5 ms·

I believe that, in retrospect, these schoolchildren will greatly appreciate this decision.

ben_w 2y ago
I can see it going either way. A century ago in the US, a lot of support for Prohibition came from the impact of liquor, yet Prohibition itself also banned beer. I can very easily believe that the backlash against dark patterns, against deliberately addictive apps (games and social media), against advertising getting squeezed into what would otherwise be normal conversations, against the surveillance that currently manifests as GDPR cookie popups because almost everyone both corporate and government would rather annoy people than stop snooping, may well lead to a new Prohibition on all such things. But will this new Prohibition throw out the baby with the bathwater? Smartphones do a lot of genuinely useful things.
- trgn 2y ago
  what useful thing does a smartphone do during school hours?
  - Retric 2y ago
    Looking stuff up during lunch or study hall. School hours != in class but it often means doing assignments.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      Lunch time is supposed to be a break from studying. (Study haul? I don't know this term.)
      - ben_w 2y ago
        I'm assuming voice entry mistranscription of "study hall"?
      - Retric 2y ago
        Auto corrupt of study hall, also known as a free period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_hall
        Symbiote 2y ago
        That would be very unusual until the final two years of school in England.
        Retric 2y ago
        As a predefined period sure, but I assume kids in crutches still skip PE and whatnot, though you might be calling it something else. Whatever you call a disruption in normal education such as when a teacher gets in a car accident on the way to work and suddenly there’s a non educational period for kids.
        ben_w 2y ago
        > Whatever you call a disruption in normal education such as when a teacher gets in a car accident on the way to work and suddenly there’s a non educational period for kids. Supply teacher. No idea how the details were worked out, but there was always a substitute if the usual was unavailable for whatever reason.
        Symbiote 2y ago
        The school's own teachers would cover for an injured colleague in an emergency like this. The lesson timetable will be written to ensure there's always some teachers free. Given more notice, the school phones supply teachers (or an agency for them). Some of these teachers will expect to be ready to get to a school with very little notice. In the worst case, where the cover teacher has not had chance to discuss what lesson is needed, they're going to say "let's go through the last chapter in the textbook" rather than "I give up, fiddle on your phones".
        ben_w 2y ago
        I only saw them in A levels, not during my GCSEs. But the GCSEs were September 1998 to June 2000, and the UK government loves to fiddle with education, so I wouldn't be shocked if you told me that had changed.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      They pretty much all have chromebooks or laptops these days that can perform the same actions if it's school related. Also, study hall is an elective class. You still need to behave in study hall. The purpose is to study. Lunch could be an exception, but not really. There should be enough time to eat and socialize just a little. The lunch periods are not excessively long.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Try to juggle a Chromebook, textbook, and a worksheet on a one of those single seat desks and see if you start reaching for a phone. Chromebook’s still aren’t nearly as integrated into schools as you might expect.
        prmoustache 2y ago
        Then maybe the good answer is to fix the facilities.
        giantg2 2y ago
        Depends on the schools. There are many that don't issue physical text books, or rarely do. But that's really not any different from my college experience (with a larger laptop no less). Also, if you are using the textbook and worksheet, you really shouldn't need anything else.
    - prmoustache 2y ago
      Lunch is a good time to disconnect. I think teaching kids to having moments where they can just enjoy company and socialize is a good thing. Same reason we have a no screen policy during dinner time at home. Most study hall / libraries have a number of computer terminals.
      - Retric 2y ago
        Most kids on most days do use it to disconnect, but conversely most kids also use it to do an assessment or study for a test at some point.
  - diffeomorphism 2y ago
    Dumb phone things, apps for blood sugar monitoring, checking public transport delays,.... There are enough stories about children dying because schools locked away medication. I have very little trust that schools will apply any common sense.
    - giantg2 2y ago
      All the things you mentioned were normally handled without phones a generation ago. They should be able to get medical exceptions for medical devices. Yeah, schools have a history of issues. However, this policy isn't really new. It was in place when I went to school and there were no issues.
      - diffeomorphism 2y ago
        > They should be able to get medical exceptions for medical devices. Keyword "should". > The schools have agreed that if any phone is used by a pupil during the school day, it will be confiscated. Yep, the "easy" and extremely irresponsible solution. > It was in place when I went to school and there were no issues. Good for you, but https://www.9news.com.au/health/boy-dies-after-school-confiscates-asthma-inhaler/65fd35ee-fc7d-4a6b-9027-57e2ebcd30c2 https://www.9news.com.au/health/boy-dies-after-school-confis... https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/20/california-school-district-student-asthma-attack-settlement/10745499002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/20/califor...
        giantg2 2y ago
        We're talking about phones, not lifesaving medication.
        diffeomorphism 2y ago
        Exactly, schools even get things horribly wrong when it is literally life or death. How much more wrong do they get if the stakes are lower? Leave it to the parents not the schools!
  - ben_w 2y ago
    All the same things as internet connected computers in general — world's information at your fingertips, quiz apps to reduce the delay between doing a test and finding out what you need to focus on, etc. — except easier to take on field trips and hook up with heart rate monitors during PE.
  - Zhyl 2y ago
    What useful things could a smartphone do during school hours. You have a literal internet connected computer with any function you could care to name, interactive touch screen display, full sound with headphones being provided by the student. The situation we have now is that there are few apps that are suitable for a classrooms, even fewer which teachers would be allowed to use and none which are endorsed or included in the curriculum[1]. Meanwhile students phones have no central management unless by parents using a specialist app, are not automatically locked down to appropriate use during school hours, meaning they just get used for messaging and inappropriate stuff. There is no reason that a students phone couldn't become the world's most amazing educational tool the moment they walk onto school premises - the world just hasn't caught up yet and probably won't for a while. [1] I don't know this, but I'm sure they're providing iPads or something if they're actually doing anything around this.
    - trgn 2y ago
      with [1], you already said it. iPads serve that function. Have these really improved classroom education, or is it just a more convoluted, fidgety way to get through the materials? > There is no reason that a students phone couldn't become the world's most amazing educational too Or, some new, advanced technology exists, therefore, because it is new and advanced, it needs to be applied. This is an affliction.
      - Zhyl 2y ago
        I think my broader point is that whatever technology has been adopted hasn't had a noticeable effect and that's due to the usage, attitude and hence supporting infrastructure to adopt them. GP asked what use a smartphone would have, implying that it could only ever be bad. I'm just arguing that this isn't necessarily the case, not that we should adopt it or even that adoption is likely.
        trgn 2y ago
        Fair enough, I follow. but we've had about 20 years now, and it doesn't seem like any improvements have materialized, if anything, there's only negatives with kids being on their phones during school time. it's ok to axe to put this one on the loss pile, and move on.
- jasonjei 2y ago
  Do you have kids? I have a 4-year old girl. And while parenting is so much harder without iPad and iPhone, my daughter is genuinely more interested in the world and imagination play than looking at screens. At age 2, was curious about the other kids with iPads, but now she shows no interest in screens. And we’re doing fine with static or minimally electronic toys. She has a whole adolescent/adult life ahead of her of screens. This is about a developing child’s mind and the precautionary principle of knowing with the evidence we have now that social media is extremely harmful to mental health, especially to adolescent girls. This is not the same as outlawing alcohol to grown adults.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Good for you, and good for her. I wish I had kids, but sadly not yet. Myself, I grew up with a Commodore 64, whose user manual didn't only teach me to code, but was even part of me learning to read. But everyone is different, what worked fine for me isn't necessarily even a good idea for others. > This is about a developing child’s mind and the cautionary principle of knowing with the evidence we have now that it is extremely harmful to mental health, especially to girls. This is not the same as outlawing alcohol to grown adults. Sounds like you agree with me that much of the current stuff is bad. I'm saying that some of the rest is both harmless and helpful.
    - jasonjei 2y ago
      I had a computer growing up. It wasn’t always connected to the Internet. I had dial up occasionally. But I cannot imagine my child growing up with social media is a good thing. Facebook, MySpace, Instagram, TikTok didn’t exist when I was a kid. And while the genie is out of the bottle, I want to minimize the exposure of social media. The smartphone experience is shrouded in social media. I want to do everything in my power to put her in an environment with other parents who have agreed to modify their environment. We’re looking at San Francisco Waldorf School. They even have a “computer lab” with designated screen time in the later grades.
      - ben_w 2y ago
- nonameiguess 2y ago
  This doesn't sound particularly analogous to Prohibition. Mobile computers are being banned from schools, not from everywhere. As far as I'm aware, liquor and beer are also banned from schools and presumably always have been, before, during, and after Prohibition.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    I was trying to suggest that at least some of these things will be banned everywhere, not that they have already been. Small scale prohibitions happened well before there was enough drive for the 18th Amendment to be proposed. I'm not even sure the detail — will it look like a Butlerian Jihad on all tech because AI is everywhere and enough people hate that, or "just" a ban on all social media (including this website) — but the vibes have been brewing for a while now, and it could well take the shape of smartphones being wound back to 8310s. > As far as I'm aware, liquor and beer are also banned from schools and presumably always have been, before, during, and after Prohibition. So it's fine for the analogy that phones might get banned from schools before some kind of larger social rejection on par with the example I gave, yes?
logtempo 2y ago
To me, the necessity to have a banning "law" is a sign of failure. We should teach children the why and how, incentive them to put, by themselves, their phone in a lockbox and eventually consider them as growing adult and not irresponsible childs.
- willsmith72 2y ago
  let's keep all the junk foods in schools too. children should be responsible enough to choose the fruit salad over the battered fries
- vel0city 2y ago
  You're assuming children (on average) have the same capacity to make reasoned decisions as adults so long as you just "teach" them. There's a reason why we don't let 8-year-olds drive, and its not just that nobody bothered to take the time to teach them. And no, no matter how many times I tell my three-year-old the stove is hot, I'm not going to put them in charge of cooking dinner on the stove. Instead, I'll ban them from using the stove outside of extremely supervised limited circumstances. I'm also not going to put them in charge of chopping things with sharp knives either. Instead I'll find other more age-appropriate ways for them to participate in making the meal.
  - logtempo 2y ago
    We're talking about childrens that have between 11-18 years old. I'm also not saying that teachers could ask nicely and then do nothing if the rule is broken. Actually, one could ask students to either put their phones in their bag or in a "safe phone-box", and still seize the phone if it's used. Bringing awarness is important, when it comes to fighting addiction.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      UK Secondary education is 11-15. UK driving age is 17. My argument about not letting them drive still stands. We're not letting 11-year-olds drive. > I'm also not saying that teachers could ask nicely and then do nothing if the rule is broken. But what rule? Clearly not some rule banning them, since your argument is there shouldn't be a rule banning their use. If the rule isn't a ban, then what cause does the teacher have to forcibly remove the phone? Is the student allowed to have the phone or not? It would seem like the idea a teacher is able to make the judgement call of policing the phone usage in the classroom and deciding when it becomes a distraction isn't working. And having it hidden behind a vague "causing a distraction" often can't easily be proven other than the teacher's judgement. The teacher shouldn't have to deal with supporting their decisions of removing the phone they should be focused on teaching the lesson. Having a clear-cut rule that phones are not to be out in the classroom makes it obvious where the line is. If it is just at the teacher's discretion of what is a distraction, students (who are children and already often have a hard time with decision making abilities) would probably have a harder time understanding the edges of the judgement decision. Sure seems like the simpler solution is to just have a blanket "phones aren't allowed" rule instead of the mess it is currently. No judgement call, no forcing the teacher to defend their position, the standards are clear from the start. Back when I was in school, about the time the iPhone came out, cellphones were common for highschoolers (age 13-18) but having them out in a classroom was strictly banned. If a teacher caught any student using a phone without previously having the teacher's permission, it would immediately be taken up and brought to the office and only released at the end of school. This seems entirely in-line with the program being implemented here. > The schools have agreed that if any phone is used by a pupil during the school day, it will be confiscated.
technothrasher 2y ago
As reported by my son who is in a 'phone free' high school here in the US, the policy is entirely useless. They make them put their phones in the 'phone hotel' at the beginning of the day, and they can retrieve them at the end. But many kids just put an old decoy phone in the hotel and keep their actual phone with them. Even if they don't do this, they're required to use laptops for class, and even with the school attempting to lock the laptops down, the kids all know how to get access to messaging, games, video, and social media on them. So they can do everything they would do with their phones anyway.
- ericd 2y ago
  Ironically, I think that circumventing lockdowns will teach them far more about technology than the policy to use them for class in the first place.
- willsmith72 2y ago
  are you sure the damage is the same? it sounds like because they have access to a school laptop, you're assuming the consequences of smartphone usage will still apply. what are the odds that the impact is actually identical? it's almost certainly not. and if i had to put money on it, i would say the impact is significantly reduced. still there, sure, but this is a spectrum

I can see it going either way. A century ago in the US, a lot of support for Prohibition came from the impact of liquor, yet Prohibition itself also banned beer. I can very easily believe that the backlash against dark patterns, against deliberately addictive apps (games and social media), against advertising getting squeezed into what would otherwise be normal conversations, against the surveillance that currently manifests as GDPR cookie popups because almost everyone both corporate and government would rather annoy people than stop snooping, may well lead to a new Prohibition on all such things. But will this new Prohibition throw out the baby with the bathwater? Smartphones do a lot of genuinely useful things.

trgn 2y ago
what useful thing does a smartphone do during school hours?
- Retric 2y ago
  Looking stuff up during lunch or study hall. School hours != in class but it often means doing assignments.
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    Lunch time is supposed to be a break from studying. (Study haul? I don't know this term.)
    - ben_w 2y ago
      I'm assuming voice entry mistranscription of "study hall"?
    - Retric 2y ago
      Auto corrupt of study hall, also known as a free period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_hall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_hall
      - Symbiote 2y ago
        That would be very unusual until the final two years of school in England.
        Retric 2y ago
        As a predefined period sure, but I assume kids in crutches still skip PE and whatnot, though you might be calling it something else. Whatever you call a disruption in normal education such as when a teacher gets in a car accident on the way to work and suddenly there’s a non educational period for kids.
        ben_w 2y ago
        > Whatever you call a disruption in normal education such as when a teacher gets in a car accident on the way to work and suddenly there’s a non educational period for kids. Supply teacher. No idea how the details were worked out, but there was always a substitute if the usual was unavailable for whatever reason.
        Symbiote 2y ago
        The school's own teachers would cover for an injured colleague in an emergency like this. The lesson timetable will be written to ensure there's always some teachers free. Given more notice, the school phones supply teachers (or an agency for them). Some of these teachers will expect to be ready to get to a school with very little notice. In the worst case, where the cover teacher has not had chance to discuss what lesson is needed, they're going to say "let's go through the last chapter in the textbook" rather than "I give up, fiddle on your phones".
        ben_w 2y ago
        I only saw them in A levels, not during my GCSEs. But the GCSEs were September 1998 to June 2000, and the UK government loves to fiddle with education, so I wouldn't be shocked if you told me that had changed.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    They pretty much all have chromebooks or laptops these days that can perform the same actions if it's school related. Also, study hall is an elective class. You still need to behave in study hall. The purpose is to study. Lunch could be an exception, but not really. There should be enough time to eat and socialize just a little. The lunch periods are not excessively long.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Try to juggle a Chromebook, textbook, and a worksheet on a one of those single seat desks and see if you start reaching for a phone. Chromebook’s still aren’t nearly as integrated into schools as you might expect.
      - prmoustache 2y ago
        Then maybe the good answer is to fix the facilities.
      - giantg2 2y ago
        Depends on the schools. There are many that don't issue physical text books, or rarely do. But that's really not any different from my college experience (with a larger laptop no less). Also, if you are using the textbook and worksheet, you really shouldn't need anything else.
  - prmoustache 2y ago
    Lunch is a good time to disconnect. I think teaching kids to having moments where they can just enjoy company and socialize is a good thing. Same reason we have a no screen policy during dinner time at home. Most study hall / libraries have a number of computer terminals.
    - Retric 2y ago
      Most kids on most days do use it to disconnect, but conversely most kids also use it to do an assessment or study for a test at some point.
- diffeomorphism 2y ago
  Dumb phone things, apps for blood sugar monitoring, checking public transport delays,.... There are enough stories about children dying because schools locked away medication. I have very little trust that schools will apply any common sense.
  - giantg2 2y ago
    All the things you mentioned were normally handled without phones a generation ago. They should be able to get medical exceptions for medical devices. Yeah, schools have a history of issues. However, this policy isn't really new. It was in place when I went to school and there were no issues.
    - diffeomorphism 2y ago
      > They should be able to get medical exceptions for medical devices. Keyword "should". > The schools have agreed that if any phone is used by a pupil during the school day, it will be confiscated. Yep, the "easy" and extremely irresponsible solution. > It was in place when I went to school and there were no issues. Good for you, but https://www.9news.com.au/health/boy-dies-after-school-confiscates-asthma-inhaler/65fd35ee-fc7d-4a6b-9027-57e2ebcd30c2 https://www.9news.com.au/health/boy-dies-after-school-confis... https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/20/california-school-district-student-asthma-attack-settlement/10745499002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/11/20/califor...
      - giantg2 2y ago
        We're talking about phones, not lifesaving medication.
        diffeomorphism 2y ago
        Exactly, schools even get things horribly wrong when it is literally life or death. How much more wrong do they get if the stakes are lower? Leave it to the parents not the schools!
- ben_w 2y ago
  All the same things as internet connected computers in general — world's information at your fingertips, quiz apps to reduce the delay between doing a test and finding out what you need to focus on, etc. — except easier to take on field trips and hook up with heart rate monitors during PE.
- Zhyl 2y ago
  What useful things could a smartphone do during school hours. You have a literal internet connected computer with any function you could care to name, interactive touch screen display, full sound with headphones being provided by the student. The situation we have now is that there are few apps that are suitable for a classrooms, even fewer which teachers would be allowed to use and none which are endorsed or included in the curriculum[1]. Meanwhile students phones have no central management unless by parents using a specialist app, are not automatically locked down to appropriate use during school hours, meaning they just get used for messaging and inappropriate stuff. There is no reason that a students phone couldn't become the world's most amazing educational tool the moment they walk onto school premises - the world just hasn't caught up yet and probably won't for a while. [1] I don't know this, but I'm sure they're providing iPads or something if they're actually doing anything around this.
  - trgn 2y ago
    with [1], you already said it. iPads serve that function. Have these really improved classroom education, or is it just a more convoluted, fidgety way to get through the materials? > There is no reason that a students phone couldn't become the world's most amazing educational too Or, some new, advanced technology exists, therefore, because it is new and advanced, it needs to be applied. This is an affliction.
    - Zhyl 2y ago
      I think my broader point is that whatever technology has been adopted hasn't had a noticeable effect and that's due to the usage, attitude and hence supporting infrastructure to adopt them. GP asked what use a smartphone would have, implying that it could only ever be bad. I'm just arguing that this isn't necessarily the case, not that we should adopt it or even that adoption is likely.
      - trgn 2y ago
        Fair enough, I follow. but we've had about 20 years now, and it doesn't seem like any improvements have materialized, if anything, there's only negatives with kids being on their phones during school time. it's ok to axe to put this one on the loss pile, and move on.
jasonjei 2y ago
Do you have kids? I have a 4-year old girl. And while parenting is so much harder without iPad and iPhone, my daughter is genuinely more interested in the world and imagination play than looking at screens. At age 2, was curious about the other kids with iPads, but now she shows no interest in screens. And we’re doing fine with static or minimally electronic toys. She has a whole adolescent/adult life ahead of her of screens. This is about a developing child’s mind and the precautionary principle of knowing with the evidence we have now that social media is extremely harmful to mental health, especially to adolescent girls. This is not the same as outlawing alcohol to grown adults.
- ben_w 2y ago
  Good for you, and good for her. I wish I had kids, but sadly not yet. Myself, I grew up with a Commodore 64, whose user manual didn't only teach me to code, but was even part of me learning to read. But everyone is different, what worked fine for me isn't necessarily even a good idea for others. > This is about a developing child’s mind and the cautionary principle of knowing with the evidence we have now that it is extremely harmful to mental health, especially to girls. This is not the same as outlawing alcohol to grown adults. Sounds like you agree with me that much of the current stuff is bad. I'm saying that some of the rest is both harmless and helpful.
  - jasonjei 2y ago
    I had a computer growing up. It wasn’t always connected to the Internet. I had dial up occasionally. But I cannot imagine my child growing up with social media is a good thing. Facebook, MySpace, Instagram, TikTok didn’t exist when I was a kid. And while the genie is out of the bottle, I want to minimize the exposure of social media. The smartphone experience is shrouded in social media. I want to do everything in my power to put her in an environment with other parents who have agreed to modify their environment. We’re looking at San Francisco Waldorf School. They even have a “computer lab” with designated screen time in the later grades.
    - ben_w 2y ago
nonameiguess 2y ago
This doesn't sound particularly analogous to Prohibition. Mobile computers are being banned from schools, not from everywhere. As far as I'm aware, liquor and beer are also banned from schools and presumably always have been, before, during, and after Prohibition.
- ben_w 2y ago
  I was trying to suggest that at least some of these things will be banned everywhere, not that they have already been. Small scale prohibitions happened well before there was enough drive for the 18th Amendment to be proposed. I'm not even sure the detail — will it look like a Butlerian Jihad on all tech because AI is everywhere and enough people hate that, or "just" a ban on all social media (including this website) — but the vibes have been brewing for a while now, and it could well take the shape of smartphones being wound back to 8310s. > As far as I'm aware, liquor and beer are also banned from schools and presumably always have been, before, during, and after Prohibition. So it's fine for the analogy that phones might get banned from schools before some kind of larger social rejection on par with the example I gave, yes?

logtempo 2y ago

To me, the necessity to have a banning "law" is a sign of failure. We should teach children the why and how, incentive them to put, by themselves, their phone in a lockbox and eventually consider them as growing adult and not irresponsible childs.

willsmith72 2y ago
let's keep all the junk foods in schools too. children should be responsible enough to choose the fruit salad over the battered fries
vel0city 2y ago
You're assuming children (on average) have the same capacity to make reasoned decisions as adults so long as you just "teach" them. There's a reason why we don't let 8-year-olds drive, and its not just that nobody bothered to take the time to teach them. And no, no matter how many times I tell my three-year-old the stove is hot, I'm not going to put them in charge of cooking dinner on the stove. Instead, I'll ban them from using the stove outside of extremely supervised limited circumstances. I'm also not going to put them in charge of chopping things with sharp knives either. Instead I'll find other more age-appropriate ways for them to participate in making the meal.
- logtempo 2y ago
  We're talking about childrens that have between 11-18 years old. I'm also not saying that teachers could ask nicely and then do nothing if the rule is broken. Actually, one could ask students to either put their phones in their bag or in a "safe phone-box", and still seize the phone if it's used. Bringing awarness is important, when it comes to fighting addiction.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    UK Secondary education is 11-15. UK driving age is 17. My argument about not letting them drive still stands. We're not letting 11-year-olds drive. > I'm also not saying that teachers could ask nicely and then do nothing if the rule is broken. But what rule? Clearly not some rule banning them, since your argument is there shouldn't be a rule banning their use. If the rule isn't a ban, then what cause does the teacher have to forcibly remove the phone? Is the student allowed to have the phone or not? It would seem like the idea a teacher is able to make the judgement call of policing the phone usage in the classroom and deciding when it becomes a distraction isn't working. And having it hidden behind a vague "causing a distraction" often can't easily be proven other than the teacher's judgement. The teacher shouldn't have to deal with supporting their decisions of removing the phone they should be focused on teaching the lesson. Having a clear-cut rule that phones are not to be out in the classroom makes it obvious where the line is. If it is just at the teacher's discretion of what is a distraction, students (who are children and already often have a hard time with decision making abilities) would probably have a harder time understanding the edges of the judgement decision. Sure seems like the simpler solution is to just have a blanket "phones aren't allowed" rule instead of the mess it is currently. No judgement call, no forcing the teacher to defend their position, the standards are clear from the start. Back when I was in school, about the time the iPhone came out, cellphones were common for highschoolers (age 13-18) but having them out in a classroom was strictly banned. If a teacher caught any student using a phone without previously having the teacher's permission, it would immediately be taken up and brought to the office and only released at the end of school. This seems entirely in-line with the program being implemented here. > The schools have agreed that if any phone is used by a pupil during the school day, it will be confiscated.

technothrasher 2y ago

As reported by my son who is in a 'phone free' high school here in the US, the policy is entirely useless. They make them put their phones in the 'phone hotel' at the beginning of the day, and they can retrieve them at the end. But many kids just put an old decoy phone in the hotel and keep their actual phone with them. Even if they don't do this, they're required to use laptops for class, and even with the school attempting to lock the laptops down, the kids all know how to get access to messaging, games, video, and social media on them. So they can do everything they would do with their phones anyway.

ericd 2y ago
Ironically, I think that circumventing lockdowns will teach them far more about technology than the policy to use them for class in the first place.
willsmith72 2y ago
are you sure the damage is the same? it sounds like because they have access to a school laptop, you're assuming the consequences of smartphone usage will still apply. what are the odds that the impact is actually identical? it's almost certainly not. and if i had to put money on it, i would say the impact is significantly reduced. still there, sure, but this is a spectrum