School AND Police Overreaction

[drunkenwildmage]

The cops might have been some kind of school security, which is common in big high schools (especially after all the school shootings). Though I'm confused as to whether or not they are actual cops who are assigned to the school or some mall cops.

When I was in Junior High/High School,(I graduated in '91) we always had at least 1 officer on grounds that was off duty cop that was hired out by the school system as a security guard as their 'side job'. We had probably around 2500 - 3000 High School Students, and 700 for each of the 2 junior high schools that were all on the same campus.

Now days I believe each building has their own full time 'School Resources Officer' which is an actual on duty copy with the cost shared between the School District and PD

[s_stabeler]

As far as the fee for getting your phone back - you have to come up with a way to make the punishment a true deterrent for breaking the rules. Having the phone confiscated and then returned at the end of the day would have no impact on the student; the loss of money would have a bigger impact. Don't want to pay the money, don't use your phone at school. Or don't think that you won't be noticed talking on your phone during class.

and in a situation where the fee is not paid? Would you advocate the school keeps the phone permanently? Or what if the student can't actually afford the fee? ( I can think of two possible scenarios: 1. parents are barely scraping by, and can't actually afford the fee, or 2. parents refuse to pay, and the student doesn't have the money themselves to pay. For the sake of avoiding a useless argument, we'll say either the parents pay the phone bill, or that it's an issue of the kid is having cashflow issues- or simply that the kid can't afford both the fee and their phone bill.) Would you advocate the school keeps the phone permanently then?

oh, and as for the phone being confiscated not being a good enough punishment- trust me, it's extremely annoying to have to retrieve it, especially since, in my experience, there's only a few minutes between when school finishes ( so you are able to retrieve the phone) and the person who has the key to the drawer they keep them in going home, leaving you SOL. (the place in question had somewhat questionable ethics, too- I won't go into details, but suffice it to say that one teacher kept threatening to give me an overnight detention. ( the "detentions" were being shut in a room on your own for ridiculous lengths of time ( officially until 8:30, but i practice, at about 6 or 7, the teacher in question would leave, and the receptionist would let everybody know they could go.)By the way, it was 8:30 because that's when the place closed for the night.) for minor offences- oh, and by minor, I mean that literally. more or less, it was at this teacher's whim. ( literally- once, I got forced to stay behind for taking too long for lunch. The lunch break was for 1 hour. I took, I think, 5 minutes to eat. Nope, too long, detention.)

[mathnerd]

At least one large school district in the US has it's own police department. It's not "just" a resource officer oran off duty cop from the local departments, but an entirely separate an independent police force that only has jurisdiction on school district property.

As for the story at hand, it's a huge overreaction to a typical teenage lack of forethought. Things could have been arranged beforehand, but most teenagers don't think that far ahead, especially in times of stress, such has having a very sick parent.

[Herebecause]

and in a situation where the fee is not paid? Would you advocate the school keeps the phone permanently? Or what if the student can't actually afford the fee? ( I can think of two possible scenarios: 1. parents are barely scraping by, and can't actually afford the fee, or 2. parents refuse to pay, and the student doesn't have the money themselves to pay. For the sake of avoiding a useless argument, we'll say either the parents pay the phone bill, or that it's an issue of the kid is having cashflow issues- or simply that the kid can't afford both the fee and their phone bill.) Would you advocate the school keeps the phone permanently then?

You get caught speeding and are given a ticket; you don't pay it so your driver's license gets suspended. Or you figure out a way to scrape together the money so that you get to keep your license. Don't want to risk getting a ticket, and not being able to pay it - then don't speed. It isn't always nice, but this is life with rules and consequences for breaking the rules, being a teenager doesn't exempt you from that. This young lady broke a rule (which she admits and owns, to her credit), but still feels that she should be exempt from the consequences (giving up her phone). The only thing the school did wrong was in the extreme measures they took in enforcing the rules.

[evilfarmer]

My high school had police officers in the school as backup for our teachers.

We also had the fine and we were all told about it at the beginning of the year and after every break by all of our teachers. If they don't have the fine then there isn't an incentive to not use the phone in class. School tried being more lenient at the start of people carrying phones and got disrespected so they got stricter and stricter.

Also the student couldn't pick up the phone, a parent had to come and pay the fine to get the phone back. When you parents work in a high security building you don't ask them to come bail your phone out of detention. Plus my parents were strict if we got the phones taken away we knew we wouldn't get them back.

All of our classrooms had phones that connected to the office and you could dial out. It allowed our teachers to notify the officers or the office of incidents.

[s_stabeler]

Can I just point out that the reason the girl said she refused to give up the phone was because she was scared? First of all, with the size of schools you have in America, I highly doubt she recognized the AP in question. ( when I was in school, about 1,500 pupils i the whole school, I only knew by sight the Assistant head in charge of my own year. Any others, I wouldn't be able tot ell by sight. So now, we have a situation where you (from the girl's perspective) that someone has marched up, and demanded she hand over her phone. Yeah, I'm sorry, but I'd refuse too. (granted, I WOULD have handed it over once the person identified themselves as an AP)

As for refusing to pay: I imagine they're refusing to pay because of how she was treated- in other words, the fee should be cancelled due to the disgraceful behavior of the AP who confiscated it. That, and because the phone WAS brought into school for a good reason. If I was the school, I'd have waived the fee, telling the girl that if she was caught with it again, she'd have to pay the fee.

[Rageaholic]

You get caught speeding and are given a ticket; you don't pay it so your driver's license gets suspended. Or you figure out a way to scrape together the money so that you get to keep your license. Don't want to risk getting a ticket, and not being able to pay it - then don't speed. It isn't always nice, but this is life with rules and consequences for breaking the rules, being a teenager doesn't exempt you from that. This young lady broke a rule (which she admits and owns, to her credit), but still feels that she should be exempt from the consequences (giving up her phone). The only thing the school did wrong was in the extreme measures they took in enforcing the rules.

This is hardly the same thing as speeding. It's some stupid school rule that she had a damn good reason to break. Sometimes rules have to be broken and fought and I think such blanket bans on cell phone is one of those rules.

[Rageaholic]

And really, what gives these people the right to take her phone and demand she pay a fee? It's her property so I say good on her for running from these nutcases.

[Andara Bledin]

It isn't always nice, but this is life with rules and consequences for breaking the rules, being a teenager doesn't exempt you from that. This young lady broke a rule (which she admits and owns, to her credit), but still feels that she should be exempt from the consequences (giving up her phone). The only thing the school did wrong was in the extreme measures they took in enforcing the rules.

First, the comparison to having your property taken from you to having a privilege rescinded is apples to oranges. Plus, minors have a special status that can't be compared to adults in a very large number of ways, and their relationship to school staff is more specialized, so it's a particularly bad comparison.

Next: She's not complaining about them wanting to take her phone from breaking the rules. What is is complaining about is being tackled, having her head knelt upon by an officer , and being assaulted for the paltry "crime" of not handing her phone over when she was scared and stressed.

Plus, anyone who says, "well, she should have just handed it over" has likely never been in a stressful situation such as a potential medical emergency or is otherwise lacking in empathy.

Stress has been proven, pretty conclusively, to make people act in otherwise irrational ways. It overloads the frontal lobe, which is the part of the brain that deals with impulses and decision making. It's expecting a child who is under obvious stress to react in a rational manner that is truly irrational.

[mathnerd]

And really, what gives these people the right to take her phone and demand she pay a fee? It's her property so I say good on her for running from these nutcases.

Most schools require that parents sign a form stating they've read and agree to abide by the rules in the school handbook. If that rule is in that handbook and the parents signed it, then they have every right to enforce it. If a parent signed it without reading it, well, then that's just too bad for them. We rage all the time about stupid customers who want to be treated special because they want to be exempt from rules that are clearly written out, but then we make excuses for times like this.

I don't agree with the way the school handled the situation, but the bottom line is that the girl's parents likely signed something agreeing to this rule, and she shouldn't have been surprised that the rule was being upheld. The gross over reaction is another matter entirely.

[Rageaholic]

I doubt she even knew what she was signing. Besides, she (or her parents) most likely didn't have a choice as she's legally required to go to school. And really, how is not wanting to give your cell phone up wanting to be treated special?

[HYHYBT]

Why is it that every time there's a thread involving a questionable school rule, people treat"the school has the right to do this" as if it meant "the school is right in doing this?" And why do people talk as if there were meaningful choice in signing a form that's mandatory?

[Andara Bledin]

I don't agree with the way the school handled the situation, but the bottom line is that the girl's parents likely signed something agreeing to this rule, and she shouldn't have been surprised that the rule was being upheld. The gross over reaction is another matter entirely.

Fun fact that everybody in the US should be aware of:

You can't sign away your rights.

I know in California, specifically, and likely in a lot of other jurisdictions, that contracts must be of benefit to both parties to be valid, and they must be open to negotiation. As an example, those little notices on the back of parking lot tickets that say they limit the liability of the lot? In California, they're not worth the ink used to print them, except inasmuch that people don't know that they're not legally binding.

[Rageaholic]

Why is it that every time there's a thread involving a questionable school rule, people treat"the school has the right to do this" as if it meant "the school is right in doing this?" And why do people talk as if there were meaningful choice in signing a form that's mandatory?

Bonus points if the rule breakers are compared to bad customers.

Fun fact that everybody in the US should be aware of:

You can't sign away your rights.

I know in California, specifically, and likely in a lot of other jurisdictions, that contracts must be of benefit to both parties to be valid, and they must be open to negotiation. As an example, those little notices on the back of parking lot tickets that say they limit the liability of the lot? In California, they're not worth the ink used to print them, except inasmuch that people don't know that they're not legally binding.

I figured as so. I know some contracts cannot be binding, but I wasn't sure if this specific one was a case of that. I bet it was as she most likely wasn't given much choice in whether to sign it or not.

[bex1218]

Bonus points if the rule breakers are compared to bad customers.



I figured as so. I know some contracts cannot be binding, but I wasn't sure if this specific one was a case of that. I bet it was as she most likely wasn't given much choice in whether to sign it or not.

If I remember my school years correctly, you really had to sign them to get to go to school.

My school had it to where you had to keep your phone in your locker or car. Issue is, not everyone used lockers cause the school was too big for the amount of time you need to get your books. I always just carried mine around. Sad when you rather break your back then be late to class. Also Not everyone had a car, so what are you supposed to do. Was never enforced. I just never took my phone out.