AIBU to ask if school can go through my son's phone?

[ejk10]

This hasn't happened to my son yet -but he thinks it might, and happened to some of his friends today.

Apparently a child has made a statement which the school is investigating (none of the boys have been told what the complaint is) and a teacher demanded to look through this boy's phone and deleted some information. My son has not been questioned but is friends with those who have been and is wondering if the school would ask to look at his phone.

I'm not sure of the legalities of this. Part of me thinks if he has nothing wrong why worry if they look - another part of me thinks it is a huge invasion of privacy. My son assures me he has done nothing wrong - regardless of whether he has or not I'm questioning if they have the right to look through private data.

Can anyone shed any light?

The school can confiscate the phone, however they cannot delete anything in the phone, not without a court order.

and deleting it would be a bit pointless, more so if it’s been save to the cloud.

They can act in accordance with the guidelines above.

If it warrants the police then it warrants the police.

I find it odd that any parent would have an issue with a phone being searched if there's reasons to do so. Blanket refusal and harping on about rights and privacy tells teens that they are allowed to so what they like on their technological devices as long as they delete it before they hand it over.
Then again, I see these situations from the perspective of the victims rather than trying to ensure others have the opportunity to delete and deny their actions.

Haud

The statutory guidelines 9ie what schools must do0 is posted above.

To quote:
Where the person conducting the search finds an electronic device that is prohibited by the school rules or that they reasonably suspects has been, or is likely to be, used to commit an offence or cause personal injury or damage to property, they may examine any data or files on the device where there is a good reason to do so. They may also delete data or files if they think there is a good reason to do so, unless they are going to give the device to the police.

Could you explain why you think a court order is needed to do what is says in the statutory guidance schools may do?

If staff have good reason they can examine and delete files, as explained in the guidance.

Of course anything criminal would be up to the police to look into. Staff in school have zero interest (and zero time) in involving themselves with that.

“I find it odd that any parent would have an issue with a phone being searched if there's reasons to do so.”

It’s been explained to you. Schoolchildren are vulnerable people and teachers are not competent or trained in dealing with these matters. They cannot routinely be trusted to act appropriately in investigating the content of people’s phones.

Alleged victims rights are not a consideration in investigations. Because they are alleged victims at that point. Not victims. This is so basic and fundamental.

I’ve been a victim of crime. Electronic devices were used in evidence and soneonevwas convicted. I’m glad no amateur columbo got involved or the guy’s lawyer would have had a field day, if it ever mae it to court at all.

The school can confiscate the phone, however they cannot delete anything in the phone, not without a court order

See also 'schools must have parental consent for a detention', also not true.
To quote cauliflower:

1. Statutory guidance for dealing with electronic devices

• Where the person conducting the search finds an electronic device that is prohibited by the school rules or that they reasonably suspects has been, or is likely to be, used to commit an offence or cause personal injury or damage to property, they may examine any data or files on the device where there is a good reason to do so. They may also delete data or files if they think there is a good reason to do so, unless they are going to give the device to the police. This power applies to all schools and there is no need to have parental consent to search through a young person’s mobile phone if it has been seized in a lawful ‘without consent’ search and is prohibited by the school rules or is reasonably suspected of being, or being likely to be, used to commit an offence or cause personal injury or damage to property.

• The member of staff must have regard to the following guidance issued by the Secretary of State when determining what is a “good reason” for examining or erasing the contents of an electronic device:

• In determining a ‘good reason’ to examine or erase the data or files the staff member should reasonably suspect that the data or file on the device in question has been, or could be, used to cause harm, to disrupt teaching or break the school rules.

• If an electronic device that is prohibited by the school rules has been seized and the member of staff has reasonable grounds to suspect that it contains evidence in relation to an offence, they must give the device to the police as soon as it is reasonably practicable. Material on the device that is suspected to be evidence relevant to an offence, or that is a pornographic image of a child or an extreme pornographic image, should not be deleted prior to giving the device to the police.

4
• If a staff member does not find any material that they suspect is evidence in relation to an offence, and decides not to give the device to the police, they can decide whether it is appropriate to delete any files or data from the device or to retain the device as evidence of a breach of school discipline.
• All school staff should be aware that behaviours linked to sexting put a child in danger. Governing bodies should ensure sexting and the school’s approach to it is reflected in the child protection policy. The UK Council for Child Internet Safety

No court order needed.

But sure, let's tell kids they can harass vulnerable kids in their year and plaster photos of children who may be on the child protection register all over the place and nothing can be done because there's no court order.

It's what I said upthread, this 'but me and my supposed rights... no responsibilities, you can't do...' goes hand in hand with a minority of students thinking they are beyond basic rules.

Why any right-thinking parent would object to a school which followed due process in looking at their child's phone, I have absolutely no idea.

If there is nothing wrong on the phone, there is no problem with the school checking it. if there is something wrong on the phone - and the parent's own checks haven't discovered it - then for the protection of the child and of others, the school should be able to find and deal with it. What's the issue?

It’s been explained to you. Schoolchildren are vulnerable people and teachers are not competent or trained in dealing with these matters. They cannot routinely be trusted to act appropriately in investigating the content of people’s phones.
The law says otherwise.

Teachers do not conduct criminal investigations. Obviously that would be ridiculous (and it doesn't happen because we aren't in that job, but never mind)

Schools are allowed to search phones.
They are allowed to delete content.

Schoolchildren are vulnerable people and teachers are not competent or trained in dealing with these matters. They cannot routinely be trusted to act appropriately in investigating the content of people’s phones.

So you routinely consign your child, all day every day, to the care of people who you don't trust to look at what the child has on their phones??? Have you ANY idea of the type of confidential material that every single teacher in every school handles (appropriately) every day? And yet you are worried that they might look at your child's silly selfies??

Finally there are people who are reading and understanding quite plain English in the same way as me.

Oh dear! Statutory guidance is not law!

The stupid hurts.

Sorry Maisypops...

smile
I don't get it.
It's clear what schools are allowed to do.

People (staff and parents) are free to disagree with whether they should be able to, but it doesn't change what is allowed.

I don't agree with schools being able to do no notice detentions, but my opinion doesn't change the fact that legally they are allowed to.

So you will trust me to report safeguarding concerns, hear reports of abuse, watch out for female genital mutilation, decide when to refer for family help, deal with any and every family situation, but not scroll through the files on your child's phone to check for evidence of harm they are doing to others, or illegal or harmful material that may be being used to affect them?? Um...

“So you routinely consign your child, all day every day, to the care of people who you don't trust to look at what the child has on their phones??? Have you ANY idea of the type of confidential material that every single teacher in every school handles (appropriately) every day? And yet you are worried that they might look at your child's silly selfies??”

Correct. Any phone is my property and is given to safeguard my child. Teachers can get on with their own jobs. I don’t trust them to run amateur investigations or to intrude in the private lives of my children.

If they have a concern they can involve me and/or the police. That’s that.

“So you will trust me to report safeguarding concerns, hear reports of abuse, watch out for female genital mutilation, decide when to refer for family help, deal with any and every family situation, but not scroll through the files on your child's phone to check for evidence of harm they are doing to others, or illegal or harmful material that may be being used to affect them?? ”

Correct.

"Statutory guidance sets out what schools and local authorities must do to comply with the law. You should follow the guidance unless you have a very good reason not to.

There is some guidance that you must follow without exception. In these cases we make this clear in the guidance document itself."

[Quotation from the DfE website]

So while statutory guidance is not itself 'the letter of the law', if statutory guidance says 'schools may delete data or files', then that complies with the law.

I know, Maisy. It’s very clear.

Streetwise - safeguarding children is part of our job (for me a big part because I’m the dslo).

You have zero understanding of how difficult that is in the modern world.

“So while statutory guidance is not itself 'the letter of the law', if statutory guidance says 'schools may delete data or files', then that complies with the law.”

I wouldn’t if I was them. They would find themselves in real difficulty. Nobody said the law was fair.

Steetwise, so if your child tells me that they are the victim of cyberbullying, or upskirting, or attempted radicalisation, or recruitment to county Lines gangs, or reports that they have had photographs or videos of school friends shared with them that shouldn't be, or they have evidence on their phone of physical injuries from abuse that a friend has shared with them and that they are therefore concerned about their friend, then you are absolutely happy for me - or my head, or the designated safeguarding lead - to hear that verbally, but they must not, under any circumstances, be allowed to see the evidence on the phone because that is an invasion of privacy?

So a phone has an absolute law of privacy around it that only you or a member of the police can get past, whereas any and all other forms of communication - including speech, letters, e-mails etc - can be shared with me quite freely??

This is the proverbial playing chess with a pigeon.

Streetwise, then can you explain why the DfE has written it in their statutory guidance, and prefaced the statutory guidance with the above explanation of what statutory guidance is?

You can follow all the statutory guidance you like and still find yourself in legal difficulty. Following statutory guidance is not a defence in law, just as ignorance is not a defence.

You can be found in a civil court to have acted unreasonably in exercising powers such as the example given where the teacher deleted hundreds of personal images, or you can find yourself facing a criminal charge of obstructing justice, wasting police time or countless other charges.

There is also no aspect of criminal law or guidance which compels phones to be unlocked on demand. Even court orders can fail on appeal.

Best just to involve parents or the police. Isn’t it?

“Streetwise, then can you explain why the DfE has written it in their statutory guidance, and prefaced the statutory guidance with the above explanation of what statutory guidance is?”

I can’t speak for the DfE, no.