6 ms·

I fail to understand why a national law was necessary. Let schools set and enforce their own policies. It seems to me that the main result of having an actual

I fail to understand why a national law was necessary. Let schools set and enforce their own policies. It seems to me that the main result of having an actual legal ban is that teachers are now prevented from using smartphones in class for teaching purpose if they wanted to.

baud147258 8y ago
> I fail to understand why a national law was necessary. If I understand right, the law was necessary to allow school to enforce such a rule.
- ElBarto 8y ago
  If a school needs a national law to tell children not to use smartphones in class then I'm thinking that the problem isn't smartphones...
- remify 8y ago
  No they could already. It's more an attempt to stop nitpicking and move on with the question.
benchin 8y ago
Heads up that it looks like teachers will still be able to this if they wish. From the article: > The only exception is when smartphones’ use is assigned by a teacher.
simias 8y ago
It avoids having a million debates in a million schools, that's the rule and that's it. I don't know if it's a good or a bad thing but it doesn't bother me that much. I can imagine that you can use smartphones for teaching purposes but I'm also sure that in the vast majority of cases it's a huge distraction. If a teacher wants to punctually tell their students to bring their phone for a special lesson the GIGN won't send their snipers to stop them. Furthermore using the student's own smartphones as a support for courses creates an other issue: what about students who don't own one, or only a crappy one? It's not like they're cheap.
- ElBarto 8y ago
  You're saying that this law is useless, then. Having checked it, it allows exceptions (e.g. teaching purposes or for disabled pupils) which schools are free to decide on and set in their own rules. The 'issue' of debating schools rules in each school, which isn't an issue at all, is thus not even addressed.
  - simias 8y ago
    I think you're looking at it from a programmer's point of view, not a lawmaker. This is not a smart contract, it's not supposed to handle every possible corner thrown at it, if there's a dispute a judge will weigh in. As such what matters most is that the intent of the law be clear. In this case it seems pretty clear what the intent is: as a rule smartphones have no place in French schools. Arguing that a law is pointless because there are exceptions is like saying that red lights are pointless because ambulances are allowed to ignore them. Of course if it turns out that most schools end up creating a huge number of exceptions which make it trivial for everybody to side-step the law then yes, it will end up being useless. It's a bit too early to tell though.
    - ElBarto 8y ago
      I am not saying that the law is pointless because that there are exceptions. This law is useless because schools can adequately set their own rules. I am countering your argument that this law is useful because it prevents arguments in schools. This is both incorrect and lazy.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - gjackson73 8y ago
        You seem to be arguing that an important number of teachers will want their pupils to use smartphones in class, and anybody could figure out that that is false.
      - 8y ago
d--b 8y ago
In France, most schools are public, hence ruled by law. If you have several rules for different public, then things start being a mess. Private schools don’t have to follow this.
- ElBarto 8y ago
  That makes no sense at all. The fact that schools are state schools does not imply that headteachers cannot set some rules. Especially this new law does allow exceptions which schools can set in their own rules. The fact that a law was passed means that this will apply to all schools, state and private. It's in fact explicit in the text of the law. Private schools are also "ruled by law"...
seszett 8y ago
Well, if banning smartphones in schools is a good thing, then it makes no sense to do it only in some schools and not others. If it's a bad thing, then it shouldn't be done in any school. I cannot find a single reason to do it at any other level than national.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Because it's not completely clear. I absolutely agree with removing smartphones from children, and not just at school, so ostensibly I'd be happy about this. But I'm not. That smartphones are harmful to the development of children is my opinion. That opinion is substantiated by a good deal of research, but this is not the sort of thing you can impartially prove one way or the other. And thus I do not think it should be meted out at the federal level. In my opinion the federal level government should mete out rules that are unquestionable. There's nobody of sound mind that would genuinely and rationally argue that stealing could be anything less than harmful to a society, and so it makes sense to lay out federal restrictions on such. But I am certain there are a good deal of people that would genuinely argue, with some evidence to support their cases, that smart phones are something less than harmful towards the development of children during school time. To understand why I'd make this distinction, imagine this is something you would personally disagree with. Once something is federally banned it is quite difficult to unban it, and more importantly it also precludes any further studies of the effects of it on a large scale. By contrast imagine one region in France locally banned smartphones and another did not. And then after 20 years we see measurably different outcomes outside of these two regions previous trajectories. That would be quite informative and evidence that could help push more local regions to push for bans. Local level bans allow citizens to choose to either opt-in or opt-out of certain rules and thus live in conditions that are closer to their ideal. Federal level bans, by contrast, are ultimate unless you choose to move to another country which is a much more substantial change than moving to another district/city/state/etc.
  - seszett 8y ago
    There is no federal government in France, by the way. Regions, départements or cities do not have any legislative power. National schools have little leeway in order to ensure an equal quality of education on the whole national territory. Citizens are equal everywhere, therefore it makes little sense not to enact public health measures nationally. It seems even more questionable, to me, to enable a measure for 20 years in one region using their children as guinea pigs, but that would most likely be unconstitutional anyway.
bambax 8y ago
That's not how France works ;-) Schools don't decide much, everything is decided by the central government in Paris and then implemented everywhere. Also why would teachers need smartphones for teaching purposes. Most (all?) schools have proper desktop computers to learn things like Scratch (https://scratch.mit.edu/ https://scratch.mit.edu/) or Sketchup, etc.
- foobarge 8y ago
  > That's not how France works ;-) Schools don't decide much, everything is decided by the central government in Paris and then implemented everywhere. Citation needed - that's not the case. Schools are ran in a collegial manner (PTA + Teachers + Admin - I sit in my son's school board) What's imposed is pedagogical content (over a teaching cycle - three years long - kids should have learned this and that.) Then how it's done is really not the state's business. Schools implement it the way they want.
  - ElBarto 8y ago
    Yes, schools can set their own rules, within the law. Like everywhere. Schools were perfectly able to restrict use of smartphones before that law. In fact, here is a description of schools' internal rules by the French government itself: http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid100605/le-reglement-interieur-a-l-ecole.html http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid100605/le-reglement-interieu... I don't know why a few 'contributors' downvote comments in this thread. Is this Reddit?
    - tomhoward 8y ago
      > Is this Reddit? You've asked this several times and it will attract downvotes every time as it's against the guidelines. People have been worried about HN "becoming like Reddit" since soon after it launched over 10 years ago. People generally downvote because they don't find the comment convincing or enlightening. Downvotes are less likely when commenters explain their position with thoughtfulness and effort to help the community understand and learn things.
    - 8y ago
foobarge 8y ago
> Let schools set and enforce their own policies. Most already were (my son's school was.) > It seems to me that the main result of having an actual legal ban is that teachers are now prevented from using smartphones in class for teaching purpose if they wanted to. All middle schools and up in France will soon be equipped with tablets. There's one large pilot happening in my region: books, assignments, quizzes, homework, etc... lots of it is done (at the teacher's discretion) on the tablet. It's great. Music classes for instance are producing homework using garage band, etc... Schools can pick their tablet. My son's school went with Apple. The high-school next door went with Android.

baud147258 8y ago

> I fail to understand why a national law was necessary. If I understand right, the law was necessary to allow school to enforce such a rule.

ElBarto 8y ago
If a school needs a national law to tell children not to use smartphones in class then I'm thinking that the problem isn't smartphones...
remify 8y ago
No they could already. It's more an attempt to stop nitpicking and move on with the question.

benchin 8y ago

Heads up that it looks like teachers will still be able to this if they wish. From the article: > The only exception is when smartphones’ use is assigned by a teacher.

simias 8y ago

It avoids having a million debates in a million schools, that's the rule and that's it. I don't know if it's a good or a bad thing but it doesn't bother me that much. I can imagine that you can use smartphones for teaching purposes but I'm also sure that in the vast majority of cases it's a huge distraction. If a teacher wants to punctually tell their students to bring their phone for a special lesson the GIGN won't send their snipers to stop them. Furthermore using the student's own smartphones as a support for courses creates an other issue: what about students who don't own one, or only a crappy one? It's not like they're cheap.

ElBarto 8y ago
You're saying that this law is useless, then. Having checked it, it allows exceptions (e.g. teaching purposes or for disabled pupils) which schools are free to decide on and set in their own rules. The 'issue' of debating schools rules in each school, which isn't an issue at all, is thus not even addressed.
- simias 8y ago
  I think you're looking at it from a programmer's point of view, not a lawmaker. This is not a smart contract, it's not supposed to handle every possible corner thrown at it, if there's a dispute a judge will weigh in. As such what matters most is that the intent of the law be clear. In this case it seems pretty clear what the intent is: as a rule smartphones have no place in French schools. Arguing that a law is pointless because there are exceptions is like saying that red lights are pointless because ambulances are allowed to ignore them. Of course if it turns out that most schools end up creating a huge number of exceptions which make it trivial for everybody to side-step the law then yes, it will end up being useless. It's a bit too early to tell though.
  - ElBarto 8y ago
    I am not saying that the law is pointless because that there are exceptions. This law is useless because schools can adequately set their own rules. I am countering your argument that this law is useful because it prevents arguments in schools. This is both incorrect and lazy.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - gjackson73 8y ago
      You seem to be arguing that an important number of teachers will want their pupils to use smartphones in class, and anybody could figure out that that is false.
    - 8y ago

d--b 8y ago

In France, most schools are public, hence ruled by law. If you have several rules for different public, then things start being a mess. Private schools don’t have to follow this.

ElBarto 8y ago
That makes no sense at all. The fact that schools are state schools does not imply that headteachers cannot set some rules. Especially this new law does allow exceptions which schools can set in their own rules. The fact that a law was passed means that this will apply to all schools, state and private. It's in fact explicit in the text of the law. Private schools are also "ruled by law"...

seszett 8y ago

Well, if banning smartphones in schools is a good thing, then it makes no sense to do it only in some schools and not others. If it's a bad thing, then it shouldn't be done in any school. I cannot find a single reason to do it at any other level than national.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
Because it's not completely clear. I absolutely agree with removing smartphones from children, and not just at school, so ostensibly I'd be happy about this. But I'm not. That smartphones are harmful to the development of children is my opinion. That opinion is substantiated by a good deal of research, but this is not the sort of thing you can impartially prove one way or the other. And thus I do not think it should be meted out at the federal level. In my opinion the federal level government should mete out rules that are unquestionable. There's nobody of sound mind that would genuinely and rationally argue that stealing could be anything less than harmful to a society, and so it makes sense to lay out federal restrictions on such. But I am certain there are a good deal of people that would genuinely argue, with some evidence to support their cases, that smart phones are something less than harmful towards the development of children during school time. To understand why I'd make this distinction, imagine this is something you would personally disagree with. Once something is federally banned it is quite difficult to unban it, and more importantly it also precludes any further studies of the effects of it on a large scale. By contrast imagine one region in France locally banned smartphones and another did not. And then after 20 years we see measurably different outcomes outside of these two regions previous trajectories. That would be quite informative and evidence that could help push more local regions to push for bans. Local level bans allow citizens to choose to either opt-in or opt-out of certain rules and thus live in conditions that are closer to their ideal. Federal level bans, by contrast, are ultimate unless you choose to move to another country which is a much more substantial change than moving to another district/city/state/etc.
- seszett 8y ago
  There is no federal government in France, by the way. Regions, départements or cities do not have any legislative power. National schools have little leeway in order to ensure an equal quality of education on the whole national territory. Citizens are equal everywhere, therefore it makes little sense not to enact public health measures nationally. It seems even more questionable, to me, to enable a measure for 20 years in one region using their children as guinea pigs, but that would most likely be unconstitutional anyway.

bambax 8y ago

That's not how France works ;-) Schools don't decide much, everything is decided by the central government in Paris and then implemented everywhere. Also why would teachers need smartphones for teaching purposes. Most (all?) schools have proper desktop computers to learn things like Scratch (https://scratch.mit.edu/ https://scratch.mit.edu/) or Sketchup, etc.

foobarge 8y ago
> That's not how France works ;-) Schools don't decide much, everything is decided by the central government in Paris and then implemented everywhere. Citation needed - that's not the case. Schools are ran in a collegial manner (PTA + Teachers + Admin - I sit in my son's school board) What's imposed is pedagogical content (over a teaching cycle - three years long - kids should have learned this and that.) Then how it's done is really not the state's business. Schools implement it the way they want.
- ElBarto 8y ago
  Yes, schools can set their own rules, within the law. Like everywhere. Schools were perfectly able to restrict use of smartphones before that law. In fact, here is a description of schools' internal rules by the French government itself: http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid100605/le-reglement-interieur-a-l-ecole.html http://www.education.gouv.fr/cid100605/le-reglement-interieu... I don't know why a few 'contributors' downvote comments in this thread. Is this Reddit?
  - tomhoward 8y ago
    > Is this Reddit? You've asked this several times and it will attract downvotes every time as it's against the guidelines. People have been worried about HN "becoming like Reddit" since soon after it launched over 10 years ago. People generally downvote because they don't find the comment convincing or enlightening. Downvotes are less likely when commenters explain their position with thoughtfulness and effort to help the community understand and learn things.
  - 8y ago

foobarge 8y ago

> Let schools set and enforce their own policies. Most already were (my son's school was.) > It seems to me that the main result of having an actual legal ban is that teachers are now prevented from using smartphones in class for teaching purpose if they wanted to. All middle schools and up in France will soon be equipped with tablets. There's one large pilot happening in my region: books, assignments, quizzes, homework, etc... lots of it is done (at the teacher's discretion) on the tablet. It's great. Music classes for instance are producing homework using garage band, etc... Schools can pick their tablet. My son's school went with Apple. The high-school next door went with Android.