6 ms·

Shouldn't this be a matter for individual schools or school boards (the article says some already have this in place)? I like the policy, but as I get older, I

by latch 9y ago

Shouldn't this be a matter for individual schools or school boards (the article says some already have this in place)? I like the policy, but as I get older, I wonder why we have so many laws that control so much of what we can and can't do. I agree this one's pretty benign, but it still seems like an excess of authority. When I was in school, if I distracted another student or played on my calculator, I'd get in trouble. Despite the lack of law banning talking, the school wasn't impotent to enforce discipline.

dovdovdov 9y ago
Today teachers can get suspended if they even set an angry look on the pupils. I guess they hope people will abide the law at least. https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/1400/5ab76c44469257.581356eaa1698.png https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/1400/5ab76...
- eesmith 9y ago
  Neither of those are true, not in any systemic sense. Some old people love to grouse about how Things Were Better Then, and how Children Used To Respect Authority. It's been that way for millennia. You ever read Heinlein? Back in the 1950s, his "Have Spacesuit Will Travel" complained about how schools were too touchy-feely, intent more on having students feel good than providing a good education.
  - dazc 9y ago
    'Some old people love to grouse about how Things Were Better Then, and how Children Used To Respect Authority...' I don't know if things were better then but (as a kid in the 70's) we certainly respected authority because the threat of physical violence was a real one. I am not saying that was a good thing by the way, just explaining.
    - isostatic 9y ago
      As a kid in the 80s I didn't respect authority because I read Enid Blyton books (written in the 40s), who taught me that the local police were at best benign, but more likely incompetent.
      - dazc 9y ago
        '...the local police were at best benign, but more likely incompetent.' True, but it didn't matter because the worst thing that could happen to you as a child would to be kidnapped by smugglers, tied up and left in a cave to die. Thankfully though, it was OK for kids to carry knives back then so you could always escape and run away...
        jacquesm 9y ago
        Heh. You just made me realize that the pocket knife I used to carry would probably land me in jail today if I was ever frisked. And back then nobody cared at all.
    - watwut 9y ago
      Young people today commit less crime overall, less violent crime, get pregnant less often and take less drugs. So much for respect.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      I think you respected violence, not authority.
  - saint_fiasco 9y ago
    Was he right? Maybe school in the 50s was much more touchy-feely than in the 40s. After the Great Depression and a couple of World Wars, maybe there was a regression to the mean.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      Perhaps. But my argument concerned the cartoon, which compares 1969 schooling to now. Even if your argument were true, it would mean a flip-flop after only a decade. Remember, the 1950s and 1960s was the era of "Spock babies", that is, children raised by parents following the advice of Benjamin Spock. Quoting the Wikipedia article about his book: > By the late 1960s, Spock faced widespread criticism for condoning an overly permissive parenting style. Many commentators blamed Spock for helping to create the counterculture of the 1960s. Critics believed the current youth were rebellious and defiant in part because they had been brought up by Baby and Child Care. I argue that this is another example of why that cartoon doesn't give a good representation of school in 1969.
michaelgrafl 9y ago
I agree with you in general, but I guess it's a matter of pragmatism and establishing social norms. Here in Austria the newly elected right wing government is going to cancel plans of banning smoking completely in restaurants (up till now there was a solution that involved having a separate smoking area if your premises exceeded a certain dimension). I'm not for a smoking ban, because I think it's too much of an intrusion into personal live style choices. But most people I know see the overturn of the smoking ban as a big step backwards, and I've kind of softened my position, because the beneficial effects on general health would probably be significant and maybe society would profit so much from getting rid of smoking cigarettes as a pastime, that the intervention would be justified. Regarding your comment on the trouble you'd get in when breaking the rules as a young pupil: I think the authority of teachers (even here in Europe, but I could imagine even more so in the USA) has diminished a lot in recent years. I see this as problematic, but I think it's a good alternative to the disproportionally great authority that teachers used to have over their students just a few decades ago.
- saurik 9y ago
  As someone who grew up in the 80s near Chicago and then moved to California for the second half of my so-far life around 2000, and thereby had to spend an immense amount of time being looked at like I was insane when I went to a restaurant and automatically said "table for two, non-smoking"... no: you smoking in a restaurant is absolutely not a "personal lifestyle choice" :/ it is forcing everyone else in that restaurant--many (if not hopefully most) of whom might have been lucky or smart enough to never get addicted to cigarettes--to breathe the fumes from your cancer-causing death stick, and while you might think "if the restaurant is large enough you can pull this off", once you learn what it is like to eat in a restaurant that has neither people smoking immediately nor the lingering scents of smoke embedded in every porous surface of the entire building it is amazing how sickening it is to return to places that allow people to smoke in enclosed spaces. If you want to smoke as a "personal lifestyle choice" you should do it at home, where the only person you are killing is yourself.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    And we're all set to repeat that fight. A: Sir, you can't smoke in here. B: But I'm not smoking; this is a vaporizer. C: I smell butter. Does that fluid have diacetyl in it? I don't want popcorn lung. D: Propylene glycol asphyxiates sea life. E: I have a fragrance allergy. Is that eugenol? I feel my airway closing up.... B: But I have a nicotine addiction! A: Use gums or patches, or GTFO.
aluhut 9y ago
> I agree this one's pretty benign, but it still seems like an excess of authority. It seems like that because it should be common sense but it's not and therefore it needs to be enforced by law.
seszett 9y ago
> Shouldn't this be a matter for individual schools or school boards (the article says some already have this in place)? The policy for National Education in France is to have as little difference as possible between schools. Parents cannot readily choose the school their children go to, as well (unless they switch to a private school, but this is marginal, and it costs money) so it makes sense to have them all have the same rules. I see no reason for a school in one city to allow cell phones, while one in another city bans them. Children are the same humans with the same broad needs and behaviours in the whole country.
- latch 9y ago
  I see what you mean. I'm still curious why this has to be a law though? Aren't there a bunch of policies in schools that are enforced without the need for law? I didn't put this in my original comment, but I think what really got under my skin from the article was: "The minister said the ban was also a “public health message to families”, adding: “It’s good that children are not too often, or even at all, in front of a screen before the age of seven." Which takes it from "as little difference as possible between schools" to "we have an opinion about how you should raise your kids and we'll use laws to send that 'message'". Yes, there are already plenty of reasonable and good laws place limits and requirements on parents. This just seems way over the line.
  - opportune 9y ago
    Sure, there a few reasons to do it like this. First, my impression is that you still have the right to send your children to a private school where this won't be enforced. So it's not a law, it's a policy passed at the national level for the public schools, which are organized from the national level. Secondly, passing the law at the national level deals with the situation where a school gets "bullied" into not passing the policy to begin with. For example, parents might prioritize being able to coordinate pickups in real-time over their children's education (I'm not implying bad intent: they just might not recognize the negative impact of their children's mobile use during class time) and thus pressure a school to not ban mobile use during class time. Personally I think your own definitions of what are reasonable and what are not are skewed. You think it's over the line to claim that "children are not too often, or even at all, in front of a screen before the age of seven"??? What could a five or six year old possibly be doing on a smart phone aside from watching videos and playing games? Why do middle schoolers need access to their phones during lunch - what do they gain from it? I'm not French though, so someone will have to double check me on the claim that this is actually a national policy for public schools rather than an actual law.

by latch 9y ago

dovdovdov 9y ago

Today teachers can get suspended if they even set an angry look on the pupils. I guess they hope people will abide the law at least. https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/1400/5ab76c44469257.581356eaa1698.png https://mir-s3-cdn-cf.behance.net/project_modules/1400/5ab76...

eesmith 9y ago
Neither of those are true, not in any systemic sense. Some old people love to grouse about how Things Were Better Then, and how Children Used To Respect Authority. It's been that way for millennia. You ever read Heinlein? Back in the 1950s, his "Have Spacesuit Will Travel" complained about how schools were too touchy-feely, intent more on having students feel good than providing a good education.
- dazc 9y ago
  'Some old people love to grouse about how Things Were Better Then, and how Children Used To Respect Authority...' I don't know if things were better then but (as a kid in the 70's) we certainly respected authority because the threat of physical violence was a real one. I am not saying that was a good thing by the way, just explaining.
  - isostatic 9y ago
    As a kid in the 80s I didn't respect authority because I read Enid Blyton books (written in the 40s), who taught me that the local police were at best benign, but more likely incompetent.
    - dazc 9y ago
      '...the local police were at best benign, but more likely incompetent.' True, but it didn't matter because the worst thing that could happen to you as a child would to be kidnapped by smugglers, tied up and left in a cave to die. Thankfully though, it was OK for kids to carry knives back then so you could always escape and run away...
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        Heh. You just made me realize that the pocket knife I used to carry would probably land me in jail today if I was ever frisked. And back then nobody cared at all.
  - watwut 9y ago
    Young people today commit less crime overall, less violent crime, get pregnant less often and take less drugs. So much for respect.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    I think you respected violence, not authority.
- saint_fiasco 9y ago
  Was he right? Maybe school in the 50s was much more touchy-feely than in the 40s. After the Great Depression and a couple of World Wars, maybe there was a regression to the mean.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Perhaps. But my argument concerned the cartoon, which compares 1969 schooling to now. Even if your argument were true, it would mean a flip-flop after only a decade. Remember, the 1950s and 1960s was the era of "Spock babies", that is, children raised by parents following the advice of Benjamin Spock. Quoting the Wikipedia article about his book: > By the late 1960s, Spock faced widespread criticism for condoning an overly permissive parenting style. Many commentators blamed Spock for helping to create the counterculture of the 1960s. Critics believed the current youth were rebellious and defiant in part because they had been brought up by Baby and Child Care. I argue that this is another example of why that cartoon doesn't give a good representation of school in 1969.

michaelgrafl 9y ago

I agree with you in general, but I guess it's a matter of pragmatism and establishing social norms. Here in Austria the newly elected right wing government is going to cancel plans of banning smoking completely in restaurants (up till now there was a solution that involved having a separate smoking area if your premises exceeded a certain dimension). I'm not for a smoking ban, because I think it's too much of an intrusion into personal live style choices. But most people I know see the overturn of the smoking ban as a big step backwards, and I've kind of softened my position, because the beneficial effects on general health would probably be significant and maybe society would profit so much from getting rid of smoking cigarettes as a pastime, that the intervention would be justified. Regarding your comment on the trouble you'd get in when breaking the rules as a young pupil: I think the authority of teachers (even here in Europe, but I could imagine even more so in the USA) has diminished a lot in recent years. I see this as problematic, but I think it's a good alternative to the disproportionally great authority that teachers used to have over their students just a few decades ago.

saurik 9y ago
As someone who grew up in the 80s near Chicago and then moved to California for the second half of my so-far life around 2000, and thereby had to spend an immense amount of time being looked at like I was insane when I went to a restaurant and automatically said "table for two, non-smoking"... no: you smoking in a restaurant is absolutely not a "personal lifestyle choice" :/ it is forcing everyone else in that restaurant--many (if not hopefully most) of whom might have been lucky or smart enough to never get addicted to cigarettes--to breathe the fumes from your cancer-causing death stick, and while you might think "if the restaurant is large enough you can pull this off", once you learn what it is like to eat in a restaurant that has neither people smoking immediately nor the lingering scents of smoke embedded in every porous surface of the entire building it is amazing how sickening it is to return to places that allow people to smoke in enclosed spaces. If you want to smoke as a "personal lifestyle choice" you should do it at home, where the only person you are killing is yourself.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  And we're all set to repeat that fight. A: Sir, you can't smoke in here. B: But I'm not smoking; this is a vaporizer. C: I smell butter. Does that fluid have diacetyl in it? I don't want popcorn lung. D: Propylene glycol asphyxiates sea life. E: I have a fragrance allergy. Is that eugenol? I feel my airway closing up.... B: But I have a nicotine addiction! A: Use gums or patches, or GTFO.

aluhut 9y ago

> I agree this one's pretty benign, but it still seems like an excess of authority. It seems like that because it should be common sense but it's not and therefore it needs to be enforced by law.

seszett 9y ago

> Shouldn't this be a matter for individual schools or school boards (the article says some already have this in place)? The policy for National Education in France is to have as little difference as possible between schools. Parents cannot readily choose the school their children go to, as well (unless they switch to a private school, but this is marginal, and it costs money) so it makes sense to have them all have the same rules. I see no reason for a school in one city to allow cell phones, while one in another city bans them. Children are the same humans with the same broad needs and behaviours in the whole country.

latch 9y ago
I see what you mean. I'm still curious why this has to be a law though? Aren't there a bunch of policies in schools that are enforced without the need for law? I didn't put this in my original comment, but I think what really got under my skin from the article was: "The minister said the ban was also a “public health message to families”, adding: “It’s good that children are not too often, or even at all, in front of a screen before the age of seven." Which takes it from "as little difference as possible between schools" to "we have an opinion about how you should raise your kids and we'll use laws to send that 'message'". Yes, there are already plenty of reasonable and good laws place limits and requirements on parents. This just seems way over the line.
- opportune 9y ago
  Sure, there a few reasons to do it like this. First, my impression is that you still have the right to send your children to a private school where this won't be enforced. So it's not a law, it's a policy passed at the national level for the public schools, which are organized from the national level. Secondly, passing the law at the national level deals with the situation where a school gets "bullied" into not passing the policy to begin with. For example, parents might prioritize being able to coordinate pickups in real-time over their children's education (I'm not implying bad intent: they just might not recognize the negative impact of their children's mobile use during class time) and thus pressure a school to not ban mobile use during class time. Personally I think your own definitions of what are reasonable and what are not are skewed. You think it's over the line to claim that "children are not too often, or even at all, in front of a screen before the age of seven"??? What could a five or six year old possibly be doing on a smart phone aside from watching videos and playing games? Why do middle schoolers need access to their phones during lunch - what do they gain from it? I'm not French though, so someone will have to double check me on the claim that this is actually a national policy for public schools rather than an actual law.