school confiscates cell phone, lawyer dad is mad?

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4_2_it: that policy is unacceptable because its a zero tolerance policy. zero tolerance policies are necessarily inefficient decision making systems. i think everyone sees why so i won't explain further.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i don't think everyone sees why. i do not.

i think zero tolerance policies are excellent. things such as, if you are convicted of murder on three separate occasions you must spend life in jail. i think that's a good zero tolerance policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok what if you are convicted of murder. then it is overturned. then you are convicted of murder again and it is overturned again... then you are convicted of a murder a third time, then some evidence comes to light and it is clear you are innocent.

by your zero tolerance policy you should spend your life in prison despite never actually killing anyone.


silly example? yes. stupid example? yes.

the point is, zero tolerance policies treat all cases as equal when they necessarily aren't. i have actually studied decision analysis, and i think i have read a paper that proves mathematically that these systems are generally worse that other "simplified" decision making systems. i could look it up. empirical evidence alone should be compelling enough though imo.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
4_2_it: that policy is unacceptable because its a zero tolerance policy. zero tolerance policies are necessarily inefficient decision making systems. i think everyone sees why so i won't explain further.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, i don't think everyone sees why. i do not.

i think zero tolerance policies are excellent. things such as, if you are convicted of murder on three separate occasions you must spend life in jail. i think that's a good zero tolerance policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats the 3 strike policy.

Zero tolerance policies = Zero thought.

Like your little girl accidently leaves a baby aspirin in her coat and gets sent up the river/expelled because there is "zero tolerance for drugs" in school.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok but this cell phone 30 day situation is not a zero tolerance policy, it's a three strike policy

[runner4life7]

I have no troubles reading. I will admit the car was a strech, but now that you can realize there are other methods than taking property. I just don't see how you can possibly think that keeping a phone for 30 days is acceptable. Take it for the day and if it keeps up contact the parents, detention, suspension. It's all been said before and I don't understand why it's not that simple.

[donkeylove]

This thread is too long to read. 1st offense-warning
2nd offense-smash it with
a sledgehammer
3rd offense-singapore
style caning
4th offense-guillotine

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
why do people think suspension is better than getting a phone taken away? Yes, let's take the kid OUT of school so he can't learn instead of taking away the distraction! makes perfect sense.


[/ QUOTE ]


People seem to be missing the fact that kids not paying attention in class isn't caused by cell phones. It's caused by classes being f*cking boring. Cell phones are just one of many different ways kids choose to occupy their minds during class. Before cellphones, kids had other distractions, like pot, drawing pictures of the gym teacher with a [censored] in his ear, and even good old fashioned daydreaming.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why do people think suspension is better than getting a phone taken away? Yes, let's take the kid OUT of school so he can't learn instead of taking away the distraction! makes perfect sense.


[/ QUOTE ]


People seem to be missing the fact that kids not paying attention in class isn't caused by cell phones. It's caused by classes being f*cking boring. Cell phones are just one of many different ways kids choose to occupy their minds during class. Before cellphones, kids had other distractions, like pot, drawing pictures of the gym teacher with a [censored] in his ear, and even good old fashioned daydreaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is a bit different in that cell phones actually distract others in the class also

[J.A.K.]

It is a goddamn decision that the schools have made obviously in reaction to the OVERWHELMING PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE [censored] PHONES- DISRUPTING CLASS/ILLICIT PICTURES/CHEATING ON TESTS/FIGHTS/ETC. It's not like the [censored] school said gee I'm sick of all these kids using phones during lunch let's screw them over.

The school has the autonomy and authority to decide what is best in carrying out it's primary function...the education of your children. We do not know if a student has a constitutionally protected right to carry a phone at school or if that right outweighs the school's interest. The no cell phone policy would have to be challenged in court. I imagine if actual evidence was presented from both sides, there would be a HUGE burden of proof for the students' side to outweigh the school's interest in maintaining a safe and orderly environment.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no troubles reading. I will admit the car was a strech, but now that you can realize there are other methods than taking property. I just don't see how you can possibly think that keeping a phone for 30 days is acceptable. Take it for the day and if it keeps up contact the parents, detention, suspension. It's all been said before and I don't understand why it's not that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guy's don't get it. I have never argued that keeping the phone for 30 days is the best policy or even a smart policy.

What I have argued that it is acceptable in this case because the violating parties agreed to the rule and were aware of the punishment. (OP mentioned that the Dad wanted to lie to the school about ownership of the phone in order to get it back. He knew the ramifications and was looking for a loophole of some sort.)

I believe most schools would never hold it for 30 days if the parent came in for it. However, I bet that not insignificant percent of the time, the parent will not come in at all, which is why the 30 day policy was put in place.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no troubles reading. I will admit the car was a strech, but now that you can realize there are other methods than taking property. I just don't see how you can possibly think that keeping a phone for 30 days is acceptable. Take it for the day and if it keeps up contact the parents, detention, suspension. It's all been said before and I don't understand why it's not that simple.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guy's don't get it. I have never argued that keeping the phone for 30 days is the best policy or even a smart policy.

What I have argued that it is acceptable in this case because the violating parties agreed to the rule and were aware of the punishment. (OP mentioned that the Dad wanted to lie to the school about ownership of the phone in order to get it back. He knew the ramifications and was looking for a loophole of some sort.)

I believe most schools would never hold it for 30 days if the parent came in for it. However, I bet that not insignificant percent of the time, the parent will not come in at all, which is why the 30 day policy was put in place.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly what a post

[Ser William]

[ QUOTE ]
Before cellphones, kids had other distractions, like pot, drawing pictures of the gym teacher with a [censored] in his ear, and even good old fashioned daydreaming.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a pretty good point. The only difference being that phones ringing / incoming text messages buzzing / people answering their phones is a lot more distracting to the REST of the classroom than idle daydreaming and picture drawing. Personally I could care less what the cell phone owner him/herself does, because they'll find other ways to mess around in class and generally be a nuisance. It is the other kids in the class actually trying to learn that I'd be concerned for.