.. Rules are rules. im sure he'll know now not to take mobiles to school.


----------



## tigra (1 Dec 2006)

As an ex-manager of a rather large mobile phone retailer in Ireland I feel that primary school children are far too young to have a mobile phone. I have tried to explain to parents the danagers of letting their child have a mobile phone but every time the child would kick off and abuse their parents infront of the whole shop to get what they want. 
I'm sorry but when I was in primary school we had a 1 payphone and if parents are so worried give your child 50c to make that all important call. 

Then again if the school did nothing and mobile phone usage became an issue it wouldn't be long before it's know as the school that did nothing for it's students. Everyone is quick to play the blame game.


----------



## shipibo (2 Dec 2006)

Was looking for information rather than opinions, but you are entitled to them .....


As for parenting classes , he has three kids, and raises them very well, so less of the personal comments.


----------



## PM1234 (2 Dec 2006)

I would think that schools have the right to have rules adhered to. Confiscating property is not an uncommon problem where this is not so. I would be very reluctant to have gardai involved - I would doubt its a crime to remove something which causes a distraction in a learning environment and on a personal note the majority of us went to school without mobiles - 20 cents to use a public telephone which is normally available within the school grounds is an alternative.

That said, this happened to a friends daughter who attends a school in Rathmines. The parents went to the Principal, who insisted that the one month rule applied. Their child was adamant that the phone had been off but am unsure if the parents fully believed that! They got the phone back on the condition that it was turned off during school hours.


----------



## Gordanus (3 Dec 2006)

crumdub12 said:


> And yes the world has gone mad , where a school believe it has the right to illegally hold onto someones property.



In that case it's been mad a long time; schools were confiscating items 40 years ago and more!

Of course, in those days, the parents backed up the school's discipline and abided by the rules..................


----------



## liteweight (3 Dec 2006)

It's not really fair to compare the confiscation of comics etc., years ago, to that of a mobile phone today.  If your comic was taken away, your parents didn't need to know. However, how does the child explain away a mobile phone when his/her parents probably call him/her on it regularly. The game's up so the child is better off telling the parents about the incident.

If the child was in the toilets with the phone turned off, why was it confiscated? Was there a teacher in the toilets? If there is a no mobile phone rule, then parents and children have to abide by that. If, however, the children in the school are allowed to bring mobiles, then I think the Principal is over the top.

It's a different time out there now for both parents and children and a child can get into trouble even if not of his/her making. At that time a mobile can be invaluable. For example, if parents work shift and might be late picking the child up, it's better to call or text and tell the child where to wait. This is a safety issue and I think we can all agree that children are not as safe in our society as they once were.

I'd go back to the Principal again and try to work something out. It was a bit cheeky to be told to buy a new phone IMO. Talk about encouraging the 'throw away' society!


----------



## Marion (4 Dec 2006)

Hi Crumbdub12

How old is the child? 4? 5? 6? 10? 12?  14? 15? 18?

Is there a school policy on mobile phones?

Marion


----------



## shipibo (4 Dec 2006)

The child is 12, and I think the principal has wiped her hands of the issue.

I advised my friend not to get garda involved, I think this will really escalate the problem, and may cause son some problems into the future, and am not comfortable about legal advice, but he feels very strongly about this.

This is why I was looking for information, have you heard about anythng like this before...


Gordanus,

             If my friend believed his son had was using phone, he would have got a hiding, he does not bring his children up to break rules , but he feels that he was unfairly treated, and is acting as such.


----------



## Oilean Beag (4 Dec 2006)

In my school we had strict rules on jewelry & make up wearing. 

Any girl caught wearing make up was handed a baby wipe & ordered it off. Likewise with nail polish. 

Any girl wearing in excess of the limit of jewlery had it confiscated for the ENTIRE term. There was a lot of valuable gold confiscated while I was school & girls would have had to explain what happened to it. 

Parents never got involved, although rights of 'property' & 'person' as such were at issue. Rules were rules & we all abided or paid the price. Discipline is absolutely necessary to provide a good educational environment & although we may have felt 'wronged' at the time, we probably learned a bit about the way the world works.


----------



## Marion (4 Dec 2006)

I know of some schools where mobile phones are completely banned. Students can hand in their phones to the school secretary if there is an an urgent need to make contact with the home. Parents sign the school policy at the start of the year. Some schools introduced the policy precisely because of serious misuse of the phones in the school toilets. Students were being filmed by camera phone and the photos were then sent to mobiles of other students. This is an insidious form of bullying. Many schools will only return a confiscated phone at the end of the term.

I agree with this policy because essentially it is enforced to protect the children while they are _in loco parentis_.

Marion


----------



## liteweight (4 Dec 2006)

I think it's a good idea to hand the phones in to the school secretary. Best of both worlds really. Children are contactable before and after school hours. While in school, it's as easy to ring the Principal in an emergency as it is to contact the child directly. Probably better in fact as the child can officially be taken from class straight away.

Crumdub, if I was a child and thought I'd get a hiding I'd become a very proficient liar overnight!!


----------



## shipibo (4 Dec 2006)

Again, without trying to sound demeaning, Jewellery and a phone are different. Why should the school take your Jewellery, they have no rights, (Customs , Garda with receipt), they must not trust parents.

The Tallaght Echo had a front page last week about a girl that was nearly abducted in Fettercairn, times have changed .

The teacher who confiscated the phone stated the phone was off.

If the school had an area you could safely leave phones, this would be the ideal , but budgets  etc... , this may not be viaible.


----------



## lorna (4 Dec 2006)

primary kids should not have phones ! full stop. i have never heard such rubbish from parents. no wonder we have so many delinquents / spoilt brats. get a grip, get rid of the phone. kids love to show off to each other and this is just another thing to show off with. can't you see that ? you are only encouraging bigger probs for your child. next they will be doing a bit of happy slapping etc.


----------



## liteweight (4 Dec 2006)

I also believed kids shouldn't have phones until they were older. Then Rainaud (?) Murray was stabbed while walking home. She dragged herself almost home, her parents house was a couple of hundred yards away. She was not robbed and I felt if she'd been able to make a call she'd be alive today. I went out and bought my youngest a phone the day after. It proved invaluable when coming home on her own in the dark evenings, she'd ring home and I'd talk to her while she went through the 'dark patch' near our house. It used to be that children and the aged were off limits to thugs...not so any more I'm afraid.


----------



## JP1234 (4 Dec 2006)

At my son's school they accept that teenagers carry and will bring in phones to school and they are encouraged to leave them with the secretary during the day. However it is not a rigid rule, though if they are found to even have one switched on while on the premises they are confiscated until the end of term! This was clearly spelt out to us and the students in writing and at Parent/Teacher meetings.  I know of a couple of incidents where a phone has been used and confiscated, however they are generally returned after a week or so once the child and parents have been spoken to and undertaken to not let it happen again. I would suggest, if your friend was aware of the ban he should accept it with grace and maybe after a week approach the head or the school board to request it back.   Threatening them with the Guards/Legal Action is blowing the whole thing out of proportion and is probably making the poor kid squirm with embarrassment, remember, it is the child who has to go in every day and face the teachers etc. Calling in the guards etc would completely undermine the school's rules and policies and would send out the wrong message.  
Your friend may feel he should take it further out of principle but at the end of the day, had he/his kid respected those of the school this situation would not have occured.

As someone else said, legal action would be a waste of money and calling I am pretty sure the guards have far more pressing matters than this to deal with each day.


----------



## shipibo (5 Dec 2006)

Lite,

     Even when a mobile phone is switched off , you can still triangulate the signal using Mobile Positioning Systems, and should still be able to make 999 calls if out of credit.


JP,

    I agree fully with everything you say, they do not want to undermine schools rules, but this issue is outstanding 3 weeks, and school should have dealt with his parents like adults, nobody needs their time wasted with this .....


   Thanks for all the opinions.


----------



## PGD1 (5 Dec 2006)

while it might not be correct there could be an element of the school taking a hardline with parente as well as children.

I'm familiar with "school workings" and the parents are worse then the kids. Some of the accusations they make towards teachers.... and they demands they make!!!

My point is that it is all very tiring to have deal with "annoying" parents on top of dealing with sometimes out of control children. Perhaps the teacher and principal are fed up and have set out the rules and that's just that and tough luck!!??


----------



## Helen (6 Dec 2006)

Just got this in an email ... 2nd last point is particularly apt!

BORN BEFORE 1986?

According to today's regulators and bureaucrats, those of us who werekids in the 60's, 70's and early 80's probably shouldn't have survived, because our baby cots were covered with brightly coloured Lead-based paint which was promptly chewed and licked. 

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, or latches on doors or cabinets and it was fine to play with pans. When we rode our bikes, we wore no helmets, just flip-flops and fluorescent 'spokey dokey's' on our wheels. 

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or airbags and riding in the passenger seat was a treat. We drank water from the garden hose and not from a bottle and it tasted the same. 

We ate chips, bread and butter pudding and drank fizzy juice with sugar in it, but we were never overweight because we were always outside playing. We shared one drink with four friends, from one bottle or can and no-one actually died from this. 


We would spend hours building go-carts out of scraps and then  went top speed down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes.
After running into stinging nettles a few times, we learned to solve the problem. 

We would leave home in the morning and could play all day, as long as we were back before it got dark. No one was able to reach us and no one minded.

We did not have Play stations or X-Boxes, no video games at all. 

No 99 channels on TV, no videotape movies, no surround sound, no mobile phones, no personal computers, no DVDs, no Internet chatrooms.

We had friends - we went outside and found them. We played elastics and rounders, and sometimes that ball really hurt! We fell out of trees, got cut, and broke bones but there were no law suits. 

We played knock-the-door-run-away and were actually afraid of the owners catching us. We walked to friends' homes. We also, believe it or not, WALKED to school; we didn't rely on mummy or daddy to drive us to school, which was just round the corner. 

We made up games with sticks and tennis balls. We rode bikes in packs of 7 and wore our coats by only the hood. The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke a law was unheard of...they actually sided with the law. 

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers and problem solvers and inventors, ever. The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas. We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned how to deal with it all.


----------



## Seagull (7 Dec 2006)

How exactly does this relate to this thread?


----------



## ubiquitous (7 Dec 2006)

She did say 





Helen said:


> ... 2nd last point is particularly apt!


----------



## Lorz (7 Dec 2006)

If indeed the phone was off and was in his pocket - how did the teacher/principal know that he had a phone with him?


----------



## shipibo (8 Dec 2006)

Don,t remember saying phone was in pocket ...., did say phone was off though.


We sided with many authority figures years ago, through sheer belief they had a greater level of intelligence, luckily nowadays, we speak up more when we believe they are wrong.


----------



## Ancutza (8 Dec 2006)

The idea that ANY parent would even consider involving the law in such a situation is simply laughable to me. It shows how much Irish society has slid towards the litigatious American model which is no credit to anyone.

I'd respectfully suggest that if you were any kind of friend to your mate that you'd advise him to get a life and another phone for his sprog which could be volunteered to the secretarys office on entering the school each morning.  

To be outraged on his behalf is simply stunning to any one of right mind!  
How in the name of God can schools hope to maintain any kind of discipline if every child is allowed to do as he/she wishes for fear of a court case??

Perhaps the correct course of action is to school the kid at home and then, hey, sure you wouldn't have to worry about rules and regulations that weren't imposed my your own good self.


----------



## liteweight (10 Dec 2006)

Well if he was my child, I'd firstly ascertain whether he had broken school rules, even if the teacher was a bit over the top. If he did break the rules, then I'd buy another less 'cool' mobile and deduct the cost out of his pocket money over time.

The teachers in this scenario obviously felt he was breaking rules although if they admit the phone was off, I genuinely don't know why he wasn't just told to keep it in his bag in future.


----------



## stir crazy (17 Jan 2008)

so what exactly is the problem with  kids having mobile phones in school ? 

I dont see the problem unless they were using it during class . Otherwise Its puritanical hair shirt nonsense .


----------



## csirl (18 Jan 2008)

> My friends son had his mobile phone confiscated in school, he was in hte toilets , and the phone was swiched off.


 
To be honest, it sounds as if the child is being economical with the truth. How would a teacher know a boy has a turned off phone in the toilet? The phone must have been switched on & rang or must have been in the kids hands or the kid was found using it. Teachers dont search kids pockets when they have their pants down taking a p in the toilet, so the kids story doesnt add up.


----------



## so-crates (18 Jan 2008)

stir crazy said:


> so what exactly is the problem with kids having mobile phones in school ?
> 
> I dont see the problem unless they were using it during class . Otherwise Its puritanical hair shirt nonsense .


 
Well lets see.... here are some possibilities...
1) Children arranging fights via text messages (I know of a situation where this was happening)
2) Children bullying other children via text message
3) Children engaging in "happy-slapping"
4) Children humiliating other children by taking embarrassing pictures of them
....

just a small sample but the facts are this:
1) a parent should contact the school not the child as otherwise they are being disruptive
2) a child can ask the school to contact a parent/guardian if needed, we have simply become so dependent on the immediate accessibility that mobile phones provide that we forget simple procedures and courtesies
3) children are inventive, even when it comes to making other people's lives a misery - their exploits with mobile phones are well-publicised, the list above does not do justice to their creativity
4) you are dependent on the good nature of the child to ensure that the phone is switched off (is it not at all possible that the child had the phone on and as the door started to open switched it off???) Otherwise you need to constantly check the phones of possibly several hundred children in a school - blocking the signal is not an option.
5) School rules banning mobile phones have been introduced invariably because of the unenforceability of switching off phones in schools and the annoyance, distraction, irritation, danger, etc that their being on results in.
6) I hate to say this to you but a mobile phone is intrinsically no more special a piece of property than a diary is. The ability to track a signal is wonderful but hopefully something that no child should have to depend on (to note it's most infamous use in tracking that poor child in Cork was not as a result of the child living in a "bad area")
7) You can dial 999 or 112 from any phone ... including those provided in the school.

Call me suspicious but I would reason it went something a little more along the lines of the teacher suspected the child was texting/photographing and went into the bathroom to investigate, the child had the phone in hand and switched it off as soon as the door started opening, the teacher stated it was off because it was so when they were handed it (probably after a verbal exchange and some protesting from the child while they waited for it to shut off) but the teacher probably suspected that it had been on with good reason. They confiscated the phone in accordance with the school rules (I am assuming this is the case since CrumDub hasn't stated otherwise) and decided to fully enforce it because they have had a problem with this rule being circumvented by pupils using the toilet as an area for texting. The parent (good, bad or indifferent is not really a concern in this case - good parents make bad decisions sometimes) decided to take umbrage at this because they had shelled out money for this and now the child had had it confiscated and decided to "talk" to the principal. Not to cast aspersions but it wouldn't surprise me if the parent became rather heated in their insistence that the phone be returned immediately especially faced with a principal who possibly has a discipline problem and wants to make a statement by rigid application of the rules and one red-faced, shouting parent too many to deal with.




> We sided with many authority figures years ago, through sheer belief they had a greater level of intelligence, luckily nowadays, we speak up more when we believe they are wrong.


 
I would be inclined to say we sided with many authority figures because we entrusted serious decisions to them. We still do. Questioning of authority is nothing new either, we didn't invent it, nor did the anarchists of the late 18th century.
I would like to point out that the authority figures are also sometimes right, even if we don't agree with them. Belief isn't justification, evidence and logic are.
The child broke the rules, may have broken other rules but the teacher wisely punished the child for the only rule that they saw and had evidence had been broken.


----------



## mercman (18 Jan 2008)

Look - this thread is going off the rails. Headteachers are responsible for the pupils and the goings on in a school. Most teaches try to assist them. However I know the frustration that parents have in cases like this. Maybe this is a good kid, well behaved, well mannered and not involved in trouble. Did the OP ever consider that it might be best to teach him an early lesson rather than send him down a completely different route. Primary school is a foundation stone for the life cycle - this is why it is so important.

A similar post is on today and my reply was:

*Re: Can a teacher check a pupil's phone for "inappropriate content"?*                                                                           John Rambo you are 100% correct. I have heard so many of these cases in some of the most 'snobby' schools in this country and as well as the not so snobby, when parents after incidents described choose to attack the teachers of the Head, instead of stepping back and assessing the situation. Most teachers are trying to do the best for the kids they are educating and also to make sure the environment of the school is safe for all the pupils. There is a fine line between right and wrong. However in this case, I would be thanking the school for highlighting the matter and then deal with my son for hanging around with such a crowd of degenerates. Happy Slapping - bet a different view would occur if God for Bid a child suffered a fractured skull or ruptured spleen from a Happy Slapping incident. And I'm not a prude.


----------



## stir crazy (19 Jan 2008)

How is a mobile necessary for "happy-slapping" ? That doesnt make sense at all. 



so-crates said:


> Well lets see.... here are some possibilities...
> 1) Children arranging fights via text messages (I know of a situation where this was happening)
> 2) Children bullying other children via text message
> 3) Children engaging in "happy-slapping"
> 4) Children humiliating other children by taking embarrassing pictures of them




Banning phones in school outside of class time is in my opinion a  nonsense. It's usually the parents who decide to give their child a phone not the teachers who have no say. They can use the phones to do exactly the same things such as bullying etc outside of school hours unless the children are hermits and come into contact with no other kids outside of the school day which is highly unlikely. Also bullying by sms  provides actual proof which will hang the bully unless such a bully has money to waste on a new sim card (which would be required if the offending number was reported and shut down each time) in which case each sms will cost a lot of money. Its' not the phones which are the problem its the children who use them. Bullying as a problem isnt solved by the elimination of mobile phones. In the specific case of a phone being confiscated I find it odd if it happens with no penalty for some other behaviour. This is proof in itself that no bad behaviour was witnessed apart from the 'serious crime' of having a phone on ones hand. If the phone was used to bully then the bullying needs to be addressed in tandem with the phone being confiscated. Thats what would make sense. Not some luddite anti phone approach. Children need to be prepared in school for the real world where people have phones and be prepared with the best way to deal with bullying in the workplace when they grow up. Bullying is insidious and  existed long before the existance of mobile phones. Children need to be educated about the correct way to handle a bully and the same goes for teachers who need to discover and attend to both bullys and victims . Its that simple.


----------



## casiopea (20 Jan 2008)

stir crazy said:


> How is a mobile necessary for "happy-slapping" ? That doesnt make sense at all.



It is common for happy-slapping incidents to be recorded using a mobile and then the incident replayed to friends or even unfortunately put online. Sad but true.


----------



## mercman (20 Jan 2008)

Sorry Stircrazy but you don't seem to be getting the point. Mobile Phones in a school can be used for a number of othr reasons than the main reason they were intended. Bullying on its own is bad - with a Mobile the Bully can simply assemble all their friends to cause further problems to the party been affected.  The  Principal and teaches operate  the school  - they set the rules and if the rules state No Phones, it should mean No phones. I am unable to understand your reasons on this one. Maybe we should have the lunatics running the asylum.


----------



## S.L.F (21 Jan 2008)

Anybody who knows anything about bullys knows that they operate inside and outside of school grounds. So when a child is beaten up by a bully after school on the way home and can`t call for help because of a stupid school rule.

The impression I get from all this is that the schools are more concerned about their rules than the saftey of children. The best and easiest solution to the whole matter would have been for the school to have the school secretary take the phones in the morning then return them in the afternoon then they can`t be used during school hours.

As a parent myself I plan to give my boy a phone once he starts to do stuff by himself and god help anybody who endangers my boy for the sake of a stupid school rule.

Regarding those fine people who get to be headmasters recently I saw a story about a head master who bullied 5 or 6 of his staff, one can only wonder how many pupils have been traumitised by this person over the years.


----------



## ailbhe (22 Jan 2008)

If this child is 12, in Primary school and his parents are so worried about the area he lives in then why don't the make certain there is someone to meet him at the gate and take him home every day without fail. 
If a teacher took this kids phone and something happened to him on the way home then the teacher would be blamed and not the parents who allowed their child to walk home alone through a rough area. Typical.


----------



## truthseeker (22 Jan 2008)

if the schools policy is for children not to have mobile phones in school and possession of one results in confiscation then getting guards involved is just sending a message to your child that some rules are OK to break - which is totally wrong!!!

What kind of an adult will this child grow into? 

I fully back the school for standing by its rules, if the parents dont like the rules they can change schools.


----------



## zag (22 Jan 2008)

This is interesting . . .

If the school has a policy that says that mobile phones may not be used during school time and someone breaches that policy then it is reasonable to confiscate the phone so that policy cannot be breached further.

In this circumstance it does not follow that the school can then check content on the phone.

However, for this particular issue (as far as I can determine from the posts) it looks like ths school had reason to believe that that phone was being used to distribute unwanted content.  In this circumstance it does follow in my view that the school should investigate the content on the phone, however by not having any witness it effectively tainted any evidence that could have been used if there was to be a disciplinary action.


I wouldn't regard content on a mobile phone as being inherently private data.  It's not public, but neither is it purely private and confidential.  This doesn't mean that the school can just breeze into a classroom and check everyones phone, but where there is reason to believe that a specific phone is being used to breach policy (distributing unwanted content) I think the school is within its rights to confiscate the phone and examine the content.

Removing the technology element - if somone was distributing hand written sheets containing anti-semitic, racist, sexist or bullying content would the school not be entitled to confiscate someones bag and check the content ?  Indeed would we not expect the school to act in this way ?  Why would a phone be regarded as different ?

If the school expected this to be a 'minor' issue then they acted correctly in my view.  If they expected this to be a serious issue (which it wasn't by the sounds of things) then they should have called a parent as a witness and explained what they were doing and why before examining the content.

z


----------



## dtlyn (22 Jan 2008)

fatmanknows said:


> If it were my child I'd go up and commend the Principal. No child should have any need for a Mobile phone in the confines of a shool property. If the child cannot keep his phone off and in his/her school bag for fear of it being stolen then I'd find a new school. Teachers have enough work cut out teaching in today's society without the distraction of mobile phones. Merely having it in his hand is good enough for me to warrant a breach of the rules. If you feel so strongly why not just get another for €29 rather than resorting to the Guards, Laywers etc. The message you send out to challenge the School Authority is infinitely more damaging than forking out another €29. Why dont the Parents take responsiblity for not informing their child about the nuscience and distraction mobile phones cause to teaching staff. Next thing we'll hear is a claim for compo for psychological damage suffered by little Johnny from being without his phone for a month. There's absolutely no sympathy from this corner.


 
Let off enough steam there?

Approach the principal discreetly, discuss your concerns openly, negotiate a compromise that's win/win for both parties e.g. kid gets taught a lesson, a phone becomes available for use. 

Surely two mature adults can engage in such an exercise of compromise without threats of Gardaí involvement, legal action, or sweeping righteousness (see above)?

What's with the "assume the worst, hit the jugluar" attiude goin on here?


----------



## stir crazy (22 Jan 2008)

casiopea said:


> It is common for happy-slapping incidents to be recorded using a mobile and then the incident replayed to friends or even unfortunately put online. Sad but true.



Isn't this just the proof we need to hang the bully and have the bully expelled ? Provided we can obtain the evidence, against such evidence there is no possible defense whatsoever.




mercman said:


> Sorry Stircrazy but you don't seem to be getting the point. Mobile Phones in a school can be used for a number of othr reasons than the main reason they were intended. Bullying on its own is bad - with a Mobile the Bully can simply assemble all their friends to cause further problems to the party been affected.  The  Principal and teaches operate  the school  - they set the rules and if the rules state No Phones, it should mean No phones. I am unable to understand your reasons on this one. Maybe we should have the lunatics running the asylum.



I am not disagreeing with teachers and the principal having authority over what happens inside a school.  I understand what you are saying but I completely disagree with the effectiveness of banning phones as a method to deal with bullying. I think it is an overreaction which only makes moderate and well behaved kids distrust, resent and not see the point of authority. Kids wont easily speak truth to power when power is used heavy handedly but thats how they will view it.
The whole phones issue is a distraction from the real issues which are identifying and dealing with bullying itself. Bullies are clever. Kids are clever . They will just hide their tiny phones and use them when teacher isnt looking. Especially if up to no good, which does not apply to most kids.

The most serious bullying will occur outside of school on the walk or way home far away from the supervision of the school yard. Isnt' this the time when the bully is free to use a phone outside of the limitations of school rules ? I dont see how banning phones within school grounds will make a blind bit of difference in these situations . As for using phones to gather friends around for a bulying incident, the school yard is such a small place where everyone usually knows everyone else that I doubt long distance communication is necessary at all. If bullies have partners in crime they will do evil and hang around with each other whether they have phones or not.


----------



## so-crates (24 Jan 2008)

Stircrazy, Luddites not only rejected technology they actively attacked it, dismantling and sabotaging machines and burning factories. In this case we are discussing the control of mobile phones in a primary school environment, slightly less drastic I think! 

I agree mobile phones do not cause bullying and removing them doesn't stop it but what they do is provide a forum within the school to which people not party to the "conversation", say for example the adults, have NO access and can exercise control only by limiting access to that forum. Limiting the usage of phones in schools is probably never a policy in isolation but is part of a set of policies relating to norms of behaviour, each of them have arisen in response to a problem or an identified need and the use of phones is no different. It presented an opportunity for troublemakers and for messing and for distraction (and not matter how good children are, it takes a very unlikely child to not test the rules and not engage in horseplay to some degree). As I said, blocking signals is not an option so the phones cannot be reasonably disabled within the school property at the behest of the school. It is true that it is possible to sneak in a phone but it is easier to define the transgression as the evidence is far more solid that a phone was present than that a phone was on. What I am saying is that I understand what you mean, the phone isn't the issue, the behaviour is. But what I am getting at is that the transgression is better defined and easier to police and the solution is more effective if the rule is "No mobile phones are allowed in School". A rule that cannot be enforced is useless or worse.

To address your other points. The child can be bullied out of school on the phone yes but at that point it is the duty of the parent to monitor what is happening on the child's phone, same as if they are being bullied on their Bebo page or similar forum. Sorry if it seems a cop-out but it is nonetheless true.

As for the child being bullied on the way home from school and being "rescued" by being able to use their mobile phone to call someone. How quickly do you think they could call for aid and more importantly how quickly that aid will come? How quickly would the phone be taken from the child? The school ban won't stop bullying but it may help ameliorate the problem, every opportunity for bullying thwarted is one less incident.

The ban on phones is no more onerous than one on swearing, wearing too much jewellery, wearing a uniform or any one of several dictats we have all been faced with in school. We all have stories of "heavy-handed" application of the rules, and while we all moaned about them, laughed about them, rebelled against them, argued with adults over them, made representations to adults about them; I would disagree with you, they didn't make us distrustful or resentful. Today's rules won't make today's moderate and well-behaved schoolchildren distrustful or resentful either. Application of a rule is not being heavy-handed. Like I said, phones aren't a special exception, nor are rules against them.

One last thing... evidence means one thing for certain, the incident has occurred. Prevention is always better. Trite but true.


----------

