5 ms·

Sounds like pure common sense to me. Schools are implicitly responsible for the overall well-being of kids. Many schools ban smoking, sugary snacks/drinks, some

by avip 9y ago

Sounds like pure common sense to me. Schools are implicitly responsible for the overall well-being of kids. Many schools ban smoking, sugary snacks/drinks, some dressing style (or non-dressing), makeup. Many parents would love to send their kids to schools without a phone, this will empower and support them.

saberlynx 9y ago
Sure. It’s pure common sense. And parents can totally send their kids to school without a phone. I agree with everything in this legislation save for the fact that it’s a legislation. My future kid wouldn’t even get a smartphone until age 15, if I keep my mindset for this long. But do we live in an age where parental and community authority are so diminished that parents need the power of the state to bolster their discipline of their kids? Maybe we cater to the kids too much in that case. My mother was never afraid of enforcing rules with me. Every kid in my life had a gameboy growing up. Except me. I complained and said everyone had one. I’m really grateful she didn’t just fold to me because I’m not addicted to video games and knowing my generally addictive personality, I would be if I had been playing games for hours since the age of 4. I threw a tantrum. For sure. Many tantrums. I said abusive things that I’m ashamed of, because she wouldn’t buy me a gameboy. But dealing with childish outbursts is a part of parenting. We don’t fold to children just because they make our lives unpleasant. She was also under social pressure from my uncle (whose son had a gameboy). She ignored it. My high school has a VPN that banned Facebook during school hours. We were sent to the principal’s for disrupting the class or playing with our phones. Must we involve the state in everything? It’s also pure common sense not to cheat on your spouse, or let a young child have an iPad, or watch more than 3 hours of TV in a day. Or drink too much soda. Or not going to them gym. By this logic, we should outlaw these too? Why is our reaction to minor suboptimal behavior to involve the state? There are many intermediary steps to enforce such a thing before needing to do this.
- dpeck 9y ago
  Public school is a function/instrument of the state, isn’t it?
  - CivBase 9y ago
    Public schools are owned and operated by the state, but that doesn't mean their policies are managed and enforced at a state level. I agree that this policy is a good one, but I don't think should be enforced by the school. I'm not an educator, but if I were I don't think I'd be happy about forfeiting my policy control to a government official. How would a law like this even be enforced? Are teachers expected to take legal action against their students?
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > I agree that this policy is a good one, but I don't think should be enforced by the school. I'm not an educator, but if I were I don't think I'd be happy about forfeiting my policy control to a government official. Educators in public schools are government officials. > How would a law like this even be enforced? Laws and policies prohibiting objects in schools are common, and typically enforced through confiscation when the offending item is observed; whether after that the item is forefeited, returned to parents, or has some other disposition , and whether there is subsequently legal proceeding or additional penalty, varies considerably but is generally peripheral to primary enforcement.
- Viliam1234 9y ago
  > But do we live in an age where parental and community authority are so diminished that parents need the power of the state to bolster their discipline of their kids? It's not that dramatic; it's just that at school the parents are absent, and the teachers' authority is typically undermined by the parents -- congratulations if you are not one of them, but in such case I am simply talking about your kid's classmates' parents. Try to limit the children's freedom in any way (e.g. take away their smartphones if they play Angry Birds or browse Facebook during the lessons), and at least one of the parents will complain and threaten to sue the school. The easy way out for school administration is to let kids do whatever they want to, and formally require teachers to maintain discipline in the classroom while simultaneously forbidding them to do anything that could actually have an impact. The best strategy for a parent is to try finding a school when parents of other children are not idiots. That is typically easier said than done. What I would recommend is trying to find something unusual -- for example I would choose Montessori education for my kids; not because I think it is a superior option per se, but simply because it is not the default option, and I expect the most stupid parents to go for the default option, so this is how I would try avoiding them. Problem is, if this strategy becomes too popular, many of the idiots will choose it too, simply because they heard somewhere it was the right thing to do. (It's complicated because some of the idiots also want to get the best education for their kids; they just can't stop themselves from trying to undermine it the moment someone provides negative feedback to their kid.)
JeanMarcS 9y ago
Why did I had to scroll that far to finally find someone talking about the parents ! (or maybe I missed it) For me I find it astonishing that state have to make laws for common sense. When did it made sense to parents to let their kids go to school with a tool known for its distraction impact ? Some years ago, would you have send your kids to school with a portable tv ? The lack of parent education and common sense is the real problem for me here. For the record, I’m french and speaking from a french point of view, but I guess it’s the same in most countries.
- sliverstorm 9y ago
  The first hurdle is probably parental engagement, rather than common sense. Unfortunately we've been trying to fix it for decades.
- xexers 9y ago
  > Some years ago, would you have send your kids to school with a portable tv ? That's a really good example. No, they absolutely would not have tolerated that!
- bluGill 9y ago
  Phones do have useful purposes for children. When school is in session that purposes is limited to calling 911 (the emergency number in the US). However once school is over it lets the student tell their ride (maybe their parent, maybe someone else already arranged) exactly when soccer practice is over and arrange a meeting place. Note very carefully that the useful uses of a phone are a small percentage of all the functions a phone offers. I've considered buying my kids a phone watch with 3 buttons: call mom, call dad, call [someone else but I can't figure out who]. Of course phone watches have been in the news for serious privacy concerns, but that is unrelated to the need.
  - JeanMarcS 9y ago
    I understand your point of view but parents managed to do without cell phones for decades and it was not a problem. Apart from the 911 example, it seems to me that parents are buying them a convenience (not sure of this word) in not having to wait 5mn more if the practice is not over when they show up. In fact, it’s like letting the tv rise your kids because it’s easier and give you time back. On a last point, I agree with your last statement, and I think a téléphone with 3 buttons will be the best of both worlds :)

by avip 9y ago

saberlynx 9y ago

Sure. It’s pure common sense. And parents can totally send their kids to school without a phone. I agree with everything in this legislation save for the fact that it’s a legislation. My future kid wouldn’t even get a smartphone until age 15, if I keep my mindset for this long. But do we live in an age where parental and community authority are so diminished that parents need the power of the state to bolster their discipline of their kids? Maybe we cater to the kids too much in that case. My mother was never afraid of enforcing rules with me. Every kid in my life had a gameboy growing up. Except me. I complained and said everyone had one. I’m really grateful she didn’t just fold to me because I’m not addicted to video games and knowing my generally addictive personality, I would be if I had been playing games for hours since the age of 4. I threw a tantrum. For sure. Many tantrums. I said abusive things that I’m ashamed of, because she wouldn’t buy me a gameboy. But dealing with childish outbursts is a part of parenting. We don’t fold to children just because they make our lives unpleasant. She was also under social pressure from my uncle (whose son had a gameboy). She ignored it. My high school has a VPN that banned Facebook during school hours. We were sent to the principal’s for disrupting the class or playing with our phones. Must we involve the state in everything? It’s also pure common sense not to cheat on your spouse, or let a young child have an iPad, or watch more than 3 hours of TV in a day. Or drink too much soda. Or not going to them gym. By this logic, we should outlaw these too? Why is our reaction to minor suboptimal behavior to involve the state? There are many intermediary steps to enforce such a thing before needing to do this.

dpeck 9y ago
Public school is a function/instrument of the state, isn’t it?
- CivBase 9y ago
  Public schools are owned and operated by the state, but that doesn't mean their policies are managed and enforced at a state level. I agree that this policy is a good one, but I don't think should be enforced by the school. I'm not an educator, but if I were I don't think I'd be happy about forfeiting my policy control to a government official. How would a law like this even be enforced? Are teachers expected to take legal action against their students?
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > I agree that this policy is a good one, but I don't think should be enforced by the school. I'm not an educator, but if I were I don't think I'd be happy about forfeiting my policy control to a government official. Educators in public schools are government officials. > How would a law like this even be enforced? Laws and policies prohibiting objects in schools are common, and typically enforced through confiscation when the offending item is observed; whether after that the item is forefeited, returned to parents, or has some other disposition , and whether there is subsequently legal proceeding or additional penalty, varies considerably but is generally peripheral to primary enforcement.
Viliam1234 9y ago
> But do we live in an age where parental and community authority are so diminished that parents need the power of the state to bolster their discipline of their kids? It's not that dramatic; it's just that at school the parents are absent, and the teachers' authority is typically undermined by the parents -- congratulations if you are not one of them, but in such case I am simply talking about your kid's classmates' parents. Try to limit the children's freedom in any way (e.g. take away their smartphones if they play Angry Birds or browse Facebook during the lessons), and at least one of the parents will complain and threaten to sue the school. The easy way out for school administration is to let kids do whatever they want to, and formally require teachers to maintain discipline in the classroom while simultaneously forbidding them to do anything that could actually have an impact. The best strategy for a parent is to try finding a school when parents of other children are not idiots. That is typically easier said than done. What I would recommend is trying to find something unusual -- for example I would choose Montessori education for my kids; not because I think it is a superior option per se, but simply because it is not the default option, and I expect the most stupid parents to go for the default option, so this is how I would try avoiding them. Problem is, if this strategy becomes too popular, many of the idiots will choose it too, simply because they heard somewhere it was the right thing to do. (It's complicated because some of the idiots also want to get the best education for their kids; they just can't stop themselves from trying to undermine it the moment someone provides negative feedback to their kid.)

JeanMarcS 9y ago

Why did I had to scroll that far to finally find someone talking about the parents ! (or maybe I missed it) For me I find it astonishing that state have to make laws for common sense. When did it made sense to parents to let their kids go to school with a tool known for its distraction impact ? Some years ago, would you have send your kids to school with a portable tv ? The lack of parent education and common sense is the real problem for me here. For the record, I’m french and speaking from a french point of view, but I guess it’s the same in most countries.

sliverstorm 9y ago
The first hurdle is probably parental engagement, rather than common sense. Unfortunately we've been trying to fix it for decades.
xexers 9y ago
> Some years ago, would you have send your kids to school with a portable tv ? That's a really good example. No, they absolutely would not have tolerated that!
bluGill 9y ago
Phones do have useful purposes for children. When school is in session that purposes is limited to calling 911 (the emergency number in the US). However once school is over it lets the student tell their ride (maybe their parent, maybe someone else already arranged) exactly when soccer practice is over and arrange a meeting place. Note very carefully that the useful uses of a phone are a small percentage of all the functions a phone offers. I've considered buying my kids a phone watch with 3 buttons: call mom, call dad, call [someone else but I can't figure out who]. Of course phone watches have been in the news for serious privacy concerns, but that is unrelated to the need.
- JeanMarcS 9y ago
  I understand your point of view but parents managed to do without cell phones for decades and it was not a problem. Apart from the 911 example, it seems to me that parents are buying them a convenience (not sure of this word) in not having to wait 5mn more if the practice is not over when they show up. In fact, it’s like letting the tv rise your kids because it’s easier and give you time back. On a last point, I agree with your last statement, and I think a téléphone with 3 buttons will be the best of both worlds :)