To expect a Headteacher to see my point and show compasion and flexibility? When is a mobile phone NOT a mobile phone?

[Yorkshiremix]

So sorry if this is a bit long but I am in need of other opinions, whether I'm right or wrong please.

The background is that I am single mum and totally broke, I mean I'm lucky if there is a spare £5 or £10 left each week after food and bills (not including clothes or clubs or anything nice). So paying for my daughter to go away on the year 6 residential trip has been a major hardship for us, but I did it and she was looking forward to her first holiday in 6 years.

Letters had come home stating no mobile phones were allowed but the kids could take MP3's and cameras at their own risk. I have never allowed my daughter to have a mobile phone, not only can we not afford it but I feel strongly that they are not necessary at her age. A couple of years ago my son (age 21) gave his sister his old mobile phone so that she could use it as an MP3 as she had been asking for an ipod and I couldn't afford it. She has been happily using this as a camera and MP3 now for the past 2 years, never again asking for an ipod. So knowing that it wasn't working as a mobile and was the only camera that we had, as I really couldn't afford even a disposable along with the developing fee, I went to the headteacher and explained the situation asking her to allow my daughter to take it. She refused.

I went home and after thinking about it I became increasingly frustrated, so I sent her an email, telling her that, as it was impossible to use it as a mobile phone without a valid sim card, (it has a very old sim in it to enable use, that can neither call out or call in, in fact if you access the number of the sim and ring it, some random bloke answers, as the sim is that old the number has been reassigned) and therefore it was just a piece of equipment for use as an MP3 and camera and as she was allowing children to take MP3's and cameras, I would therefore have to disagree with her decision and would be allowing my daughter to take it as I had already explained to her that we couldn't afford anything else.

When they arrived, my daughter sent me a letter which didn't reach me until the morning that they were due home, begging me to call her, very upset, the headteacher had taken it from her when they arrived and had refused to let her call me. When I collected her, she was still upset, she was the only child without a camera and had no pictures of her holiday. The head gave it back to her 10 mins before they arrived home, she wouldn't even let her listen to her music on the 3 hour bus journey home. My daughter informs me that many children had taken an ipod touch which, with the right application, can even send emails within a wi-fi area. It was totally impossible for my daughters to be used as a phone.

I am furious, I told the headteacher so. I asked her if she had even tried to make a call on it or call the phone? She said she hadn't. I asked her if she had confiscated any other child's MP3 or camera? She said no she hadn't. I asked her why she allowed all the other kids to have ipods that can email then? She said that she wouldn't be next year (very immature).

Am I being unreasonable to be upset by this? Was she being narrow-minded, lacking in common sense and compassion? In this day and age of technology, why can't she see that a mobile phone can be used in other capacities without being able to make calls, are we supposed to just fill up landfills with all this technology rather than put it to use elsewhere?

Really, what harm did it do anyone? The only one upset on that trip ended up being my daughter. I have demanded an apology, but she refuses.

I think Tabliope put it perfectly.

AMumInScotland - to clarify, I am supportive of schools in that I tell my children they must be polite and respectful and must do as their teachers have asked. My DSs teacher definitely has her own view on how things should be done and even though I disagree with some of her rules, I tell my child that he must respect them because she is his teacher and he is in her classroom. That said, these things are little, my child is happy and his teacher is very good at what she does.
But, that's not to say I would blindly follow her decisions if she was insisting on something that I felt strongly was wrong and not in my childs best interests.

YANBU

The head was clearly informed that the phone was not working as a phone and used solely for the purpose of camera and mp3 player, which were allowed. Quite simple for your daughter and the head to inform the other children that it was used for these purposes and not as a mobile phone. The fact that she took the phone and then refused your daughter a phone call home is completely unacceptable!
Whilst I don't agree with such young children having a mobile phone I don't see why the kids weren't allowed to take them and use them in a 'controlled' manner. For instance an hour in the evening. They could have been stored away any other time. What is te harm in allowing kids to be able to call home if they want to?
Pick your battles though OP, you won't get an apology so I'd give up if I were you.

littleducks and toughasoldboots thank you so much for your offers of cameras, your kindness is beautiful. We are ok though, we have managed with what we have for years and have only felt like we were lacking when faced with this situation.

I just wanted to point out that sometimes when you read repies to these posts it can seem like the op is being given a hard time like toughasoldboots said, and things can sound quite harsh, but as I said, I came on here to get other opinions and I am always willing to accept that my opinion might not always be right. So I am not at all upset by what you all have to say, life would be boring if we all agreed wouldn't it?

So, I just did a quick review of the comments and thought this might interest you as even though the consensus seems to be IABU this is what the figures say ... so far 35 people think that IABU but 12 of these agree that the Headteacher was also at fault and 21 people think that IANBU. So it's really not as negative as it seems.

As a teacher and a parent, I can see it from both sides. You know the phone is not a phone and does not function as such, but from the teacher's perspective I can see that this could lead to all sorts of problems. It still looks like a phone and that is what the other children will see. This could then lead to other children claiming that the teacher showed favourtism (due to their not knowing the score andnot asking), trying in future years to take their phones "but it's got no sim / no credit..." possible parent complaints - why was X allowed to take her phone when my child wasn't and so on...

You really put the head in a very difficult position, and trust me when you assert a rule, that rule has to be a blanket rule because otherwise the children try eroding it from one direction or another and before you know it, you're not being at all consistent and that is not fair on the children. I can't see what else the teacher could have done tbh. You knew in advance the teacher had said no, I think you should have borrowed someone's old camera for the trip (gone on free cycle or something - there are always old film cameras on there) but you should have gone with the rule instead of against it.

The thing is Helokitty there are signs of blatant favouritism going on in schools all the time that parents are just expected to get on with - read the recent threads on the same children being picked for the best parts in xmas plays or the PTA chairperson's children being moved class because the PTA mum wants that, or the governors child not being disciplined in the same way as others because the parent is a governor and friend of the HT. Most of us just roll our eyes at that - and often that is clearly unfair favouritism that can't be justified if scrutinised. Allowing a child to take a mobile phone away that isn't a mobile phone isn't favouritism and can be backed up, if scrutinised, as not being favouritism as anyone asking or complaining (child or parent) could simply be told it isn't a mobile phone. Personally if my DS had told me someone had a mobile phone on a trip I would have just thought maybe there was a reason that wasn't my business (e.g. a child needed to have contact home for whatever reason - new baby being born, family member ill, for example). I would have thought it none of my business. And if there had been a backlash with some parents complaining the HT could have simply put it in a news letter "despite your concerns your child couldn't take a mobile I assure you there was no mobile being used, it was a devise for a camera,mp3).

but karmabelieve this isn't the school making parental decisions, they were making decisions about school rules and policies which they are completely entitled to do and to enforce.

The trouble with the phone issue is that you are assuming that parents will be pissed off and complain directly. However, experience tells me that often people don't do this. What happens mire likely is that x goes home and reports that Y took phone, do next year 3/4/more children take their phones (without asking) because X had seen that Y had done it and so on... Then when their working phones are confiscated, the teacher points out that Ys phone was non working, to which the parents then complain that their chdren's phone has not credit and so on... You really can't assume that anyone pissed off by it will complain and deal with it openly. Neither can you assume it won't set a precedent for future years.

The other stuff you mention about the head Is not really about the phone though really is it? It's about s bigger issue of you being annoyed by the head, and hat really is a separate issue and AIBU by stealth really.

Haven't read your other threads - or if I have don't remember them - I've got a memory like a sieve!!

karmabelieve I think you're completely out of line in your assertions that parents should just be able to over-rule schools. I don't actually think that the OP was getting at that anyway - I don't think she should have let her DD take the phone, but I do think that her subsequent posts have been incredibly eloquent and well phrased.

However, as a teacher, I get really sick of parents allowing their DCs to believe that rules don't apply to them. I teach secondary, and we have real problems with students who will just tell their parents that a teacher was in the wrong, and the parent will phone to complain. Yes, if rules are blatently stupid or discriminatory (girls not allowed to wear trousers, boys not being allowed long hair) then they should be questioned, but to say that a mother can over-rule any old school rule if she feels like it is ludicrous. What sort of lesson is your child learning about the world? How can you expect a child to get on in life if they've learned early on that rules needn't apply to them if they don't want them to, and that you only have to adhere to rules if you agree with them in the first place. How does that work in the real world?

YANBU.

The head was being narrow minded. Everyone else had the capability of taking photos and listening to music - which is a good way to pass the time on long bus journeys - except your dd. You scrimped hard to send her on the trip, your DD was very upset and was not allowed to ring you.

I don't see what the big deal would have been to just let your DD take it. If they all wanted to ring home they could try and user her phone and see that actually it did not make calls!!

We confiscate phones from junior pupils on trips. They simply are not allowed.

If contact with parents is required, this can be done via the staff.

They don't need MP3 players or cameras - these things are just a pain.

Parents and children spin all sorts of tales about whether their device works or not. It is easier just to have a rule and stick to it.

DS1 has just been on his Y6 residential trip. MP3 players, cameras, phones and games consoles were all banned. They could take a disposable camera and for £2 they get a DVD of over 1000 photos taken by the teachers over the week.

I'm delighted they could take none of the electronic gadgetry that is so 'necessary' these days.
They were forced to play good old fashioned beach games' card games, talk to their friends and that kind of thing.

(and, form the record, I can see your POV but YABU. You tried to persuade the head, she said no and you sent it anyway.)

This is really a case of sweating the small stuff.

Has anyone actually seen the type of photos that 11 year old take on their mobiles?

YABU the head said no phones - end of discussion - the fact t doesn't work is not an issue.

Kids share photos anyway so dont worry. The school will probably have photos too so just ask for a copy

We had our school sports day at an athletics stadium a few weeks ago. The girls thought that since they were offsite, they could have their phones. No, they were in school and normal rules applied.

They said they wanted to use their cameras to take photos of the day (fair enough), but I told them that I would take any photos they wanted with my SLR. So, as well as the sports action, I took pictures of various friendship groups. By luck, some of them were of near professional quality (when you take 1000 photos with a long lens, some of them are actually OK), so much better than a mobile phone photo. And I was the one behind the camera, not any of them.

When I was on a residential trip with Year 5 and 6 earlier in the year, I, again, took over 1000 photos, and I put the non-blurred, non-chopped heads etc, ones onto DVDs for each of the girls and their parents. There was absolutely no need for anyone to have a camera to keep track of, and only about 10% of the girls brought one.

Probably about 25% of the girls brought MP3 players. Many of these were iPod Touch devices, and I made each of them show me their individual players to check that they weren't iPhones (thinner and no camera). Out of 40 girls, only one didn't read the rules and came with a phone but we were able to return it to her parents before we left. The parents had our mobile numbers and the number of the centre, so could pass on a message in the case of an emergency.

EvilTwins - I'm not saying that a parent should just ignore any school rules that they don't feel like obeying. I'm saying that in this case the HT was being deliberately unhelpful. If the HT had said no to mobiles and the OP had simply decided to send a working mobile anyway, then that would have been wrong. However, it wasn't a working mobile, it was useful only as an mp3/camera. This could have been explained to anyone who cared enough to ask. Just because it may be easier to have a blanket rule, that doesn't mean it is always the right thing to do. The HT was petty and mean and clearly didn't care about the OPs circumstances.

I am a SAHM now, but used to be a secondary teacher. I know from experience that schools are not always fair, that teachers are human and not always correct. If the teacher is wrong (and that does happen), then the parent has every right to say so. That is not the same as having total disregard for school rules. It is simply saying that if some rules are unreasonable, the parent should not blindly obey just because the teacher said so. Ultimately it is the parents job to act in the best interests of their children. Sadly, I don't think you can always rely on schools to do this for all pupils

There is a lot to be said for just going along with authority whether they are right, wrong or just plain quirky.

We build an empire on that attitude (ie public school traditions).

It is a good life lesson to just have some humility and not have to prove that you are right all the time. It gets tiring.

I agree with MmeRWaB

"There is a lot to be said for just going along with authority whether they are right, wrong or just plain quirky. We build an empire on that attitude..."

Yes, so did Germany during world war 2.

"ie public school traditions"

What public school traditions are you talking about? The only ones I can think of are fagging and flogging.

Karma is completely right in what she says - teachers aren't always right and you should never just blindly follow anyone.

If you are going to disagree with someone you pick your time and place.

You don't do it to a relatively vulnerable child on a school residential.

Sometimes, you just have to give in an go along with the other person. Remember, the teachers are giving up their personal time for the sake of your child, so you should do what it takes to make their lives easier. A lot of ishoos with mobile phones and cameras occurs in the evenings when teachers would normally be at home relaxing with a glass of wine. Instead, they are sorting out spats.

We are all bothered by different things, so will pick time and place accordingly. So far as I can see it is the HT who has sidelined an already vulnerable child.
Teachers do give up their time to go on trips, but lots of people work outside their 'normal' hours. My DH isn't home from work yet and often has to go away. It's part of the job. Maybe things have changed since I was working,but I do remember teachers who regularly took on extra responsibilities got additional pay points.

I don't think you get paid more for doing residentials. There is no amount of pay that can compensate you for 3x your normal working hours.

It really is a priveledge for children to go on a residential, and it would be nice if all children and parents appreciated this.

Teachers don't get paid extra for going on residential trips, nor do they get time off in lieu.

Sorry, I posted too soon. Just wanted to add that I love taking children on residential trips, but the one thing that does make me sad is when parents can't see the bigger picture and remember that teachers are responsible for many pupils while they are away.
I know that often rules put in place for residential trips can seem petty (nearly typed potty by mistake then) but when you are dealing with a group of children they are really important