They wouldn’t, but my son wouldn’t be right to curse out the teacher who handed him a detention slip because no one had told the school of the situation. If the penalty for violating the cell phone rules is confiscating the phone, the fact that you might have a good reason to violate that rule, and perhaps could have gotten an exception doesn’t mean that good reason and possible exception gives you the right to violate additional rules. He’s talking to his mother, the teacher tell him hang up , he refuses, the teacher tries to take the cell phone, he becomes disorderly and won’t calm down. At what point does he become responsible for his reaction? When he throws a chair through the window? Or does he actually have to throw it at the teacher? Suppose he misses the teacher?
Well then, what were these students thinking when they negotiated their contract? They really should’ve held out for a better offer. 
Who said it was an accident? Maybe he always leaves it on, because he feels (as many of us here do) that the rule is unfair and he has every right to have his phone on during lunch break.
Even a content neutral policy has no business being applied to students’ ability to use their own phones during lunch break. Guess I should’ve written “they can choose to allow phone calls during class or on phones belonging to the school or not”.
So does a smack upside the head. And yet it doesn’t become OK to use physical violence, or to take property that belongs to someone else, simply because doing so might be useful in teaching someone a lesson.
I agree; the time to whine about the policy is when it’s first being implemented, or before enrolling in school. But it’s not always feasible to homeschool or to choose a school with more sensible policies.
Well first of all, students might sort of be prisoners. Plenty of schools don’t allow students to leave and return during the school day. And why would policies that apply while in the school building not apply simply because it was a lunch break? My workplace smoking policy applies even when I’m on lunch if I stay in the building.
Wasn’t he outside the building when this happened?
No, it’s a failure on the student’s part to exercise common sense.
[QUOTE=Mr2001]
Who said it was an accident? Maybe he always leaves it on, because he feels (as many of us here do) that the rule is unfair and he has every right to have his phone on during lunch break.
[quote]
OK, maybe ,he did always leave it on- I was giving him the benefit of assuming he usually followed the rule. That makes him a kid who routinely violates that rule. If mom only gets to call him once a month, and he leaves the phone on every day, then he loses any sympathy for “my mom’s in the army” because he pretty clearly would have answered the phone for other calls. If you have no intention of using the phone, why leave it on?
It wasn’t really clear to me in the original article. At one point it says he went outside the building to get better reception. At another, he says
I took that to mean he was on his way outside when the incident occured. In any event, he was clearly on school grounds.
To receive text messages, or to see who’s calling, so you can call them back later (missed calls aren’t stored while your phone is off, and some people don’t leave voice mail).
Mr2001, if he was still on school grounds, the rules applied because the school system is legally responsible for him.
You are making my point. All of these teachers and administrators first had to put in long years as students (responsible only for ourselves) before becoming teachers. Yes, we have the ability to negotiate a contract and we didn’t when we were students. Students, on the other hand, aren’t legally responsible for an entire faculty. They don’t pay liability insurance and professional dues. They don’t concern themselves with certification renewal and professional development. Usually, they don’t have to support a household. But they do have more rules and regulations to follow than students do.
I was a student for seventeen years and a teacher for twenty. I think that gives me more of an unbiased view than someone who has never been at least in a position of responsibility for a group of teenagers.
-
I think that counts as “using.”
-
Anyone get the feeling Mr2001 missed part of the thread?
All of which qualifies as “using,” and none of which justifies flouting school rules.
Common sense, people.
That response is no good at all. Common sense may have told him the call was more important than the rule. The Conditions as set by this thread, by the people arguing for the school saw to that. I was “scolded” for invoking common sense. The gist of the response was because it is not rigidly codified – two people may have a different conclusion, and so it should not be allowed, and obedience is everything. It might lead to willful disobedience. It (shudder) might cause rules to be disregarded willy nilly. Now it is being said that common sense means obedience? No, sometimes it means just the opposite. No, I will be ignoring any argument from the “loyal opposition” that now at this late point tries to invoke the common sense defense. It’s a simple thing that I have to insist on. If I can’t invoke common sense, then nobody else can either
Here is the sort of thing I personally have “issues” with, because it is so rigid and unyielding. This is the mindset. See how it excludes any hope of common sense, and adheres to rigid obedience.
[QUOTE=Garfield226]
I honestly do not understand the mental disconnect here (as I’m sure some of those on the other side don’t with me as well). The rule is no cellphones.
Yes he was. Would it be reasonable to expect that IF the rules apply inside AND outside, the ciggies should have been taken away? Just like the phone? I understand most schools have a “ciggies is icky” policy that forbids anyone from lighting up on the property, even outdoors. Some schools (I understand) have gone so far as to completely ban then from the property. Confiscate them. Rules are rules. Nobody should be exempt. No provisions. No discretion.
That is untrue. It must be a recent development. There was a time, when these things were not taken away. I had my ciggies and baseball cards. No one even mentioned them, so long as we didn’t fiddle with them in class. The rule was to put them away while in class, or lose them for the day. So, this automatic confiscation of “contraband” has NOT been the norm forever.
Looking back, would it be fair to say these were stupid rules? Are you sad to see they were repealed? This goes back to my stance that stupid rules are stupid rules, and that yes, they can be removed or changed. It supports my contention that sometimes the rules do violate common sense. Did your school have weird rules, or were they in fact stone cold stupid rules?
That is what I’ve been saying all along.
I’m still waiting to see where this policy of “arranging” went. I think there never was such a thing, or any intent. That is not a very neutral policy. If you follow it to the letter, it say NO CALLS PERIOD. That could include the afternoon calls to soccer mom (which seem to be allowed). Is this a lapse of some sort? Use the rule “fairly”, as “your side says it must be. No Phones. No exceptions at all, not even to coordinate carpooling. Confiscate them all. Every last one. That would be more fair, and that would be “interesting” to see.
So did the rest of us. Many of us also have degrees, though in other fields. We too have to stay current and maintain our certs. I work in the government on NASA programs. I think we have a lot more rules and regulations, by a long shot. It is not relevant. I chose my field, you chose yours. It has no bearing on anything here.
No, it’s his own foolish thinking that would have told him that. Common sense would have told him to make arrangements with the school first.
Please elaborate on the difference between foolish thinking and common sense. Are these cosmic absolutes which are immutable constants for everyone, or just your own personal opinion?
Excellent question. Apparently, common sense means what one side wants it to mean, but not the other side. My definition requires considering a situation, and making up your own mind, based on the information at hand (making a choice). That however is diametrically opposed to the main gist of what has been posted by many people, who take it to be “do what you’re told” or “don’t do anythihng at all without prior official approval”.
Unrelated and Basic Example: Rule says stay in the crosswalk. Common sense says there is a big road repair hole cross it so walk out of the crosswalk and go around it.
Better Example: Sign says “no parking within 30 feet” (arbitrary number).
Common sense says it is too far for the disabled. Rule is adapted to accomodate disabled parking. There are two “dangerous” trends here… (1)The rule was changed. (2)The rule now deliberately makes an exception for certain people (special provisions). This Provision is also plainly and clearly defined so everyone knows about it, and “broadcast” in the form of a big blue painted square so everyone knows about it.
And what, pray tell, happens to the person that is disabled, but can’t be bothered to acquire the proper plates and other designations of their condition? A policeman enforcing parking policy will give them a ticket. What would you think of such a person throwing a fit over being ticketed? Should they have the ticket rescinded? Does the police officer have an obligation to wait until he can verify that the person violating the parking rules doesn’t have a good reason for doing so?
Also, prior to the handicapped zone being created, do you think that disabled people should just be able to park where they think is reasonable without fear of ticketing?
If you don’t like the rules, jockey for change. But every violation of a rule is not civil disobedience…don’t make rule-breaking out to be a noble pursuit. Even when I will concede that an action is civil disobedience, and I agree with it, I still say people should suffer the consequences of their actions.
Funny you should ask. A co-worker was in this situation. He took the ticket to court, and it was rescinded. Type 2 diabetes and neuropathy, due to handling Agent Orange in Viet Nam. They gave him his blue placard too. Next question?
That was very gracious of them. But if they hadn’t, I’d not be upset over it. If your friend had pitched a fit in front of the cop- better yet, if he had torn up the ticket, what would be the appropriate response? Even if the court ruled that he wasn’t subject to the parking fine, should he skate on whatever the consequences are for tearing up a ticket (contempt of court, disturbing the peace, obstruction, whatever)?
But you have to determine who exactly you are mad at in this instance with the phone. Is it the teacher, the administration, both? Do you have anything reserved for the student/parent?
We’re dealing with several layers of policy and enforcement here, but i see you keep conflating them. The teacher did what teachers are supposed to do (enforce policy); the administration did what it was supposed to do (assign proper punishment for the infraction based on all factors). The student failed at pretty much every turn here, and if the parent backs him, I’ve no problem saying that the parent is in the wrong as well.
Once again, I will repeat - I have no issues with the punishment given for the tantrum that was thrown. None. Really. I had questions about the feasability of enforcing a rule that may not be crystal clear to both the student and the teacher, and whether the possibility of “meting justice with mercy” (I know, overdramatic) was ever considered. My big issue was and is with the seeming unwillingness to look at the situation and consider that something more positive and proactive can still be done. I have “concerns” about the seeming unwillingness to even consider altering the policy. It may be too inflexible. If so, what is the harm in correcting that? Maybe the policy is flawed. Maybe it is fine the way it is, but was misinterpreted. Maybe there is nothing wrong at all. It would not take too long to look at it and make a determination. I did read the pdf file copy, and it does not have any of the “provisions” mentioned by Dr. Phillips at all. None. Why is that? Why make claim to something that is not there? Why was his claim refuted by a disinterested party who has nothing to gain or lose either way? Why not PUT the “provisions” in there for all to see, or in a “general paragraph” elsewhere in the document? People everywhere make changes and amendments to regulations, policies and laws all the time. Why? Because they realize no rule or law fits everything that can happen and they know that no rule or law is perfect.
Former inner-city teacher checking in here. One of the biggest mistakes I made early in my teaching career was seeing every interaction with students as a “battle” that I had to “win.” Teaching where I taught (Fifth Ward, Houston, Texas) I often felt ineffective as a pedagogue and as a professional, and I would get caught up in these battles with kids. Once I had a student wet her pants because I told the kids that they were not to leave the classroom unless we were on bathroom break… it was at that point I realized that a) children are not adults in miniature and b) as the instructional leader in the classroom, I had a lot of overt and covert power. In terms of being “in charge,” well, teachers have an incredible amount of control over students. So we have to use it wisely.
I also learned through experience that you always allow students to “save face.” If you want a situation to escalate or spiral out of control, try to exert power over a student without giving the student an opportunity to comply with his or her pride intact.
Despite the thoughts of many on this board, most students (and teachers) do not read the rule book religiously. So the student may have been ignorant of the policy. Not to say that this completely excuses this, but he may have thought that while phones are clearly not acceptable in the instructional period of the day, perhaps they were permissable during lunch. More importantly, this student, like many students I taught, seemed to be dealing with a lot of emotional stresses. So the logical approach in my opinion would be to observe what was taking place, and “take the pulse” of the situation. If it became clear to me that he was talking to his mom, I’d wait until he was finished and ask if he was aware of the rule. At this point I imagine he would tell me about his particular situation and I would direct him to the administration for arranging an appropriate solution for him.
Some of you might say, “Who has time to wait for the student to finish?” Realistically, you have to choose when and how you will intervene in each situation. This infraction of the rules does not risk student safety or the instruction in the school, so it is one that I would likely not “make a federal case” out of. I might let his homeroom teacher know I observed this, or a counselor. Under no circumstance would I ever attempt to forcibly take a student’s property from him or her, unless there was imminent danger. Too many things can go wrong - you might break the item, force the kid to drop it, or accidentally harm the student.
Each interaction with a student is an opportunity for a teacher to help boost his or her self esteem and sense of self. When you treat students like criminals, they tend to respond like criminals. Before you think that I’m some bleeding-heart “save the children” type, know that I am a disciplinarian and every student who had me as a teacher would attest to that fact (as well as their parents and/or guardians!). But I also care about kids and I know that showing understanding, or extending trust to a student (I’m amazed at the number of people who automatically assumed the kid was lying) is repaid by students, as they will consider you “fair.” Maybe not “nice” or “cool,” but fair.
It’s a given, as a teacher some kids will lie or pull a fast one on you. That shouldn’t compel a teacher to act as if every interaction with a student is one in which he or she is trying to take advantage. If this kid was truly a troublemaker, what better line would a teacher have than, “I saw you using the phone during lunch before, this is the second time I’ve seen you with it?”
I’m in school, working on a doctorate, a responsible person by most approximations, but I really appreciate people understanding and excusing my errors and mistakes. I appreciate the police officer that lets me off with a warning - it doesn’t embolden me to speed more! It seems that many people here are completely without empathy for the student and the stresses he is under; surely a thoughtful approach would do more good for him than trying to forcibly take his property?
I also believe that as a teacher, your job is to constantly search for “teachable moments.” Later that day, or after school would be a wonderful time to talk to the student about the rules and then suggesting that discussing the circumstance with administrators would be the best plan of action. Perhaps he’s doing poorly in school because he doesn’t feel connected to anyone; a thoughtful teacher helping the young man create a solution to a problem could be of considerable assistance.
Last - the cursing thing. I taught in a first through eighth grade school. Kids used all kinds of swear words, and I a) never took it personally if a kid cursed but b) always dealt with it in an appropriate way. Such as: “Kevin, I realize you are upset, but it is never okay to use that language to demean any human being, and you will need to apologize and pay a sanction for what you did.” Then again, if the teacher had chosen a more thoughtful approach, he may not have used bad language to begin with…
A productive outcome of a calm, reasoned approach is to use the situation as an opportunity to reinforce the rules with all students and explain what should be done if you have a parent serving in Iraq, for instance.