Comments: students with cell phones is discouraged is the arbitrariness of the school management-school, student-IT information

Relative to the students of the school, living in the absolute superiority and strong position, when the students are denied the right to education, to stand the test of the law, must pass the educational conscience torment.

In early March this year, 12 high school students in Cangzhou in Hebei province, carrying or using cell phones have been discouraged , then caused heated debate. In this regard, Cangzhou City Bureau of education officials confirmed that no return after 12 students are discouraged, the EDB has been involved in the investigation. Micro letter public in Cangzhou, recently said in a statement, maintain the 12 students from a disciplinary decision: "the serious implementation of the rules, embodies the school most of the students are responsible for taking on. ”

Schools have persuaded or expel the student′s powers? Have. But that is, in extreme cases, such as intense, breach or constitute a crime of violence, and so on. Students just for carrying a mobile phone was to restrain him, obviously too simple and crude. Education student′s legal rights will be closed, and discouraging or expel such students are denied the right to education Act need to be wary of, should also be tightly constrained. Because of this, Hebei province, came into operation on September 1, 2014, the average high school student management procedures implementing rules (draft) article 38th, kicked out expelled dispose of, in addition to programs such as approved by the University Council meeting for discussion and adoption, head outside, it should be reported to the higher education authority. This is to protect students ′ right to education, is also in line with the spirit and provisions of the Education Act should move.

Students violating school discipline, education, communication with parents and common correction, etc, are appropriate practices to help students correct their mistakes. If it is not extremism, students cannot be denied their right to education, the so-called "serious implementation of rules", not a reason for discouraging students. What′s more, where law students with cell phones should drop out? The local rules of the school, of course, can be understood as a serious discipline, regulate student behavior, but these local rules have to be respected and even feared students ′ right to education on the basis of, and should not be for the convenience of the school management.

Judging from the present report, parents are far more abundant now than the schools of rhetoric, and several students ′ phone use has a chance. School if wants to law according to acting convincing, on should in three a aspects difference: first, proved himself of behavior is legal of, and just meet rules, rules cannot is greater than law; second, proved in this problem Shang on this 12 name students does do has education obligations, but students strongly refuses to management; third, and parents communication zhihou, parents no do or gave up education children of obligations.

Of course, do this and also stated that full respect for the right to education for students of the school, does not mean that school students are denied the right to education. Because the 42nd of the Education Act provides that "persons enjoy the right to receive education", which includes "not satisfied with the punishment imposed by the school complained to the authorities, to violate their personal rights, property rights and other legitimate rights and interests of schools, teachers, to lodge a complaint or lawsuit in accordance with law." In other words, the superior administrative body or court can still be corrected, such as schools.

Relative to the students of the school, living in the absolute superiority and strong position, when the students are denied the right to education, to stand the test of the law, must pass the educational conscience torment. Education is endless work, expansion space is very large, for example, against the same student, education an education ten times, can be said to do education obligations again, regardless of the harsh education, or gentle education, also counts as fulfilling educational duties. Therefore, schools to leave or expelled students the ultimate practice of this denial of the right to education, to be legitimate, but also extremely cautious, not only as an example of management thinking and management style.

评论：学生带手机被劝退是学校管理蛮横 - 学校,学生 - IT资讯

学校相对于学生，居于绝对的优势和强势地位，在剥夺学生的受教育权利时，要经得起法律考验，也要经得起教育良心的拷问。

今年3月初，河北省沧州一中12名高中生因在校携带或使用手机陆续被劝退，随后引起热议。对此，沧州市教育局相关负责人证实，这12名学生被劝退后暂未返校，教育局已介入调查。沧州一中微信公号近日发布声明称，维持对12名违纪学生的处理决定：“严肃执行校规，体现了学校为大多数学生负责的担当。”

学校有没有劝退或开除学生的权力？有。但那是在非常极端的情况下，比如激烈的暴力行为、违法或构成犯罪，等等。学生只是因为携带手机就被劝退，显然过于简单粗暴。受教育是学生的法定权利，停课、劝退或开除这类剥夺学生受教育权利的行为需要慎之又慎，也应该受到严格约束。正因为如此，于2014年9月1日开始实施的《河北省普通高中学生学籍管理办法实施细则（试行）》第三十八条规定，给予勒令退学、开除学籍处分的，除经校务会议讨论通过、校长批准等程序外，还须报上级教育主管部门批准。这是对学生受教育权利的保护，也是符合《教育法》精神与规定的应有之举。

学生违反校规校纪，批评教育、与家长沟通共同矫正，等等，都是帮助学生改正错误行为的恰当做法。如果不是极端行为，不能剥夺学生的受教育权，所谓的“严肃执行校规”，并不是劝退学生的理由。何况，哪条法律规定了学生带手机就应该退学？学校的土政策，当然可以理解为严肃学校纪律，规范学生行为，但这些土政策必须是在尊重乃至敬畏学生受教育权利的基础上，而不应该是为了方便学校管理。

从目前的报道来看，家长反映的情况远比学校的说辞丰富，并且好几名学生的使用手机行为具有偶然性。学校若想依法依理服人，就应该在三个方面有所作为：第一，证明自己的行为是合法的，而不仅仅是符合校规，校规不能大于国法；第二，证明在这个问题上对这12名学生确实尽到了教育义务，但学生坚决不服管理；第三，与家长沟通之后，家长没有尽到或放弃教育孩子的义务。

当然，做到这几点，也只表明学校充分尊重了学生的受教育权利，并不意味着学校可以剥夺学生的受教育权利。因为，《教育法》第四十二条规定的“受教育者享有下列权利”，其中就包括“对学校给予的处分不服向有关部门提出申诉，对学校、教师侵犯其人身权、财产权等合法权益，提出申诉或者依法提起诉讼”。也就是说，上级行政机构或法院等依然可以纠正学校行为。

学校相对于学生，居于绝对的优势和强势地位，在剥夺学生的受教育权利时，要经得起法律考验，也要经得起教育良心的拷问。教育是个无止境的工作，伸缩的空间很大，比如，针对同一个学生，教育一次还是教育十次，都可以说尽到了教育义务；再如，不论声色俱厉的教育，还是和风细雨的教育，也都可算是尽到了教育职责。因此，学校劝退或开除学生这种剥夺受教育者权利的终极做法，要合法合理，更要极为谨慎，不能仅仅作为杀一儆百的管理思维与管理方式。