Educational institutions confiscating personal belongings (Question)

jldesign

Hi,

I was recently wondering, My school seems to like to confiscate phones until the end of term or other personally belongings.

Now, I'm not to sure if this was included in a policy or not, but I'm still wondering about the legality of this.

There has to be some clause that they are bound by that denies them for taking a belonging for so long, I do realise its not legally classified as 'theft' as they do not intend on keeping it, but surely their has to be some clause that prohibits them from confiscating things.

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance for a reply,

J

Bepolite

jldesign wrote: »

Any thoughts?

Thanks in advance for a reply,

J

Pay more attention to class and less to your mobile. Why is it not theft? Have you read this?.

What other areas of law could you attending school and being bound by the rules fall under?

bumper234

Taking something (especially a phone) till the end of term would imo be excessive, end of the day would be fine but if my child had a phone that they needed for me to keep in touch with them then no.way is the school keeping it. Saying that the child would be punished for using the phone in class.

Bepolite

bumper234 wrote: »

Taking something (especially a phone) till the end of term would imo be excessive, end of the day would be fine but if my child had a phone that they needed for me to keep in touch with them then no.way is the school keeping it. Saying that the child would be punished for using the phone in class.

The legal basis for that is?

Manach

Would there not be a loco parentis here. That the institution would have the de facto power to enforce certain implicit rules within reason. One of these being the confiscation of material, such as phones which are when used are disruptive to the class?

bumper234

Bepolite wrote: »

The legal basis for that is?

Could your boss confiscate your personal phone and hold it for 3 months? Why should a teacher be allowed to do that? Holding something for months would imo be excessive punishment and as a parent i wouldn't be haply about that.

bumper234

Manach wrote: »

Would there not be a loco parentis here. That the institution would have the de facto power to enforce certain implicit rules within reason. One of these being the confiscation of material, such as phones which are when used are disruptive to the class?

Would the confiscation of property for an extended period if time not be seen as excessive punishment?

Manach

bumper234 wrote: »

Would the confiscation of property for an extended period if time not be seen as excessive punishment?

Yes.
My 2c is unless it is very serious anti-social behaviour associated with the property then holding onto it till end of term might be excessive. But, at a guess, the institution might get around that by introducing written codes of behaviour which would grant them that right.

bumper234

Manach wrote: »

Yes.
My 2c is unless it is very serious anti-social behaviour associated with the property then holding onto it till end of term might be excessive. But, at a guess, the institution might get around that by introducing written codes of behaviour which would grant them that right.

Agree

If it was an ongoing persistent offender then the punishment would maybe fit but if it was a once off or first offence i think end of the day and note to parents would be sufficient.

the world wonders

Check to see what the school code of behaviour (which they are obliged to give you a copy of on request) has to say about confiscation of property. It may well be that they are not following their own rules.

Marcusm

bumper234 wrote: »

Would the confiscation of property for an extended period if time not be seen as excessive punishment?

It's hard to see how the confiscation and retention of the property for longer than is required to surrender it to the parent of an underage child could lawfully be excused.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Marcusm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's easy, comply with the request to surrender or go home for the day. In neither case can I see an excuse for long term retention of the item. With a child, the institution can't simply put them out on the street.

mcmoustache

Is this a private boarding school or a regular state school? I would expect that a boarding school could probably put what they want in their T&Cs. This might allow them to retain forbidden personal articles until the end of term or until they can give them to the parents.

If it's an ordinary state school, I have no idea but it's certainly an interesting question.

gctest50

for fun - get a cosmetically perfect but non-functioning iPhone

mess around with it

when you get it back go " its not working now ???? "

it'll make them think about the wisdom of storing valuable electronic devices in possibly iffy* places

( * heat, humidity etc )

CIARAN_BOYLE

Many schools have a policy where confiscated it3ms are returned to the parents rather than the child

I wouldn't think a school could find legal reason to hold an item and not return it to a parent.

Peregrinus

Manach has it in post #5. The school is in loco parentis, which means that they have the same disciplinary powers that a parent would have. (Note: It does not mean that they have to do what a particular child's parents would do, or what those parents want it to do.) Parents can confiscate their childr's property, either temporarily or permanently. So can a school, even though in other circumstances this would be theft. Parents can "ground" a child; so can a school (by imposing detention) even though in other circumstances this would be false imprisonment. And so on.

This doesn't mean that a school can do whatever the hell it likes. There would be controls to do with fairness, with proportionality and of course with overriding requirements of non-discrimination, etc. But the courts are going to allow the schools a large amount of leeway here.

A school could probably offer a plausible account of why confiscating a phone until the end of the week, or until the end of the term, was reasonable and appropriate. It may have found from experience, for instance, that the sanction of confiscation until the end of the lesson, or the end of the day, wasn't severe enough to make an impact on the problem of students bringing phones to class, with resulting problems of distraction and disruption, and of course the possibility of cheating in tests. If a school took that line I think a court would be reluctant to overrule them. It's the school that's in loco parentis, not the court, and you can't get the schools decision overturned just by pointing out that a different decision was possible and might have been better.

Carawaystick

Where would the school stand if the phone wasn't owned by the child it was confiscated from?

Would they have to return it to the owner on request?

bumper234

Carawaystick wrote: »

Where would the school stand if the phone wasn't owned by the child it was confiscated from?

Would they have to return it to the owner on request?

I would wonder what if the child had an account phone paid by parents rather than pre paid credit. Would it be fair to make a parent pay say 40 a month for a phone that's sitting in a desk for 3 months

Bepolite

bumper234 wrote: »

Could your boss confiscate your personal phone and hold it for 3 months? Why should a teacher be allowed to do that? Holding something for months would imo be excessive punishment and as a parent i wouldn't be haply about that.

That's completely different, I'm still seeing no legal basis for your comment. I don't consider it excessive, fine if you do; neither of us are the decision makers here.

Incidentally if someone used a phone in my workplace, was told not too, and did it again they'd be subject to disciplinary action. Repeated offences would lead to dismissal. The school in this instance is choosing an alternative punishment. Perhaps they shouldn't and expelling the student might prepare them better for the workplace.

tayto lover

Manach wrote: »

Would there not be a loco parentis here. That the institution would have the de facto power to enforce certain implicit rules within reason. One of these being the confiscation of material, such as phones which are when used are disruptive to the class?

It would be in the school's induction policy i'm sure.
I know many schools that do this.

Just to be absolutely clear: the phone only gets confiscated if the child has it turned on in class and either it rings/beeps or they are looking at it. Assuming that's true then arguing what the school should be doing and the legality of it seems pretty silly. Turn the phone off when you walk in the gate and turn it on again when you walk out. Simple

tayto lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Just to be absolutely clear: the phone only gets confiscated if the child has it turned on in class and either it rings/beeps or they are looking at it. Assuming that's true then arguing what the school should be doing and the legality of it seems pretty silly. Turn the phone off when you walk in the gate and turn it on again when you walk out. Simple

Many schools take them in the mornings before first class and return them when school is over.
If the student needs to take or make a call during class hours or at lunch time they use the school phone.

Peregrinus

Carawaystick wrote: »

Where would the school stand if the phone wasn't owned by the child it was confiscated from?

Would they have to return it to the owner on request?

Depends, I think. If the child had stolen the phone and the owner somehow traced it to the school, explained the situation and asked for it back, I suspect the school would give it back (plus there would be other consequences for the child, of course) so the question of legal obligation wouldn't arise. But if push came to shove I suspect a court would order the school to hand it back. I just don't see any realistic scenario in which such a dispute would ever make it to court.

But if a parent provides the child with a phone which, although the child's to use, belongs to the parent, no. You hand a phone to your child, you are giving the child control over the use of the phone and I think you are stuck with what results.

bumper234 wrote: »

I would wonder what if the child had an account phone paid by parents rather than pre paid credit. Would it be fair to make a parent pay say 40 a month for a phone that's sitting in a desk for 3 months

The school isn't making the parent pay for the phone. The parent has (perhaps foolishly) signed a contract to pay for the phone over 40 months and (perhaps foolishly) has given the phone to the child, who has had it confiscated. If anybody is going to make the parents keep paying for the phone in these circumstances, it'll be the phone company. If the parents are wise, they will of course make the child pay for the phone since the consequences of having it confiscated really should fall on the child, not the parents.

Santa Cruz

The school should have the rules as regards use of mobile phones clearly set out and the penalties for breach of same. Once parents indicate their agreement for the penalties then whatever action the school takes is acceptable. Other pupils are entitled to be taught in an atmosphere where the class isn't being disrupted by some gob****e checking his/her texts/facebooks etc. There are enough disruptions in the class as it is. It would also help if teacher didn't check his/her phone during class also