Phone Taken in School

Jo King

There is no power given to schools to impose fines. When fines are imposed by law they must be imposed by competent authority. The same goes for confiscation of property.
Imposing fines and confiscating property is teaching children that it is all right to ignore rules and the legitimate exercise of power where children are concerned.
Extra curricular activities are taught by teachers who are interested in that activity, not because they feel it is essential that their pupils engage in it, and the dept of education takes a diametrically opposed view.
There are countless numbers of adults who coach children in various sports and other activities in their own time and quite often at a cost to them selves. They don't go around imposing fines or confiscating property.
Parents either have to educate their children themselves, or send them to school. They are faced with a take it or leave it set of rules. It is a nonsense to say that they agreed to these rules about confiscation. If my child's phone or any other property was confiscated and the school wanted money for it's return, I would charge the person involved with theft.
Parents should sign up to school rules and after the child is enrolled, write to the school and demand to know what authority there is for these rules. The school cannot expel the child after enrollment without going through a lengthy procedure and showing justification.

dolliemix

Jo King wrote: »

If my child's phone or any other property was confiscated and the school wanted money for it's return, I would charge the person involved with theft.
.

1. But you would have signed a contract before your child entered the school, verifying that you would comply with school rules....

2. How can you charge somebody for theft if the money was voluntarily handed over?

You would be wasting a lot of people's time just trying to prove your point. Not to mention school (taxpayers) funds.
To me, a parent, who would take this case of action, when they were already aware of school policy is as bad as Charlie Haughey/ Bertie Ahern costing the country millions with the tribunals etc

Selfish bubble - Things will be done as I see fit, irrespective of what it costs others

Why not just ensure that your child's phone doesn't go off in school hours in the first place? Or better still send your child to a school were no such policy exists?

Del2005

Jo King wrote: »

There is no power given to schools to impose fines. When fines are imposed by law they must be imposed by competent authority. The same goes for confiscation of property.
Imposing fines and confiscating property is teaching children that it is all right to ignore rules and the legitimate exercise of power where children are concerned.
Extra curricular activities are taught by teachers who are interested in that activity, not because they feel it is essential that their pupils engage in it, and the dept of education takes a diametrically opposed view.
There are countless numbers of adults who coach children in various sports and other activities in their own time and quite often at a cost to them selves. They don't go around imposing fines or confiscating property.
Parents either have to educate their children themselves, or send them to school. They are faced with a take it or leave it set of rules. It is a nonsense to say that they agreed to these rules about confiscation. If my child's phone or any other property was confiscated and the school wanted money for it's return, I would charge the person involved with theft.
Parents should sign up to school rules and after the child is enrolled, write to the school and demand to know what authority there is for these rules. The school cannot expel the child after enrollment without going through a lengthy procedure and showing justification.

When you enrol your child into the school you sign a contract that allows then to impose fines. If you don't agree with the fines either don't sign the contract, get it amended or send your child to a school that allows pupils to use phones.

Schools are there to teach children about life not just books, if children think that mammy or daddy will run to help them any time they break the rules they will get a very big shock when they enter the real world where mammy and daddy can't help.

I'm sure if your child when doing an extra curricular activity with a teacher or a volunteering adult breaks the the rules, by using their phone, will not be allowed back and I doubt that you'd get any money paid refunded. Schools can't do that, so how else are they supposed to control the pupils if the children's parent won't control them?

I like the way you are willing to use the rules by spuriously charging someone with theft, but won't teach your own child to obey the rules you have already agreed to.

It's really very easy for a child not to have their phone confiscated, leave it switched off in their bag. Why can't people understand that.

Jo King

Unless it is a private school, a child does not go to school under a contract between the parents and the Board of mnaagement of the school. Even if there was a contract any clause allowing the confiscation of property would be illegal and unenforceable. If the school is funded by the dept of education, the school should be run according to the dept's regulations. Where do these regulations allow for the confiscation of property.
A charge under the Theft Act is entirely justified. The property is not voluntarily handed over and the demand for money for its return is entirely unwarranted.
A parent quite often has no real choice of school. There might be only one school in an area. Teachers should not be allowed to abuse their monopoly.

Nevyn

All schools when the child starts the parents are send home a copy of the school policies and rules and the parents sign them stating they agree with them and the child will be bound by them. It is a contract.

dolliemix

Jo King wrote: »

Unless it is a private school, a child does not go to school under a contract between the parents and the Board of mnaagement of the school. Even if there was a contract any clause allowing the confiscation of property would be illegal and unenforceable. If the school is funded by the dept of education, the school should be run according to the dept's regulations. Where do these regulations allow for the confiscation of property.
A charge under the Theft Act is entirely justified. The property is not voluntarily handed over and the demand for money for its return is entirely unwarranted.
A parent quite often has no real choice of school. There might be only one school in an area. Teachers should not be allowed to their monopoly.

Lol! There is no abuse!!! Talk about over dramatising a situation!! The Board of Management administer school policies on behalf of the whole school community, not teachers!

Why have you such a problem with a kid just being told to turn their phone off? Pre-empting how you going to react after your child has broken a school policy isn't really very helpful or a very good example for your children.

Confiscation isn't theft. There is intent to return the property.

Jo King

[QUOTE=dolliemix;64997301

Why have you such a problem with a kid just being told to turn their phone off? Pre-empting how you going to react after your child has broken a school policy isn't really very helpful or a very good example for your children.

Confiscation isn't theft. There is intent to return the property.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem with a child being told to turn their phone off. I have a problem with teachers and their ilk thinking they can take a phone which does not belong to them and retain it for an arbitrary period and demand to be paid for it's return. The school is not authorised by the dept of education to behave in this way.

There is no intention to return if the return is conditional on the payment of an arbitrarily calculated sum of money.
An intention to return does not negative theft. It did when the larceny Act 1916 was in operation. That Act was repealed in 2002 and the Criminal Justice (Theft & Fraud Offences) Act 2001 does not require proof of an intention to permanently deprive the owner of his property before theft is made out.
If there is any physical intimidation of the child at the time the phone is taken, the offence of robbery may be made out.
there are plenty of ancitions available to teachers that do not involve confiscation of property and extortion of money. This "all hell will break loose otherwise" argument was also used by teachers before the abolition of corporal punishment. A lot of teachers got away with the illegal infliction of corporal punishment rather than being pursued like the criminals they were.
It is about time parents stood up to them!

dolliemix

Jo King wrote: »

I have no problem with a child being told to turn their phone off. I have a problem with teachers and their ilk thinking they can take a phone which does not belong to them and retain it for an arbitrary period and demand to be paid for it's return. The school is not authorised by the dept of education to behave in this way.

There is no intention to return if the return is conditional on the payment of an arbitrarily calculated sum of money.
An intention to return does not negative theft. It did when the larceny Act 1916 was in operation. That Act was repealed in 2002 and the Criminal Justice (Theft & Fraud Offences) Act 2001 does not require proof of an intention to permanently deprive the owner of his property before theft is made out.
If there is any physical intimidation of the child at the time the phone is taken, the offence of robbery may be made out.
there are plenty of ancitions available to teachers that do not involve confiscation of property and extortion of money. This "all hell will break loose otherwise" argument was also used by teachers before the abolition of . A lot of teachers got away with the illegal infliction of corporal punishment rather than being pursued like the criminals they were.
It is about time parents stood up to them!

Hint of paranoia perhaps?

You're comparing illegal corporal punishment with a school policy that parents have already signed up to and agreed to!

If that's the case, surely all the parents who agree with this policy are 'abusers' and 'extortionists' as well!

Do you actually believe that teachers 'and their like' are out to humiliate and abuse children?

parsi

dolliemix wrote: »

Hint of paranoia perhaps?

You're comparing illegal corporal punishment with a school policy that parents have already signed up to and agreed to!

If that's the case, surely all the parents who agree with this policy are 'abusers' and 'extortionists' as well!

Do you actually believe that teachers 'and their like' are out to humiliate and abuse children?

Maybe today's parents are viewing school through the lens of their past experiences ?

It isn't all that long ago that schools had more than their fair share of aggressive, ignorant and often downright brutal teachers and much like dealing with the priests the kids were expected to put up with it.

Indeed in my kids primary school some parents have mentioned the violent brute who was the principal when they were there.

ocokev

Jo. So if the child brought a weapon or had material which would cause offence to other students, by what your saying the teachers would not be able to confiscate these without being subject to a charge of theft.
Corporal punishment was carried out when it was legal to do so and only banned in schools in 1982 so teachers up to then were not breaking the law. Now im totally against the beating of children, but they need to respect role models and people in authority so that they can learn how to live a respectfull life in society, and if they have the backing of their parents to challange every rule the parent regects then odds are that child will grow up to be a brat.

KnocKnocKnock

parsi wrote: »

Maybe today's parents are viewing school through the lens of their past experiences ?

It isn't all that long ago that schools had more than their fair share of aggressive, ignorant and often downright brutal teachers and much like dealing with the priests the kids were expected to put up with it.

Indeed in my kids primary school some parents have mentioned the violent brute who was the principal when they were there.

How can the fear of physical pain be compared to having a mobile phone confiscated? No one is advocating that anyone uses violence or brutality when confiscating a phone.

uriah

grindelwald wrote: »

I would have driven or walked to the school each lunch time to ensure she had correct units of insulin......(i have done)...... The school refused her to use the office phone we had to provide one ......with credit.


The principle she has now is far better and allows her to bring her phone in so she can phone me he also allows her to phone me from the office if her bloods are low and school is finished. she will drink her coke and will wait for a few mins inside the school until her bloods are above 4 and then come out to me. the other principle didnt allow this either - he left in november (thank god)...


Also just because that really gets to me - did you go to school with diabetes which ment that any time of any day you could have a fit and go into a coma and possible die...... WELL MY DAUGHTER DOES, SHE HAS NEARLY DIED TWICE IN THE LAST 3 YEARS she had not been at school but one day she might, A TUMMY BUG COULD KILL HER IN LESS THAN 48 HOURS

The former principal knew all of your daughter's history and still didn't allow her to use the school phone or remain in the office until her bloods were above 4?

You should have made a complaint to the Board of Management and/or the DES. The former principal's behaviour as you describe it is ubelievable.

uriah

Jo King wrote: »

There is no power given to schools to impose fines. When fines are imposed by law they must be imposed by competent authority. The same goes for confiscation of property.
Imposing fines and confiscating property is teaching children that it is all right to ignore rules and the legitimate exercise of power where children are concerned.
Extra curricular activities are taught by teachers who are interested in that activity, not because they feel it is essential that their pupils engage in it, and the dept of education takes a diametrically opposed view.
There are countless numbers of adults who coach children in various sports and other activities in their own time and quite often at a cost to them selves. They don't go around imposing fines or confiscating property.
Parents either have to educate their children themselves, or send them to school. They are faced with a take it or leave it set of rules. It is a nonsense to say that they agreed to these rules about confiscation. If my child's phone or any other property was confiscated and the school wanted money for it's return, I would charge the person involved with theft.
Parents should sign up to school rules and after the child is enrolled, write to the school and demand to know what authority there is for these rules. The school cannot expel the child after enrollment without going through a lengthy procedure and showing justification.

You do realise that you cannot actually 'charge' anyone - but you could report it to the gardaí. I'd love to hear their reaction. It would make a very interesting case. You do realise that the disruption caused by the use of mobile pones impacts on all the students and on the teachers? The school has to provide secure storage for confiscated items and of course there would be some insurance cost as well as some extra administration, recording the event etc. All costs money.

Parents would be doing their children such a huge favour if they discussed the school's code of behaviour with them and then insisted that their child respects the rules or accept the consequences.

I despair when I read the comments of some parents here.

parsi

KnocKnocKnock wrote: »

How can the fear of physical pain be compared to having a mobile phone confiscated? No one is advocating that anyone uses violence or brutality when confiscating a phone.

If you read through the thread the issue of being subject to violence is being used as a reason to hold on to the phone...

goat2

69 wrote: »

Ask in the Legal Discussion Forum. I don't know if any and every rule that school committees come up with is enforceable in law despite their good intentions. Private property rights are very strong in Ireland. The school may be overstepping their authority by not returning the phone when the student leaves the premises.

rules are rules
if they did not do this
tomorrow everyone would have the phones in hand texting
so
they go to school to learn, not be on phone
another thing is, if all these phones are on in class it is very dangerous to the health of pupils and teachers, the amount of radiation blasting around the room would be lethal

dolliemix

parsi wrote: »

Maybe today's parents are viewing school through the lens of their past experiences ?

It isn't all that long ago that schools had more than their fair share of aggressive, ignorant and often downright brutal teachers and much like dealing with the priests the kids were expected to put up with it.

Indeed in my kids primary school some parents have mentioned the violent brute who was the principal when they were there.

This is crazy. Report the 'brute' absolutely! No child is expected to deal with abuse in this day and age. Why are you allowing your child still go to the school if thats the case? If my child was in a school where there was someone abusing him I'd take him out of the school. End of!!!

But you are doing your children a huge disservice by acting like all teachers are out to get them and abuse them. You also have a very shallow view of life if that is the case.

I can't believe the opinions expressed by you and another poster - implying that teachers couldn't care less whether children are abused or not.......YOU have the problem if you have such a distrust.

If you pass that negative vibe on to your children, they are sure to believe school is a bad place too.....and thats not fair on them!


Educate your own children if you this is the case. YOu're obviously the perfect role model.

I'm sick of people bringing up the past and throwing it at the teachers of today.......A lot of parents were and still are child abusers also. Infact I have a huge problem with parents openly rubbing their negative experience of school onto their children. I would have hated to grow up in a house where my parents claimed that teachers were bad people. I had a wonderful experience in both secondary and primary school. My parents supported the teacher always. It might have been bad for you, but your bitterness does nothing for your child. It's like some parents want their children to be as resentful and bitter as they are. And so the cycle continues..the unhappy people's children are unhappy also!

School is a happy place for the majority of children most of the time. Give them room to be that way please!

Jo King

uriah wrote: »

You do realise that you cannot actually 'charge' anyone - but you could report it to the gardaí. I'd love to hear their reaction. It would make a very interesting case. You do realise that the disruption caused by the use of mobile pones impacts on all the students and on the teachers? The school has to provide secure storage for confiscated items and of course there would be some insurance cost as well as some extra administration, recording the event etc. All costs money.

Parents would be doing their children such a huge favour if they discussed the school's code of behaviour with them and then insisted that their child respects the rules or accept the consequences.

I despair when I read the comments of some parents here.

You do realise that there is no need to report it to the gardai. I can prosecute as a common informer. I can get a summons issued and serve it on the teacher myself. The teacher can come to court or be arrested.
There are other alternatives to confiscating property and extorting money. Schools are not entitled to impose just any code of behaviour.

dolliemix

Jo King wrote: »

You do realise that there is no need to report it to the gardai. I can prosecute as a common informer. I can get a summons issued and serve it on the teacher myself. The teacher can come to court or be arrested.
There are other alternatives to confiscating property and extorting money. Schools are not entitled to impose just any code of behaviour.

They are actually!!


You need to accept that......or else don't send your child to the particular school with the policies that you don't agree with.

Nobody is forcing you to send your child to a particular school. It's like you're looking for problems!!!

The Board of Management can impose any policies to protect all members of the school community. It may not be a directive of the Department of Education but it could be coming from Insurance Company trying to protect themselves financially from people like you, who see a minor incident and decide you can make some money out it!!!

You'd be some hero alright getting a teacher arrested because your child broke school rules in the first place....quite the upstanding citizen and a great example to our children!

Del2005

Jo King wrote: »

You do realise that there is no need to report it to the gardai. I can prosecute as a common informer. I can get a summons issued and serve it on the teacher myself. The teacher can come to court or be arrested.
There are other alternatives to confiscating property and extorting money. Schools are not entitled to impose just any code of behaviour.

If schools can't confiscate the item what else can they do? If the parents are willing to let their kids break the rules the only other option is suspension. That will cost a lot more if you are working. I can hardly see a boss letting you off all the time cause you won't tell your child to follow the rules you agreed to when you placed your child in the school.

rainbowtrout

Jo King wrote: »

You do realise that there is no need to report it to the gardai. I can prosecute as a common informer. I can get a summons issued and serve it on the teacher myself. The teacher can come to court or be arrested.
There are other alternatives to confiscating property and extorting money. Schools are not entitled to impose just any code of behaviour.

Nor are they obliged to enrol your child, and when you enrol your child you sign up to their rules. If you don't like their rules go elsewhere. You would be laughed out of court if you tried to arrest a teacher for confiscating a phone in class.

Go and have a read of Article 42 of the Constitution. The parent is the primary educator and the state is only obliged to education your child at primary level. If you are unhappy with the schools that are available at second level, and the rules they apply to ensure the smooth running of the school perhaps you should take on your role as primary educator and home school your children where they won't have to follow rules. Although maybe if you confiscate your child's phone while you are trying to teach them some English or Maths they might get a summons issued and serve it on you, as you would be guilty of confiscating their property.

KnocKnocKnock

Jo King wrote: »

I have no problem with a child being told to turn their phone off. I have a problem with teachers and their ilk thinking they can take a phone which does not belong to them and retain it for an arbitrary period and demand to be paid for it's return.

The tone of your posts suggests that you think teachers are people who take some sort of vindictive pleasure from making children suffer. Do you think teacher's enjoy doing this? There has to be discipline in a school, the policies have been set and are made public to all. These policies have to be followed by students, parents and teachers.

Jo King wrote: »

If there is any physical intimidation of the child

Physical intimidation is never ok, and should be reported.

Jo King wrote: »

there are plenty of ancitions available to teachers that do not involve confiscation of property and extortion (:rolleyes:) of money.

What do you suggest then?

Jo King wrote: »

This "all hell will break loose otherwise" argument was also used by teachers before the abolition of corporal punishment. A lot of teachers got away with the illegal infliction of corporal punishment rather than being pursued like the criminals they were.
It is about time parents stood up to them!

You can't compare now with then. Many parents also had the "all hell will break loose" attitude and were of the "spare the rod, spoil the child" school of thought. In those times many parents also slapped their children and used a wooden spoon to hit them. This was the accepted form of discipline at the time. There are always exceptions, but again, this was not the teachers using unusual practices because of some vindictive urge to punish children.

Jo King

dolliemix wrote: »

They are actually!!


You need to accept that......or else don't send your child to the particular school with the policies that you don't agree with.

Nobody is forcing you to send your child to a particular school. It's like you're looking for problems!!!

The Board of Management can impose any policies to protect all members of the school community. It may not be a directive of the Department of Education but it could be coming from Insurance Company trying to protect themselves financially from people like you, who see a minor incident and decide you can make some money out it!!!

You'd be some hero alright getting a teacher arrested because your child broke school rules in the first place....quite the upstanding citizen and a great example to our children!

I either have to educate the child myself or send it to some school. Insurance companies do not insist on criminal actions by policyholders.
How can I make money out of bringing a criminal prosecution. It will more than likely cost me money. That is the price of teaching a child respect for the rule of law.
There is no reason a phone can't be kept out of reach of the child until the end of the school day. What do schools do if one child physically attacks another? What can they confiscate? So if confiscation is not needed for one breach of the rules why is it necessary for another.
The teacher would not be arrested because a child broke the schools rules. The teacher would be arrested for ignoring the order of the court to appear. If the case was heard, the teacher would probably get the probation act on a guilty plea.

dolliemix

Jo King wrote: »

I either have to educate the child myself or send it to some school. Insurance companies do not insist on criminal actions by policyholders.
How can I make money out of bringing a criminal prosecution. It will more than likely cost me money. That is the price of teaching a child respect for the rule of law.
There is no reason a phone can't be kept out of reach of the child until the end of the school day. What do schools do if one child physically attacks another? What can they confiscate? So if confiscation is not needed for one breach of the rules why is it necessary for another.
The teacher would not be arrested because a child broke the schools rules. The teacher would be arrested for ignoring the order of the court to appear. If the case was heard, the teacher would probably get the probation act on a guilty plea.

I have no background in law but if you do, you've a very unclear way of explaining it!

Again, a phone incident and one child attacking another are completely different incidents. Confiscating a phone is not a serious issue. One child attacking another child is very serious. I would seriously question your judgement, if you think that a child physically attacking another child and phone going off in class as being similar!

The way you seem to indicate that you would bring the gardai into a small school issue, suggests to me, that you have a serious problem with authority. Referring to a teacher as a criminal because they are following school proceedure is insane! You would come across as a threating and aggressive parent. You would also be wasting garda time and tax payers money.

I actually can't believe that an adult would think as selfishly as you do and go to the lengths that you would in order to prove a point.

It's a scary society we live in if people apply your logic to simple everyday issues

Miss Lockhart

Jo King wrote: »

I either have to educate the child myself or send it to some school.

Lovely! But yes, these are your choices - the same as every other parent in the country.

Jo King wrote: »

There is no reason a phone can't be kept out of reach of the child until the end of the school day. What do schools do if one child physically attacks another? What can they confiscate? So if confiscation is not needed for one breach of the rules why is it necessary for another.

Firstly, how is keeping the phone out of reach of the child until the end of the school day not also theft??

Secondly, I can't believe you would even try to compare a physical attack with a phone incident. Usually, a school would suspend a child who attacked somebody. Are you really suggesting that as a reasonable consequence for disruption caused by a phone? Of course, if confiscation was not an option then this may be the route the school would need to take - do you really think most parents would prefer this option?

Tbh, I find it very hard to believe somebody actually holds the opinions you do - perhaps your username says it all!

Jo King

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Firstly, how is keeping the phone out of reach of the child until the end of the school day not also theft??

There would be nothing wrong with a rule saying all phones must be kept in a particular place during school hours.

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Secondly, I can't believe you would even try to compare a physical attack with a phone incident. Usually, a school would suspend a child who attacked somebody. Are you really suggesting that as a reasonable consequence for disruption caused by a phone? Of course, if confiscation was not an option then this may be the route the school would need to take - do you really think most parents would prefer this option?

There can be pushing shoving name-calling and various other activities that are breaches of the school rules. Not all of them will result in suspension. There seems to be an attitude on this forum that confiscation and massive fines are the only means of preventing inappropriate use of mobile phones in schools. This is nonsense and is being peddled by lazy educators. The same laziness that was used to justify illegal corporal punishments.

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Tbh, I find it very hard to believe somebody actually holds the opinions you do - perhaps your username says it all!

If you can't play the ball, play the man! Typical.

dolliemix

Sorry not sure how to do the multi quote thing so I've put Jo Kings post in Bold

There would be nothing wrong with a rule saying all phones must be kept in a particular place during school hours.

...Which is the case in most schools!!

There can be pushing shoving name-calling and various other activities that are breaches of the school rules. Not all of them will result in suspension.

These are all serious incidents that should not be taken lightly. It's like you're suggesting that these are only minor incidents!


There seems to be an attitude on this forum that confiscation and massive fines are the only means of preventing inappropriate use of mobile phones in schools. This is nonsense and is being peddled by lazy educators.

You, suggesting that people believe that it is the only measure being taken is nonsense. It depends on the school policy. What people are saying is that, if you sign up to school policies before you send your child to school you should support it's implementation.

The same laziness that was used to justify illegal corporal punishments.

What is your point here?

Sounds more to me like 'lazy' parenting is the 'crime' here. Why would you not just sit down with your child and explain that rules are rules. You may not agree with them all but you signed up to them in the better interest of the whole school community.

Many people have asked you this already but you haven't answered this yet!



If you can't play the ball, play the man! Typical.[/QUOTE]

What? Not totally sure what this means but maybe it could apply to you as well. If you don't like the school's policies, just send your child to another school. Or teach your child yourself

Miss Lockhart

Jo King wrote: »

There would be nothing wrong with a rule saying all phones must be kept in a particular place during school hours.

This is the rule in most schools - they must be kept in a locker/schoolbag and not seen or heard during school hours. We're discussing what happens when that rule is breached. What would you have done once the phone has been used? Do you honestly think collecting up 600-1000 phones at the beginning of school is a feasible option?

Jo King wrote: »

There can be pushing shoving name-calling and various other activities that are breaches of the school rules. Not all of them will result in suspension. There seems to be an attitude on this forum that confiscation and massive fines are the only means of preventing inappropriate use of mobile phones in schools. This is nonsense and is being peddled by lazy educators. The same laziness that was used to justify illegal corporal punishments.

I'm interested to know what you would suggest as the best means for preventing inappropriate use of mobile phones in schools? Schools have usually taken this approach because they have found that notes in journals, phonecall to parents, detention etc. are not effective.

Obviously in terms of an incident of name calling or fighting etc. there is nothing to be confiscated - so the situations are not really like for like.

Jo King wrote: »

If you can't play the ball, play the man! Typical.

It was a light-hearted comment - I'm genuinely wondering if you were serious about your comments in terms of charging someone with theft and taking them to court over confiscating a mobile phone.

goat2

Miss Lockhart wrote: »

Lovely! But yes, these are your choices - the same as every other parent in the country.



Firstly, how is keeping the phone out of reach of the child until the end of the school day not also theft??

Secondly, I can't believe you would even try to compare a physical attack with a phone incident. Usually, a school would suspend a child who attacked somebody. Are you really suggesting that as a reasonable consequence for disruption caused by a phone? Of course, if confiscation was not an option then this may be the route the school would need to take - do you really think most parents would prefer this option?

Tbh, I find it very hard to believe somebody actually holds the opinions you do - perhaps your username says it all!

as a parent myself, i think the parents who thought that the conficcation of the phone was wrong, need evaluation, as for the money part, another good thing, as these students have to ask mammy or daddy for the cash and through that they will find out that their little saint was breaking school rules,
most important of all, if all these phones are on in the closed in classroom, the amount of damage they are causing will show up maybe 5 or 10 years down the road, together they must be leaving off some amount of radiation

Jo King

Most parents have to send their child to some school. That is reality. It is sophistry to suggest that they have a choice of schools or home education. Parents have the right to expect that schools supported by their taxes are run in a lawful manner.
Who knows what happens to the money extorted from parents by teachers? How is it accounted for?
A parent may not be able to buy shoes for a child after paying these illegal "fines". The teacher can go and have a few pints with the money. Who will ever know about it?
It now seems that having a mobile phone is a minor offence. Why is such a drastic punishment imposed?
What is wrong with giving the offender extra homework? 100 lines?

dolliemix

Jo King wrote: »

Most parents have to send their child to some school. That is reality. It is sophistry to suggest that they have a choice of schools or home education. Parents have the right to expect that schools supported by their taxes are run in a lawful manner.
Who knows what happens to the money extorted from parents by teachers? How is it accounted for?
A parent may not be able to buy shoes for a child after paying these illegal "fines". The teacher can go and have a few pints with the money. Who will ever know about it?
It now seems that having a mobile phone is a minor offence. Why is such a drastic punishment imposed?
What is wrong with giving the offender extra homework? 100 lines?

Yes you're 100% correct as usual. Actually you're missing the beginning of your fantastic story. Here's what actually happens.....

Teachers get the child's phone number. Then they ring the phone so it will go off in class. Then they intimidate the child and extort money from them at the same time confiscate the phone. They then go to the pub with the money and ring all their mates in Oz or America or whatever with the child's phone. :rolleyes:

To be honest Jo King I don't think you should send your child to school. In some way or another the criminal teachers will ruin his life for sure! Thank God for your child that he has a sensible parent in you