school confiscates cell phone, lawyer dad is mad?

[Luckboxer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every year my kids and I have to sign a form acknowledging that we have read, understand and agree to follow the school's code of conduct (it includes a rule against cell phone and text message use). If one of my kids gets caught breaking any of the rules then I have no problem with there being consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not like your really "agreeing" to anything though. It shouldn't be thought of as a real contract. You "have" to sign it and you have no bargaining power.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no coercion and both parties get consideration and to my acknowledge none of the rules are encroach upon existing municipal or state laws. How is this not a binding contract?

You guys are funny trying to justify bad parenting by blaming the school when it does something that any good parent would have done long before the situation ever reached this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not justifying parenting. I think there are both good and bad parents that want/don't want their children carrying cellphones.

I'm suggesting that it could be thought of as non-binding to an extent because you don't have any bargaining power to negotiate the terms of the contract. This has been an issue in cases involving form contracts.

Also, there probably isn't consideration for the contract either, because the rule seems reasonable and the courts would surely enforce it even if parents weren't asked to make an agreement. It appears to be a contract because you're promising your kids will follow the rule and they're promising to give your kids an education. The problem is, they could make your kids follow the rules anyway. From their standpoint the contract is unneccessary so they aren't really getting anything. Thus its an illusory promise and and its effect is that neither party is bound.

Again, none of this is to say that the kids don't have to follow the rule, just that a document signed by the parents isn't the basis for the rule's validity.

[Meech]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I still think schools should direct more energy into teaching instead of all this micromanaging/social engineering BS.

If the kids is being disruptive or using their cell in class, kick 'em out of class.

From the sounds of it though, it sounds very zero-toleranceish which = muey retardo. If the kid wants to use their cell in the can, fine. On break, fine. At lunch, fine. In class == warn them once, kick 'em out the second time.

The whole, "we are keeping you cell phone for a month, na na na na" is retarded.

Is the objective here to foster a learning environment, or to teach the little pukes to follow procedures?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're right, the teachers are just a bunch of fascists who want to keep the little pukes in line.

What a bunch of [censored].

The kids AREN'T LEARNING when they're texting all their other little puke friends 50 times a day.

To create a 'learning environment', the kids need to be FOCUSED ON LEARNING.

How [censored] stupid do you have to be not to see this?

Why are schools UNIVERSALLY trying to curtail/stop cell phone usage on school grounds? Because they're a bunch of Nazis? NO, because the phones INTERFERE WITH THE TEACHING PROCESS.

And still, no one has answered this question: WHY DO YOUR LITTLE PUKES NEED THEIR GODDAM CELL PHONES AT SCHOOL?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading comprehension my friend...

If they are using the phone in the classroom, kick 'em out of the classroom.

OP's post suggests that they can't have them anywhere.. "If they see it..."

Frankly, it's none of your business why they have a cell or why they might need a cell.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're kid was going to the park/mall/movies/whatever, wouldn't you feel better if they had a phone with them?

[/ QUOTE ]

In those places, they usually do have a phone with them. It's called a pay phone.

b

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, it's none of your business why they have a cell or why they might need a cell

[/ QUOTE ]

that statement is INCREDIBLY WRONG.

it is the business of the school and therefore the teachers.

[beenben]

A few points:

+I don't know the kid's age;
+I think it was the kid's phone but DaddyLawyer wanted to pretend like it was his
+My understanding was that if they see the phone, they take the phone

[dlk9s]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure the kid already is a douche. ALL schools should all get cell phone jammers.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I was a teacher/professor, everytime your cell phone goes off in class you would lose 5% of your grade or have to write a ten page report.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my MBA program, anyone whose cell phone rang during class was assessed a $10 fine. I don't remember what the money ended up being used for - I think it was charity.

[mmcd]

One more post, then I'm done with this.

The circumstances surrounding the phone being taken away, and the school's treatment of the parents are two entirely separate issues. I'm sure the kid's parents didn't sit him down one night and say, "You bring that phone to school and give 'em hell, little Johnny". I'm sure you're all picturing some douchebag 8th grader who was constantly disruptive making calls and typing out text messages during his history class. Try thinking about this scenario instead:

Your 5 year old daughter, a kindergarten student, has recently discovered the video game "Tetris" on the phone that you use for work. She's fascinated by the game, and looks forward to playing it every night when you gets home from work. One morning, you're a little late getting up, so by the time you get out of the shower, your daughter has already left for school. You look for your phone on the kitchen table where you usually leave it, but it's not there. You look in the car, on your dresser, under the couch cushions, etc. But, no phone. You go to work and end up having a really stressful day because of your missing phone. When you get home, you find out your daughter took your phone to school, and her principal currently has it. The next morning, you push back a couple of important meetings and go down to the school to retrieve your phone. After waiting for 25 minutes, when you finally get in to see the principal, the following conversation ensues:

You: Hi, I'm so-and-so's father, and I believe you have my phone.

Her: Yes, your daughter was caught with it on school grounds. That's a serious infraction you know.

You: I'll be sure to talk to her about it. Can I have my phone back please?

Her: No, I'm afraid not. This being your daughter's second offense, I'm going to go ahead and hold on to it for week.

You: WTF?

Her: Back on September 16, your daughter was caught with a phone on school grounds. I have the incident report right here*. And our student handbook clearly states on page 42d paragraph 5, that when a child is caught with a cell phone for the second time, we hold the phone for one week.

*Apparently, your daughter had brought you wife's cell phone to school one day to show her best friend pictures of her new puppy that she had taken that morning. It was given back to her at the end of the day and nothing ever came of the matter.

You: Look, it's my phone, not my daughter's, and I NEED it for work.

Her: Well, you should have thought that before you sent it into school with your daughter. You can come pick it up next Thursday at 3:30.

You: I didn't send her to school with it, she took it. Look just give me my phone, and I promise it won't happen again.

Her: I'm sorry, but rules are rules. You break them you pay the price.



The real facts of this situation probably lie somewhere in between the douchebag 8th grader, and the precocious kindergartner, but regardless of what the facts are, once the parent shows up to retrieve their property, Any response other than "Here you go. Please try to make sure this doesn't happen again." is wrong. The bottom line is that a piece of your property somehow came into the possesion of the school under cirumstances that were at least somewhat beyond your control, and it should be returned to you. If some school official refuses to do so, they would essentially be treating you like one of their students, rather than an adult who is to be treated with respect.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Every year my kids and I have to sign a form acknowledging that we have read, understand and agree to follow the school's code of conduct (it includes a rule against cell phone and text message use). If one of my kids gets caught breaking any of the rules then I have no problem with there being consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not like your really "agreeing" to anything though. It shouldn't be thought of as a real contract. You "have" to sign it and you have no bargaining power.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is no coercion and both parties get consideration and to my acknowledge none of the rules are encroach upon existing municipal or state laws. How is this not a binding contract?

You guys are funny trying to justify bad parenting by blaming the school when it does something that any good parent would have done long before the situation ever reached this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not justifying parenting. I think there are both good and bad parents that want/don't want their children carrying cellphones.

I'm suggesting that it could be thought of as non-binding to an extent because you don't have any bargaining power to negotiate the terms of the contract. This has been an issue in cases involving form contracts.

Also, there probably isn't consideration for the contract either, because the rule seems reasonable and the courts would surely enforce it even if parents weren't asked to make an agreement. It appears to be a contract because you're promising your kids will follow the rule and they're promising to give your kids an education. The problem is, they could make your kids follow the rules anyway. From their standpoint the contract is unneccessary so they aren't really getting anything. Thus its an illusory promise and and its effect is that neither party is bound.

Again, none of this is to say that the kids don't have to follow the rule, just that a document signed by the parents isn't the basis for the rule's validity.

[/ QUOTE ]

One legal point I think you are missing is that the school can refuse to accept the student if the parent does not agree to this so that the school gets consideration in the form of parental agreement that his child will abide by the rules.

I agree it is silly and most courts will use common sense in a situation like this, but it baffles me why people (not u luckboxer) get all up in arms about stuff like this. From a parent's perspective, I am happy when a school administration takes a tough line on discipline. I'm all fro giving a kid a second chance (after all they are kids), but if violating teh rule sdo not have consequences then why bother having rules.

Another pint: I bet this guy is less angry with his kid about the behavior than he is at the thought of someone exercising 'control' over some possession of his (be it his phone or his child).

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to tell him, "Dawg, how about having your kid follow the school rules and learn to take the consequences of his behavior?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Because that might actually reflect what type of parent he thinks he is. His kid is perfect, don't you know? After all, he raised him.

[ QUOTE ]
They have a rule at this school - they see your cell phone, they take it until the end of the day. Second offense, they give it back to the kid's parent after a week. Third offense, they keep it for 30 days.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's funny that this lawyer didn't know any of these consequences were possible. And if he did, he then waits for something to happen before he bitches about it.

[ QUOTE ]
He was all about holding the district accountable for seizing his property without due process,

[/ QUOTE ]

Then maybe he should keep his property at home.

b

[bwana devil]

i agree w/ mmcd on this and am not sure why people are being rude to him about the issue.