School Admins Demand Access to Students' Cellphones

[Dominus Atheos]

Link

Students cry foul over cell phone policy: Teens say officials are ’overreacting’ and violating their privacy
By Eric Athas/ Daily News Correspondent
Saturday, July 8, 2006 - Updated: 02:04 PM EST

FRAMINGHAM -- Fearing their wireless freedom may be in jeopardy, students at Framingham High School were fuming over a new school policy that allows administrators to seize cell phones and search their contents.
School searches
Principals claim right to search cell phones
The policy, administrators say, is to improve security and stop the sale of drugs and stolen goods, but students said that the edict is an invasion of privacy.
"It’s not anyone’s business what is in students’ cell phones," said Demitriy Kozlov, who will be a senior in September. "If they think someone’s dealing a pound of coke or pot, then there is a reason to, but that doesn’t happen here."
Kozlov said he believes administrators are overreacting and making the school appear more troublesome than it actually is.
School officials "reserve the right to look through the cell phone," when they suspect a student has drugs or stolen goods, according to Principal Michael Welch.
"People shouldn’t get power based on suspicions, people should be considered innocent until proven guilty," said senior Adam Goldberg. "It feels like our rights are stripped away when we walk through the doors."
Scott Siegal is a senior at Newton South High School, where Welch was principal before going to Framingham, and said there is a major difference in Newton South and Framingham’s policies.
"We have an open campus at Newton South, and it seems like (Welch) is making things stricter at Framingham," said Siegal, who was a sophomore when Welch was the principal at Newton South. "We would never have had a policy like this."
The rule complies with federal law, which says a school can conduct searches when there is "reasonable suspicion" that a student has contraband.
"It’s kind of ridiculous," said Dayna Green, who recently graduated from Framingham, and is headed to Fitchburg State College in September. "They try to make us feel independent, but then they invade our privacy."
The cell phone policy is not the only change at Framingham: Staff will be required to wear identification badges at school. That move is an attempt to keep track of people who should not be on school property.
Green said the policy will only make students feel uncomfortable, and will not stop students from breaking the rules.
"I think it is more of a scare tactic," she said. "Something bad is going to happen everywhere."

So does anyone else think it's wrong how students are supposed to leave their constitutional rights at the door?

[Darth Wong]

So does anyone else think it's wrong how students are supposed to leave their constitutional rights at the door?

What constitutional rights? You have a constitutional right to be free of criminal prosecution for these kinds of things, but school administrators can make you obey their rules if you want to keep receiving their services (ie- be allowed to attend that school). Frankly, I wouldn't have a problem with banning cell-phones outright from school; they're nothing but a disruption to the educational process.

[Glocksman]

Until they're legally adults, students do have limited rights.
Schools can search your locker and your person while you're on school property.
If this was a free speech issue, SCOTUS's Tinker decision would apply.
But it's not and it doesn't.

Now as to the wisdom of this, I think it's stupid in the extreme.
Does the principal think they'll have a number labeled 'Pot Dealer' or 'Crank Connection' stored in the phonebook?

[Dominus Atheos]

So does anyone else think it's wrong how students are supposed to leave their constitutional rights at the door?

What constitutional rights? You have a constitutional right to be free of criminal prosecution for these kinds of things, but school administrators can make you obey their rules if you want to keep receiving their services (ie- be allowed to attend that school).

Alright, think about it. Would you want your work demanding access to your private email account to make sure you weren't selling company secrets?

[Darth Wong]

Alright, think about it. Would you want your work demanding access to your private email account to make sure you weren't selling company secrets?

False analogy: the cell-phone is something that these students are physically bringing to the school with them, not something at home or elsewhere like a private E-mail account. Anything you bring onto school grounds is fair game for confiscation if the administration feels that it's disruptive to the teaching environment; that's the way it was when I was a kid and I don't see what's so unreasonable about it.

[Glocksman]

So does anyone else think it's wrong how students are supposed to leave their constitutional rights at the door?

What constitutional rights? You have a constitutional right to be free of criminal prosecution for these kinds of things, but school administrators can make you obey their rules if you want to keep receiving their services (ie- be allowed to attend that school).

Alright, think about it. Would you want your work demanding access to your private email account to make sure you weren't selling company secrets?

The difference is that Mike is an adult, and as such he'd probably tell them to do something that is anatomically impossible.
Minors have limited rights, and the courts have long held that the schools can take actions such as this.

[Dominus Atheos]

What constitutional rights? You have a constitutional right to be free of criminal prosecution for these kinds of things, but school administrators can make you obey their rules if you want to keep receiving their services (ie- be allowed to attend that school).

Alright, think about it. Would you want your work demanding access to your private email account to make sure you weren't selling company secrets?

Minors have limited rights, and the courts have long held that the schools can take actions such as this.

Which is what my original complaint addressed.

[Adrian Laguna]

The cell phone policy is not the only change at Framingham: Staff will be required to wear identification badges at school. That move is an attempt to keep track of people who should not be on school property.

This won't work if the student body does not co-operate. It requires the majority to comply at the same time, and if they don't, the whole thing falls through. Happened at my High School, students were supposed to wear IDs on a laniard around your neck. I didn't do it, neither did half the student body. It's impossible to enforce a rule when doing so would result in a large portion of the students being mass-suspended. The next year the rule changed to "have your ID on your person at all times".

[Glocksman]

So you did.
My bad.

[Dominus Atheos]

The cell phone policy is not the only change at Framingham: Staff will be required to wear identification badges at school. That move is an attempt to keep track of people who should not be on school property.

This won't work if the student body does not co-operate.

I think that only applies to the staff.

[Adrian Laguna]

EDIT - Yeah, I know, anectdotal evidence. But can anyone think of a way to enforce a rule that requires massive cooperation from everyone at the same time? It's illegal to be out naked in public, but what can the authorities do if a large portion of the populace decides to go about their daily business wearing nothing but shoes?

[RedImperator]

Schools have every legal right to go through lockers, purses, backpacks, notebooks, and pockets. Schools are not like employers: they have in loco parentis powers (and responsibilities), and the right to search a student's belongings if they have reasonable cause. Hell, SCOTUS has given them the right to administer piss tests to anyone in an after-school activity. While the specific case of going through a cell phone has never been tested in court, I can't imagine why it would be any different.

Frankly, as a teacher, I'm perfectly happy with a "no cell phones on school grounds" policy, or, at the very least, a policy requiring them to be turned off and stored in the student's locker until dismissal. They're nothing but disruptions 99% of the time.

As for this specific case, the administrators are merely reserving the right to search phones. They haven't actually done it yet. I'm sure they will at some point when they suspect drug dealing; this Kozlov kid is an idiot if he thinks dealing isn't happening in that school. It probably won't be very effective: I doubt drug dealers keep their contacts listed under "customers" and "suppliers" or keep SMS messages along the lines of "I need a quarter of weed and fifteen Xanibars by Friday night". And if they did, they could pop out the SIM card and hide or destroy it in a few seconds, wiping out the evidence. So I don't think it's a particularly good policy, but they're within their legal rights to enforce it.

[Adrian Laguna]

I think that only applies to the staff.

Oh bloody hell. How much are reading comprehension courses?

[LMSx]

The cell phone policy is not the only change at Framingham: Staff will be required to wear identification badges at school. That move is an attempt to keep track of people who should not be on school property.

This won't work if the student body does not co-operate. It requires the majority to comply at the same time, and if they don't, the whole thing falls through. Happened at my High School, students were supposed to wear IDs on a laniard around your neck. I didn't do it, neither did half the student body. It's impossible to enforce a rule when doing so would result in a large portion of the students being mass-suspended. The next year the rule changed to "have your ID on your person at all times".

Staff, not students.

If this is an issue of minors' right's, does that mean the policy doesn't apply to 18 year old seniors? They're legally adults, after all.

[RedImperator]

The cell phone policy is not the only change at Framingham: Staff will be required to wear identification badges at school. That move is an attempt to keep track of people who should not be on school property.

This won't work if the student body does not co-operate. It requires the majority to comply at the same time, and if they don't, the whole thing falls through. Happened at my High School, students were supposed to wear IDs on a laniard around your neck. I didn't do it, neither did half the student body. It's impossible to enforce a rule when doing so would result in a large portion of the students being mass-suspended. The next year the rule changed to "have your ID on your person at all times".

You wanna bet? We suspended hundreds of kids in one week in a dress code crackdown. The kids and parents bitched, but for damn sure they followed the dress code after that.

[RedImperator]

If this is an issue of minors' right's, does that mean the policy doesn't apply to 18 year old seniors? They're legally adults, after all.

In loco parentis still applies. 18 year olds are subject to the same policies as everyone else. If they don't like it, as adults, they're free to transfer or drop out.

[Dominus Atheos]

It's impossible to enforce a rule when doing so would result in a large portion of the students being mass-suspended.

You wanna bet? We suspended hundreds of kids in one week in a dress code crackdown. The kids and parents bitched, but for damn sure they followed the dress code after that.

Was that for something like tube tops, or hats?

[Alex Moon]

Now as to the wisdom of this, I think it's stupid in the extreme.
Does the principal think they'll have a number labeled 'Pot Dealer' or 'Crank Connection' stored in the phonebook?

Not that, however a listing of their frequent contacts would help in identifying suspects. To be frank, it's probably better for the students in the long run for the administrators to be able to deal with this stuff, rather than having to immediately bring in the police.

[darthkommandant]

Wow thats quite a crackdown. Whats the total population of students at your school RedImperator BTW? A few hundred isn't impressive if the school has a few thousand students.

[Adrian Laguna]

You wanna bet? We suspended hundreds of kids in one week in a dress code crackdown. The kids and parents bitched, but for damn sure they followed the dress code after that.

How big is your school? Because in my High School's case that would result in suspending ~1200 students back when the "wear it around your neck" rule was in effect. Maybe there is a way if you get creative, like simply dragging rule breakers out of the school premises.

[RedImperator]

It's impossible to enforce a rule when doing so would result in a large portion of the students being mass-suspended.

You wanna bet? We suspended hundreds of kids in one week in a dress code crackdown. The kids and parents bitched, but for damn sure they followed the dress code after that.

Was that for something like tube tops, or hats?

Out of uniform, and I mean anything out of uniform. Wrong color shoes? Shirt without the school logo? Jeans instead of khakis? Have a pinkslip, see you tomorrow with a parent or guardian to sign you back in.

The real reason for the crackdown was because kids were wearing coats and hoodies in class and in the halls, and one fine afternoon four gentlemen with their hoodies pulled up around their heads to cover their faces beat the shit out of some kid over some neighborhood thing, and we couldn't identify them on the security cameras. But as long as we were sending kids home over hoodies, we decided to crack down on everything else. Frankly, it's easier to enforce the rules exactly as they're written in the book than make case by case exceptions. Every teenager who ever lived thinks he's a lawyer, and if you don't follow the letter of the law, you get an endless litany of whines and complaints about playing favorites and "that's not fair" and whatever.

[RedImperator]

You wanna bet? We suspended hundreds of kids in one week in a dress code crackdown. The kids and parents bitched, but for damn sure they followed the dress code after that.

How big is your school? Because in my High School's case that would result in suspending ~1200 students back when the "wear it around your neck" rule was in effect. Maybe there is a way if you get creative, like simply dragging rule breakers out of the school premises.

We had 2000 officially rostered, but 200-300 of them were ghosts by the time of the crackdown--kids who just stopped coming to school who hadn't been delisted yet, transfers whose paperwork was still getting processed, that kind of thing. Plus three or four hundred absent on any given day. So figure 1400 in the building on any particular day, and 200-300 suspended each day. We gave them overnight suspensions: basically, you're sent home for that day and a parent or guardian has to sign you back in the next day, or you don't get in the door. It's effective because it irritates the parents, who for the most part get mad at their kids, not us, when they get suspended. So most of these kids were back the next day, in uniform.

My philosophy about rules is, if it's important enough to put it in place, it's important enough to enforce. Go ahead and suspend 1200 students--that will put an end to the "they can't punish all of us" nonsense real quick. And if that's logisitically impossible, just suspend a few hundred at random every day. They might not be able to punish everyone, but they can still punish you. The adults in that building need to be in charge and they need everyone to know it, or you're going to have chaos in short order.

[Zero]

This doesn't seem like an encroachment on privacy any more than is warranted, and mostly sounds like it would be a brief annoyance at best. However, it would also just be annoying to drug dealers and such, since they aren't stupid enough to have anything overtly recorded on cell phone texts or anything.

As for no cell phones in school at all... nah, that would actually fuck with people's scheduals significantly. I wouldn't be able to get home most nights. Having it off and in the locker as part of the rules makes sense, though, because you don't need it on during school hours, and if you have it with you, it isn't anything but a disturbance.

[CaptainChewbacca]

And if that's logisitically impossible, just suspend a few hundred at random every day. They might not be able to punish everyone, but they can still punish you. The adults in that building need to be in charge and they need everyone to know it, or you're going to have chaos in short order.

It sounds like I'm being sarcastic, but it sounds like arbitrary selective punishment within a group would be a really good deterrent. As far as staff IDs go, in most of the school districts near me faculty is required to display the badge at all times they are outdoors on school grounds. Its no hassle for any of my teacher-friends.

[Darth Wong]

I roll my eyes whenever I hear teenagers whining about their rights. Teenagers like that are maggoty little self-absorbed dipshits who haven't grown up yet and who think the world owes them something, rather than them owing the world something.