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.

[scurryfunge]

Mobile phones are a pain on school trips....surely there is another purpose to the trip other than listening to music.

Every child would assume that it was a working phone and wonder why they could not bring theirs. It doesn't stop those sneaking in phones and saying "oh, I only listen to music on it2.

Much more sensible of the head to ban them all.

[MmeLindt]

When did you send the email, and did she not reply to your email? How long did she have time to reply to your email before the school trip?

[compo]

I think you made a massive thing of a non problem and caused your dd upset tbh
she could have listened to music with a friend on thuer iPod - 1 ear plug in each of their ears, that's what we always did as kids
and asked for copies of photos from friends

[saintlydamemrsturnip]

Given that you explained I think she was being unreasonable. But I doubt you will get anywhere demanding an apology. I think you will just have to let it lie, frustrating though it is.

[mayorquimby]

YABU
She told you she wasn't allowed bring it, you decided her authority was not valid and sent your daughter with it anyway knowing that the teacher had already said it was not allowed?
What did you expect to happen?Of course she was going to confiscate it.

[PuppyMonkey]

If they'd told me kids couldn't take mobile phones, i wouldn't have sent her with one tbh. You took the risk and it didn't work out.

Mind I definitely wouldn't have let mine take an iPod or etc. School trips are for adventures and stuff, not sitting with gadgets. The head will probably just agree it was all a bit of a mix up and say no one can take anything like that next time.

No harm done, no-one died anyway. Eh?

[muddleduck]

it was a bit daft of you to effectively overrule the head and let your dd take her 'phone'.

You can't just expect to inform someone that they have made the wrong decision and then assume that they will change their mind.

That said, it is obvious that the head could have done a better job of explaining her decision.

[PfftTheMagicDragon]

This is quite a mountain!

Not all children will have mp3 players nor cameras. Most, yes, but not all. You should have left the phone at home.

[MrsBadger]

yabu
you asked the head
they said no
you sent it anyway

what did you expect to happen?

[MummyDoIt]

The difficulty is that other children would not be aware that your DD's mobile could not be used to make calls. They would assume it could and that would have caused bad feeling if they weren't allowed to take theirs. So I'm afraid YABU.

However, I think it's ridiculous to allow children to take expensive items like iPods on school trips so I think the head is BU for allowing that in the first place.

[Jenbot]

You put the head in an impossible position though, because she had decided no when you asked, and you had then said "well I'm sending it anyway". She probably felt that she couldn't back down, for fear of being seen as lacking in authority.
I can see that other kids would have been saying it was unfair too.

Yes, I do think her original decision was a bit unfair to your DD. But... I suppose when they're at school you have to accept school is in charge, and you have to stick to the school rules!

[maryqueenofyachts]

I think mostly YANBU, with a bit of YABU. The head could at least have replied to your points, which are totally logical, and explained her decision in a more sensitive way. Since it was banned, though, I don't think you really have the right to kick up a huge fuss that it was confiscated, as the headteacher has to be consistent.

[Yorkshiremix]

In response so far... My dd has been bullied a lot in this final year, even on the trip, the girls she shared a chalet with, threw her case outside and threw a bag full of her clothes into the bin, so sharing their ipods wouldn't have worked, this was also suggested by the head, even though she knows about the bullying.

As for other children wanting to take their phones too, the conversations and emails between me an the head, took place only a couple of days before the trip so there would have been no other children knowing she was taking hers, therefore no one else trying to take theirs. It would have taken one word from the head to say to any kid that asked, that this was brought because she didn't have a camera and that the phone didn't work.

The truth is that it was taken from her at breakfast and up to then, other kids had seen it and NO ONE was bothered by it, except the head.

[hocuspontas]

Sorry - HT said no. Your dd was upset because you had overruled the HT and she was found out. Whatever you say, the phone is a working phone - it even has a sim in it! To you this is unfair because she doesn't have a camera and I can see that. But everyone else, parents and children alike, will see it as one rule for you one rule for others.

[swanandduck]

I agree the headteacher could have been a bit more communicative. But all the same, you ignored her instruction and she was entitled to confiscate the phone. I think your daughter has learned a lesson the hard way here, but it won't kill her. Pursuing this will just get you a name for being a nuisance. Save it for when something important, where you really need to be persistent, happens.

[hocuspontas]

I would be more annoyed about the children she was sharing with. They knew your dd was being bullied by these girls and they still put them in a chalet together?

[swanandduck]

Just seen your last post. I think the bullying is what you should be pursuing, not the minor matter of the phone.

[HecateQueenOfWitches]

I think the head was really mean. You could have shown her the phone, she could have seen it wasn't working. She could have had a bit of sympathy.

But she didn't.

And you effectively said to her - what you say doesn't matter. Your rules do not matter. I will teach my daughter that she does not have to listen to you. You will be ignored.

And it is probably for that reason that she confescated it. It was probably more to teach you than to teach your daughter.

I'm not saying that was right and just of her, but it seems to me a very human reaction to being so totally undermined.

Too late now of course, but you would have been better trying to get her on side. Laying it all out, saying how you felt so sad that your daughter would stand out, was there anything she could possibly suggest etc.

But at the end of the day, you should have accepted her decision. Because how did you think that was going to end? She said no, she sees the phone, she does nothing? Really?

[HecateQueenOfWitches]

x-post - how awful that your daughter was made to stay in a chalet with people who bully her!

I really think that you should forget about this phone thing and go after them about the bullying!

Not that you can't do both, of course But I think you should pick your battles wisely.

[AMumInScotland]

YABU - you can't demand an apology for the head-teacher confiscating something which she had clearly explained was banned. The rule was clear and simple, and had been re-iterated to you personally when you asked. You decided to break that rule by sending it anyway, and the teacher took the obvious action.

If the other children saw her with a mobile phone, they would be complaining to their parents now and the teacher would have 20 complaints about why one child had been allowed a mobile when theirs wasn't.

I'll agree the rule was badly thought out, but it was still a rule and you broke it.

[JenaiMarrHePlaysGuitar]

I think the head was thoroughly unreasonable in not allowing your dd to take a defunct phone tbh. And I don't believe that the other DCs and their parents couldn't have understood that it was not being used as a phone.

OTOH having refused permission (even though the head was in the wrong, imo), you really ought to have heeded the ban.

Thankfully though you're almost at the end of term (and primary school), so you'll have to let it go (having brought your disquiet to the head's attention, for future trips).

Hopefully some other DCs will be able to collate some of their photos and share them with your dd.

[claig]

YABU. MummyDoIt and AMumInScotland are right, the head can't make an exception for your daughter otherwise all the other children will start claiming that their mobile phones can't make calls even when it is not the case. Allowing your daughter's mobile would create a precedent, so the head had no way out.

[Finn15]

I think it's a shame that the Head was so rigid but I sense more than a bit of a victim mentality in your head which is letting you down.
You might feel that your daughter is not as privileged as some of the other children on the trip but did every single other child have a camera and/or ipod with them? I bet they didn't, and I bet there were other kids who have mobile phones that double up as cameras and mp3 players who weren't able to take them and therefore didn't have anything like that either.

The main focus of your post seems to be how skint you are but that really has no bearing at all on what's happened here.

Your daughter would have been a hell of a lot less upset if you hadn't flouted the rules and enabled the head to make an example of her.

[Yorkshiremix]

Actually we live in a well off area and if I do have a bit of victim mentaliity it is because my daughter has often been picked on by the other kids for being less well off and actually EVERY other kid DID have a camera. My point to the head was that we couldn't just afford to go out and buy even a disposable and get it developed too.

[ThatVikRinA22]

funny how different schools have different priorities though - my dd is in yr 8 and has just had a 3 day residential - they were allowed phones (provided they did not bother the teachers if they got lost - it was their look out basically) but they were not allowed to take MP3s or cameras.

under the circumstances im afraid YABU. you over ruled the HT, the other kids seeing your DD with a mobile wouldnt have made the distinction between it being a phone or an MP3. you broke the rules. i dont see how you can demand an apology in the circumstances. sorry.