|
User loginNavigationThings you should KnowPollWho will win the State Senate race for District 12? (a premature and totally unscientific poll) Becky 59% Tom 5% Ken 27% Bruce 5% Somebody else 5% Total votes: 88 Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 3 guests online.
|
Roane County School Board Cell phone policySubmitted by WhitesCreek on April 23, 2008 - 7:02am.
A proposed School Board policy to ban cell phones in Roane County Schools and send repeat offenders to alternative schools was defeated. This seems like asking for a big sledge hammer to chase gnats with. When the RCHS had a bomb scare a few years back, the 9-11 co-ordinator incarcerated all the students in the Baptist Church and the school was surrounded by police officers. Parents were left totally in the dark, no information, no number to call, no idea where their children had been taken. Cell phones were banned at that time, only a few kids had them anyway. My child called me, told me where he was, and I went to pick him up. (As a side note, the 9-11 co-ordinator refused to allow children to be released to their own parents, which is another issue altogether.) There are all sorts of of contingencies where parents need to communicate with their kids, and while I understand school personnel need a consistant policy, banning cell phones altogether would be a poor choice, certain to irritate most parents. Schools are where we hope that our children will learn that the world is not black and white. That there are subtleties and shades and life's decisions must be made taking many things into account. Too bad that some folks continue to demonstrate that adults didn't study and learn all that much when they had the opportunity. In this day of the podcast and text message, it is time for schools to embrace this technology. Tyler Overstreet, one of the Board members who voted against bannishment, told me, "Technology isn't going away...We just need to learn to use it to benefit students and keep them in touch with their parents, not build another wall."
|
 Around Roane Brother WebsitesOther "Views":
• Blountviews • KnoxViews • TennViews • Whites Creek Journal Local: • Register to Vote by Mail • Roane Cnty Heritage Com. • Roane State • RoaneTNHistory.org • Tamke Allen Observatory Folks that Help: • Save Our Cumberland Mountains • Save Roane Starry Skies • West Roane Progressiveness: • All Hat No Cattle • Daily KOS • digby • Talking Points Memo Local News Media: • Roane County News • Today's Local Weather Local Government: • City of Harriman • City of Harriman Code • City of Kingston • City of Kingston Code • City of Oliver Springs • City of Oliver Springs Code • City of Rockwood • City of Rockwood Code • Roane County • Roane Schools • SchoolBoardMember Blog • State Rep. Dennis Ferguson • State Senator Tommy Kilby • U. S. Congressman Lincoln Davis Candidates: • Becky Ruppe • Lincoln Davis for Congress • The Donkey's Mouth • TN Democratic Party Upcoming events
|
I beg to differ w/ your post. Parents were not left in the dark re: the bomb scare at RCHS. I first went to RCHS and was told the students were bussed to First Baptist. Upon arrival there were many conceerned parents and upon showing my I. D. I was allowed to take my child. Many other parents took their child rather than bussing them back to the school.( They couldn't allow all that cafteria food go to waste)Where did you get your info?
Before cell phones became so prevalent in the schools an Oliver Springs teacher prepared and made an excellent presentation at a school board meeting. Mr. Overstreet discredited her presentation and stated that his child would not give up her cell
phone .Technology is not going away! And students continue to put their phone under the desk and "text message away" The ones that get caught give up their phone and the parents have to go to school and pick it up. Why put this job on the staff when the board could have
canvassed the staff before making the decision. I do remember when Tyler was in high school and things sure are differnt today. I suggest board members visit more often in the schools and not just during an election year
Mrs. Day took her personal time to share her experiences and provide her suggestions. She is a highly thought of teacher and an excellent teacher. She is respected by everyone I know as someone who always gives 100%. I hope she took my comments in the spirit of debating the pros & cons of the issue. If not, I am sorry and meant no offense to her.
I just see this issue differently and acted accordingly. I had to do what I felt was best for all concerned. That must include parents and students too.
On a funny note, I'm in the schools quite frequently and I bet some administrators wish it were only around election time when I visited their school. Factually, all Kingston BOE members are actively involved in visiting our schools. We also have good relationships with school staff as they are comfortable speaking with us about various issues. I welcome the opportunity to speak with anyone about school concerns. I am of the opinion each BOE member feels the same about hearing from anyone with a concern or comment.
TylerOverstreet@comcast.net
"When the RCHS had a bomb scare a few years back, the 9-11 co-ordinator incarcerated all the students in the Baptist Church and the school was surrounded by police officers."
Mis-statement of fact. The 9-11 coordinator (actually, Director) has no authority to incarcerate anyone anywhere, did not incarcerate anyone anywhere, and his/her job is to manage the E911 center, its functions, and employees. The person currently holding that position is Mike Hooks. If any decision was made to move children and hold them in a single location (called shelter in place), it would have been made by the local police authorities in conjunction with school authorities.
With a bomb threat, the primary job - absolute first priority - is NOT running down parents and letting them know what is going on. The absolute first priority is physical safety of the children, and if that means moving them away from the location of the threat so quickly that the parents don't know, for a while, exactly where they are, then that's the way it is. Better to thank them for being alive at a remote location and have parents wonder where they are for a bit than having them blown to bits because "we dare not move them before we communicate with parents as to where we might take them." Note I'm NOT saying that is what WC meant at all - I don't want to put words into his keyboard. What I'm saying is that THAT is the priority over and above communicating with the parents.
I'm obviously not sure of the situation with WC's own child, but I do know that children WERE released to their parents, as my child was one of them.
I absolutely agree with WC than a total ban on cell phones is not only unfeasible, it is very unwise. Numerous very unpleasant incidents at schools all over the country have shown us that, whether educators like it or not, it can be beneficial to the point of being life saving for kids to have the ability to use cell phones in an emergency.
This is a situation where the educators, parents, and students must come to an understanding and a policy that accommodates the needs of all 3 groups.
RB
Whites Creek comment "A proposed School Board policy to ban cell phones in Roane County Schools and send repeat offenders to alternative schools was defeated." is not correct.
There was nothing in the proposed policy change that mentioned a ban of cell phones. Suspension from school for repeat offenses is in the current policy as well as the proposed policy.
The proposed changes in the old policy and the revised policy were mainly the penalty for cell phone use in school. My reason for voting against the changes were minor. I wanted more parental involvement/responsibility when a student's phone was forfeited.
The journey of a policy change is this: Policy committee, made up a various school personnel, debates and makes suggested changes. Once changes are made the policy is sent to the Board for approval. It generally takes two months to approve a policy. The first month is 1st reading and the next month is the 2nd reading. The 1st and 2nd reading prevent a policy change being done on a knee jerk reaction by the Board.
In the cell phone policy, this was the first reading. It is not uncommon at all for a first reading of a policy to be sent back for tweaking by the policy committee.
I think (my opinion) is that we're only down to word-smithing on the policy. I think there is general agreement on the Board (again my opinion) that the current policy needs some more teeth in it. There is plenty of time to adopt a revised policy before the next school year.
Current policy can be found here
I can see why that policy needs to be changed. It's clear as mud and doesn't even consist of complete sentences in places. (Mike Suits would give it a D- ;>)
So what are you trying to ban?...All use of cell phones on school property? Why not just say "There is to be no use of cell phones during class, unless specifically directed by a school official" and be done with it?
Earl, how about clearing up what the new proposal actually does. I was not at the meeting and am going by what I'm told. Why not post the proposal so that we can read it? (maybe it already is posted somewhere...If not, I would gladly host it here)
Alyssa, Tyler Overstreet and Earl Nall spend a ton of time in the schools no matter what year it is.
RB, I'm right and you're wrong on the "incarceration" thing. (Hooks was not in the job at that point in time, as I recall)
Several of us were asking for our children and were refused, much to our astonishment. We were forced to wait until they were released from "custody" even though they were waving at us. I was personally and specifically told that the 9-11 coord had not "authorized their release." Let's not let this side issue confuse the main point of this thread, but I believe Dr. McGriff told the 9-11 coordinator that parents could take custody of their children any time they want to, and I don't expect a repeat of that occurrence so it's a non-issue at this point.
That notwithstanding, NO 911 Director has the authority to hold anybody anywhere. The person in that position simply cannot make that decision, and that hasn't changed since Mike Hooks took the job. However, Hooks HAS been on the job since WELL before the advent of Dr McGriff.
I'm certainly not saying in any way that you are not telling the truth. What I am saying is that whatever or whoever caused you to believe that ANY 911 Director in Roane County decided on holding, incarcerating or otherwise regulating the location and disposition of school children, that is inaccurate. The 911 Director is in charge of the emergency communications district and nothing more (as if that's not a lot). That person does not decide on what to do with or where to take school children evacuated persuant to a bomb threat.
RB
I asked for my child that day and was refused. I'm trying my best not to name the name of the person who said not to turn over the kids to their parents because it's in the past, has been corrected, and will not happen again. It was not Hooks.
Whether this person had the authority or not (they didn't then, and don't now, and I pointd that out but still had to tell my kid, who was only a few yards away from me that he would have to sit tight for a bit), It doesn't matter if people follow their directive, which they did. It took an hour or so to get it straightened out.
I don't blame you, and I do agree with your not wanting to talk about the name in these public pages, since it is, as you note, in the past and corrected. If this took place while Dr McGriff has been here, Hooks has been the 911 Director for several years longer than that, so, as you say, it wasn't him.
RB
Here you go ... proposed changes to policy 3.21
Terminology added:
Possession of a cell phone or pager while on school property during the regular school day is a privilege, not a right. Students and parents may want or need to be in contact before or after the school day and the ability to have a cell phone available is a privilege that should be guarded by adhering to the rules for possession
…
It shall be the responsibility of each principal to designate their regular school day according to the needs of their school.
It is the responsibility of each student to handle his/her cell phone properly. Allowing another student to use the phone may result in the consequences being applied to both students.
…
Changes to discipline:
First offense: The item will be forfeited to the administration for a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours. The item will only be returned to the parent/guardian at the end of the day of the forfeiture period. (it is here I wanted to add that a parent/guardian sign a paper stating they are aware what would happen on the second and/or third offense – some schools already do this, but I wanted it in the policy)
Second offense: The item will be forfeited to the administration for a minimum of three (3) calendar months. The item will only be returned to the parent/guardian at the end of the day of the forfeiture period.
Third offense: The student is suspended from school for a minimum of three (3) days and the communication device is forfeited to administration for one (1) calendar year. The item will only be returned to the parent/guardian at the end of the day of the forfeiture period.
But I disagree with the first premise, right off the bat, and there is no real point in the Board stating such a thing. Why put yourselves in an adversarial position to start with?
All you have to do is state when a student CAN use a cell phone, and when they CAN'T. What's wrong with them using them at their breaks, between, classes, at lunch, etc.
The inconsistency of allowing each principal to declare when their school day begins and ends means that you will treat students differently, and I don't think you can really do that.
Keep it simple and stay out of trouble, Earl.
And how about running this by an English teacher?
We must have policies. Policies drive how school business is conducted. I am of the opinion we can be too policy-heavy. The proposed cell phone policy is an excellent example.
(BTW, I appreciate the kinds words read on a couple of threads here.)
The consequences proposed by our policy committee, of which I am a participate, are consequences I simply cannot support. They are excessive, almost impossible to enforce, and ripe with problems worse than what it allegedly addresses -- the dreaded cell phone as a disruption device. I think everyone is stuck, momentarily, in the Twilight Zone on this issue. Although all involved have the best of intentions, I see those well meaning intentions as ill conceived and very short sighted. However, I was in the minority on the policy committee vote count but I'm above board in expressing my views of this cell phone policy proposal. Therefore, I cannot vote to support the proposed policy when it hits the BOE table on May 15 for what will likely be a first and second reading at the same time!
I've been told it's more harmful to allow the other students to be disrupted by a few violators. That said, I still cannot support sending a student to MEC over a cell phone violation or holding it for 90 days to one full year. Sending a child to MEC over a cell phone violation is counterproductive to the educational process. Holding people’s personal property isn’t what I want to see our schools do.
I may come back later and elaborate. This shouldn’t even be an issue!
Both gentlemen make straightforward and honest statements, and provide us with information that is needed. That, to me, is the kind of school board members we need, whether I always happen to agree with every detail of a given position or not.
On the other thread, about whether or not cell phones should be allowed, a very eloquent statement was made about the negative potential for sending folks to Midtown for so-called "in-school suspension" for cell phone infractions. I think some very valid points were made about removing students from the education process in doing this. I'd like to see someone support the notion that in-school suspension at Midtown provides the same level of education process as being in the appropriate school and class at the student's home school. I'm very skeptical of this idea.
That being said, I'd like to see the school try to keep a phone I own and paid for out of my possession for 90 days to a full year. It may not be in my child's hand - i.e. the student's hand - but I can put good money on the fact that the school system will not take over ownership of MY cell phone without also taking over the bill for same phone. I don't think they want to get into the legal issues of what is, in effect, larceny of a cell phone by depriving the legal owner of possession and control without due process of law. And that's the kind of legal issue they'd have on their hands if it were attempted with my child. Having made my rant on the foolish idea of the school trying to enforce such a ludicrous policy, I do think reasonable policies can be made.
I agree with Tyler in that sending one to MEC is counterproductive to the educational process. To go further with that line of thought, it is making much more of a mountain out of a mole hill. Good grief! Do we send 'em to MEC for passing a note or talking to their neighbor? The person who posted in the other thread on this subject really addressed the issues well. We are magnifying this into something bigger than what it is. Good teachers have been dealing with disruptions in their classrooms for a long, long time. This is no more than electronic note-passing.
What the board needs to do is to seek out the teachers that do not have a serious problem with this and find out how they effectively handle it. Then create a policy the emulates those successful behaviors and empower the rest of the teachers in the system to go and do likewise. I am still not convinced it has to be a big, weighty and wordy policy (it should be unlike my posting :-> ) with lots and lots of detail and complexity. It should be easily read and understood by teacher, parent, and student alike. Leave out the lawyerly talk for such a policy and save it for things that require lawyerly talk (some actually do). And one thing that absolutely needs to be GONE is any ambiguity of policy that allows principals to develop their own indisyncratic or inconsistent policy and practice. This has been evidenced by what has been done recently at RCHS and is both totally avoidable and totally overboard.
Drop the magnifying glass and do what the kids are taught in math to do: reduce to loweest common denominators and simplify the fraction.
RB
RB, you make a good point about the cell phone bill. I'm curious about that situation though. If your car is impounded, you have to keep paying the monthlies, but that is an act of civil code...The Board thinks they are on solid legal ground but I'm not so sure about that.
At any rate, why the heck are they willing to do something that will have parents in an uproar in an election year? Is it because only four of them face opposition?
"This has been evidenced by what has been done recently at RCHS and is both totally avoidable and totally overboard."
The Principal at RCHS, Mr Dill, has - or perhaps had - a ridiculous cell phone policy. It prohibited teachers as well as students from using their cell phones even after school, say at extracurricular activities, club meetings, functions in the stadium, etc. Come on - that is asinine! That's intrusive, overbearing, unreasonable, and serves NO purpose other than the exercise of control and power that hasn't one whit to do with insuring a good education! And it wasn't consistent with rules made across the entire system. It happened at RCHS -not everywhere. One person on 3rd time of being caught with cell phone - or perhaps abusing cell phone - is sent to MEP for 3 days, another person, same offense gets 2 days. Again - inconsistency based on no more than the idiosyncratic and autocratic behavior of one principal. Yet apparently this was allowable within the constraints of board policy and hence was supported (in error, methinks) by the school board (or most of them). Altogether unacceptable, IMHO. Not only was the policy bad, but is a type of behavior that should be expressly prohibited by board policy.
"you make a good point about the cell phone bill. I'm curious about that situation though. If your car is impounded, you have to keep paying the monthlies, but that is an act of civil code...The Board thinks they are on solid legal ground but I'm not so sure about that."
When a car is impounded it is done by the authority of a law that allows one's property to be taken without permission, based on some sort of violation. Impounding of cars takes place based on statutes that delineate the exact reasons why and how a car may be impounded and they apply across the board. I'd like to see a statute that does the same, giving a school system power to confiscate property of others based on capricious, autocratic policies that haven't been enacted by any authority other than some individual who decides to do it simply because it isn't prohibited by school board policy. A car impounded is impounded because of a violation of law rather than policy. Even if it is only a parking violation, there is a law on the books that says something to the effect that when a given car is parked in a particularly egregious place, or when it has so many unpaid violations against it, it may be impounded. But possession and use of a cell phone is not a violation of law. Do you think the school could impound a car a parent owned and not return it to the parent for 90 days to a year because it violated school policy and was parked in a place where it was not allowed? Not hardly! Even if the student who parked it in the wrong place was prohibited from bringing a car on campus, the school couldn't keep the vehicle in its custody and not return it to the owner. They may THINK they're on solid legal ground, but are they willing to go to the expense to risk finding out for nothing more than a cell phone? Not if their IQ is higher than 14. I really doubt the legality of such a policy.
Yet, even if it were legal, that still would not make it a wise policy, nor would it make it one that is in the best interest of fostering a high quality educational process.
"At any rate, why the heck are they willing to do something that will have parents in an uproar in an election year? Is it because only four of them face opposition?"
I really don't think that's it. I think their intentions are good and honest. The ones I know well as human beings don't do things for political popularity, anyway. Good people can make bad policy. I think it's an issue of being caught up in a tempest in a teapot. It will take stepping back, reading some of the good suggestions found in this forum, and making a wise decision to forgo the opportunity to continue stirring a tempest in a teapot.
RB
Could the person who quoted that have got the 911 director confused with the Emergency Management Director? I don't know, just wondering if the person saying it could have been confused with the titles.
Well, Duh!
;>)
You could be correct in that I could be confused as to the title, but I'm not confused in saying it wasn't Mike.
A similar event has occurred recently and there was absolutely no problem with him calling me and no problem picking him up, so this part of the discussion is moot. People mess up, and people learn...Including me.
Wasn't trying to say you were naming Hooks.
I just thought that in the confusion of the situation, that the wrong entity (911 versus Emergency Management) may have been named.
Just trying to figure it out since Mike Hooks has been the 911 director for at least the last 7 or 8 years. Before that, Bill Taylor was the director.
Cell phones at school (and also in church). Simple solution that will appease parents: Allow phones but they must be placed on the teachers desk to be picked up after each class. How much more simple can that be?
And it would work.
It works in many classes and schools around the nation. Some teachers use baskets to collect the phones, others go as far as to answer the ringing/texting phones and explain they are in class learning and studying, often speaking to an enabling parent. Most teachers have found these approaches are solid solutions and problem cell phone usage can be effectively curtailed. Rarely do the issues continue once common-sense is incorporated into the mix. Surely, our teachers can manage these concerns and disruptions if given the authority and support to be the professionals we hired as teachers. Actually, I very well know they can as I have spoke with several who simply do not have these distractions because they set limits and engage the student and everyone understands the classroom expectations.
Here are progressive approaches to using these communication devices in a positive manner: Link...
It's a big file and takes more time to load than you might expect. It's a fairly lengthy video feed too. But, IMO, it should be required viewing if you are a teacher invested in children growing into successfully functioning adults that will someday take on leadership roles in our community. Which leaves me wondering if we are currently setting the example or teaching them how to mismanage the most simplest of issues.
Here's a short video: Link...
The way to handle this is to find out how the teachers who do not have this problem handle it, and make THAT process the policy of the system. I'll take a look at the file and the video. Thanks for the resources.
RB