6 ms·

I forget who originally suggested this so I can’t take credit. But what if device manufacturers worked with schools to implement some kind of “School Mode” on

I forget who originally suggested this so I can’t take credit. But what if device manufacturers worked with schools to implement some kind of “School Mode” on these devices? Students could retain their access in exchange for schools setting policies on what’s allowed, e.g. you can keep wearing your watch, but it’s effectively in collection-only mode during the school day. Nothing intrusive to the students; more like Apple’s “Focus” modes but mandatory on school property. I can also imagine all kinds of technical issues with this, but as our devices become increasingly wearable and integrated with daily life, it seems like a ban is only a temporarily viable solution, even if it’s the right option at this moment.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> what if device manufacturers worked with schools to implement some kind of “School Mode” on these devices? How would you enforce this? > as our devices become increasingly wearable and integrated with daily life, it seems like a ban is only a temporarily viable solution I’m a strong proponent of these technologies. But the truth is we mandate, and as a result do, zero testing on how it affects kids before deploying them. For the consumer market, test after selling makes sense. For kids, European-style whitelisting might be better. We are trending towards a world where kids of the poor and middle class are addicted to screens. That’s a horrifying class divide.
- haswell 2y ago
  Enforcement is definitely one of the sticking points, but seems solvable. The simplest option would be a geofence on school grounds, but I realize this comes with issues and kids will figure out how to bypass it. Another approach is to have some kind of scan-in/scan-out system where you’re allowed to maintain physical access by scanning some device upon entering the school which has been programmed to safely enable the mode without requiring intrusive access to the device itself. It’d unlock upon scanning out for the day or by a parent. This would require deep integration by Apple/Google/etc. similar to Apple’s work on digital driver’s licenses. I describe a beacon-based approach in a sibling reply. I think a feature set like this would need to be fairly dumb in that it should not require positive identification of individuals and should instead be focused on a fairly simple binary “you scanned into a limited area” type of decision. I don’t know how I feel about these options or even the whole approach, but I’m bringing them up mostly as a way to explore the concept.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- tzs 2y ago
  If we are assuming manufacturer cooperation in designing and implementing "School Mode" for their devices maybe make is so as part of parental controls the parents can enroll a device with their kid's school. A device that has been so enrolled would detect when it is at school, maybe by looking for a particular Bluetooth beacon that the school deploys. When the device determines that it is at school, it would connect to the school's wifi network authenticated and secured with a certificate generated for the device when it was enrolled. It could then use a provisioning server on that network to find out what usage is allowed or not allowed while at school. Such a system could allow for pretty fine grained control. For example the article mentions that one thing kids use their phones for is taking photos of notes on the board. With a School Mode that works as describe above they could make it so the teacher can use their phone or tablet near the end of class to grant temporary camera permission to all the enrolled phones in that classroom.
- GuB-42 2y ago
  > How would you enforce this? It doesn't really need to be enforced. The problem is when kids are using their device in a way that the school considers inappropriate (because of distraction, etc...). "School mode" is supposed to help kids stay in focus. If the school notices a kid is using his device inappropriately (ex: responding to social media notifications), then the school can say "why wasn't that phone in school mode? it wouldn't have happened if it was" and take disciplinary action. A kid that is able to stay attentive and resist the barrage of notifications and all the addictive things smartphones are known for without help from "school mode" would show an impressive level of self-control and should be praised, not punished because he didn't press the right button.
wslh 2y ago
If there is a "school mode" you are not the owner of the device and it will be hacked very soon. It is important to realize that there are zillions of different devices beyond the Apple brand.
_boffin_ 2y ago
I see slippery slopes, but will most likely, this will become a feature.
miki123211 2y ago
How would you enforce this without invasive surveillance? How could a teacher check that school mode is on without gaining control of the device? How could they ensure that the mode isn't turned off when they aren't looking?
- haswell 2y ago
  This would require deep OS-level features from Apple/Google/etc. See my reply to a sibling comment for spitballing ideas, but I don’t think it’s necessary for this to be invasive. Another approach would be beacon-based, where the devices would operate with limited capability if in range of an actively broadcasting cryptographically secure “At School” beacon. I think there are plenty of ways to do this without surveillance or any specific knowledge about individuals using the phones, but it would require collaboration between schools and device manufacturers, and would understandably raise questions about whether disabling devices in this way is a slippery slope to other things. Although I wouldn’t be too mad if this was generalized to concerts and movie theaters. Finding the balance between policy enforcement and safety would be the top issue.
  - JoshTriplett 2y ago
    > This would require deep OS-level features from Apple/Google/etc. See my reply to a sibling comment for spitballing ideas, but I don’t think it’s necessary for this to be invasive. This is by definition invasive; having the device maker or OS maker integrate it makes it more invasive, not less.
    - haswell 2y ago
      I don't think we're using the same definition of invasive. To me, invasive would be a solution that compromises the privacy of the child or parents or both. Apple's work on driver's licenses comes to mind. The deep integration is exactly what allows such a feature to not be invasive. Limits on what "School Mode" can actually do and the actual implementation approach will determine whether or not such a feature is invasive. It certainly could be implemented in an invasive way. But being invasive is not intrinsic to such a solution. And keep in mind the alternative is an outright ban, which in terms of absolute outcomes is far more "invasive" to individual carrying devices if you're using a definition of the word that covers "limits access to your device when on school premises".
t-writescode 2y ago
That would be terrifying in the case of an emergency; and no, the police aren't the only people you should want to be able to access in case of an emergency. And if there are exceptions, you can put anyone on the exception list (because it's just a list) and it makes the change as useless as any other feature. Parents already have parental modes on phones and they're not using them to this degree, it would seem.
- haswell 2y ago
  The "but what about emergencies" subject comes up often in the context of outright device bans. Such a feature would be no worse than a ban, nor do I think the concern about emergencies is justified. I realize that parents have become reliant on constant contact and never being out of touch, but this is a whole other conversation to have about whether or not that is actually of benefit to anyone involved. Plenty of reasons to believe it's a net-harm. > Parents already have parental modes on phones and they're not using them to this degree, it would seem. This is a good point, and I think one path forward would be to require parents to implement these modes. The solution to phones in schools can't just be policy - parents need to parent. Perhaps they'd be more likely to use those features if the alternative is an outright ban.
zifpanachr23 2y ago
I...don't really understand what the purpose of any of this would be? How are wearables "integrated with daily life" for most people right now? And to the extent that they are for a particular subset of adults...why is this something that we should allow, expect and not even try to stop children from doing? I get the impression that the logic you are following here could be more accurately described as "we should never ban any tech ever for anyone because it MIGHT in the future became important for most people's daily lives...assuming we didn't ban it". It seems like a circular argument to me and doesn't make any argument whatsoever about whether or not said devices SHOULD become part of children's (and adults) daily lives.
- haswell 2y ago
  > as our devices become increasingly wearable and integrated with daily life This is a forward looking statement. The point is that the integration of wearables is just beginning. Banning them might work for now, but assuming the integration continues and increases, banning them might not be viable in the future. Imagine a scenario where an Apple Watch is also monitoring blood glucose. Or where someone's prescription eyeglasses are also connected to the Internet. These are things that are already happening today, but haven't yet permeated society. Another 10, 20, 30 years of progress will bring new issues and consumer expectations that may make bans less viable. The point of all of this is to think about potential ways to navigate such a future.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> what if device manufacturers worked with schools to implement some kind of “School Mode” on these devices? How would you enforce this? > as our devices become increasingly wearable and integrated with daily life, it seems like a ban is only a temporarily viable solution I’m a strong proponent of these technologies. But the truth is we mandate, and as a result do, zero testing on how it affects kids before deploying them. For the consumer market, test after selling makes sense. For kids, European-style whitelisting might be better. We are trending towards a world where kids of the poor and middle class are addicted to screens. That’s a horrifying class divide.

haswell 2y ago
Enforcement is definitely one of the sticking points, but seems solvable. The simplest option would be a geofence on school grounds, but I realize this comes with issues and kids will figure out how to bypass it. Another approach is to have some kind of scan-in/scan-out system where you’re allowed to maintain physical access by scanning some device upon entering the school which has been programmed to safely enable the mode without requiring intrusive access to the device itself. It’d unlock upon scanning out for the day or by a parent. This would require deep integration by Apple/Google/etc. similar to Apple’s work on digital driver’s licenses. I describe a beacon-based approach in a sibling reply. I think a feature set like this would need to be fairly dumb in that it should not require positive identification of individuals and should instead be focused on a fairly simple binary “you scanned into a limited area” type of decision. I don’t know how I feel about these options or even the whole approach, but I’m bringing them up mostly as a way to explore the concept.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tzs 2y ago
If we are assuming manufacturer cooperation in designing and implementing "School Mode" for their devices maybe make is so as part of parental controls the parents can enroll a device with their kid's school. A device that has been so enrolled would detect when it is at school, maybe by looking for a particular Bluetooth beacon that the school deploys. When the device determines that it is at school, it would connect to the school's wifi network authenticated and secured with a certificate generated for the device when it was enrolled. It could then use a provisioning server on that network to find out what usage is allowed or not allowed while at school. Such a system could allow for pretty fine grained control. For example the article mentions that one thing kids use their phones for is taking photos of notes on the board. With a School Mode that works as describe above they could make it so the teacher can use their phone or tablet near the end of class to grant temporary camera permission to all the enrolled phones in that classroom.
GuB-42 2y ago
> How would you enforce this? It doesn't really need to be enforced. The problem is when kids are using their device in a way that the school considers inappropriate (because of distraction, etc...). "School mode" is supposed to help kids stay in focus. If the school notices a kid is using his device inappropriately (ex: responding to social media notifications), then the school can say "why wasn't that phone in school mode? it wouldn't have happened if it was" and take disciplinary action. A kid that is able to stay attentive and resist the barrage of notifications and all the addictive things smartphones are known for without help from "school mode" would show an impressive level of self-control and should be praised, not punished because he didn't press the right button.

wslh 2y ago

If there is a "school mode" you are not the owner of the device and it will be hacked very soon. It is important to realize that there are zillions of different devices beyond the Apple brand.

_boffin_ 2y ago

I see slippery slopes, but will most likely, this will become a feature.

miki123211 2y ago

How would you enforce this without invasive surveillance? How could a teacher check that school mode is on without gaining control of the device? How could they ensure that the mode isn't turned off when they aren't looking?

haswell 2y ago
This would require deep OS-level features from Apple/Google/etc. See my reply to a sibling comment for spitballing ideas, but I don’t think it’s necessary for this to be invasive. Another approach would be beacon-based, where the devices would operate with limited capability if in range of an actively broadcasting cryptographically secure “At School” beacon. I think there are plenty of ways to do this without surveillance or any specific knowledge about individuals using the phones, but it would require collaboration between schools and device manufacturers, and would understandably raise questions about whether disabling devices in this way is a slippery slope to other things. Although I wouldn’t be too mad if this was generalized to concerts and movie theaters. Finding the balance between policy enforcement and safety would be the top issue.
- JoshTriplett 2y ago
  > This would require deep OS-level features from Apple/Google/etc. See my reply to a sibling comment for spitballing ideas, but I don’t think it’s necessary for this to be invasive. This is by definition invasive; having the device maker or OS maker integrate it makes it more invasive, not less.
  - haswell 2y ago
    I don't think we're using the same definition of invasive. To me, invasive would be a solution that compromises the privacy of the child or parents or both. Apple's work on driver's licenses comes to mind. The deep integration is exactly what allows such a feature to not be invasive. Limits on what "School Mode" can actually do and the actual implementation approach will determine whether or not such a feature is invasive. It certainly could be implemented in an invasive way. But being invasive is not intrinsic to such a solution. And keep in mind the alternative is an outright ban, which in terms of absolute outcomes is far more "invasive" to individual carrying devices if you're using a definition of the word that covers "limits access to your device when on school premises".

t-writescode 2y ago

That would be terrifying in the case of an emergency; and no, the police aren't the only people you should want to be able to access in case of an emergency. And if there are exceptions, you can put anyone on the exception list (because it's just a list) and it makes the change as useless as any other feature. Parents already have parental modes on phones and they're not using them to this degree, it would seem.

haswell 2y ago
The "but what about emergencies" subject comes up often in the context of outright device bans. Such a feature would be no worse than a ban, nor do I think the concern about emergencies is justified. I realize that parents have become reliant on constant contact and never being out of touch, but this is a whole other conversation to have about whether or not that is actually of benefit to anyone involved. Plenty of reasons to believe it's a net-harm. > Parents already have parental modes on phones and they're not using them to this degree, it would seem. This is a good point, and I think one path forward would be to require parents to implement these modes. The solution to phones in schools can't just be policy - parents need to parent. Perhaps they'd be more likely to use those features if the alternative is an outright ban.

zifpanachr23 2y ago

I...don't really understand what the purpose of any of this would be? How are wearables "integrated with daily life" for most people right now? And to the extent that they are for a particular subset of adults...why is this something that we should allow, expect and not even try to stop children from doing? I get the impression that the logic you are following here could be more accurately described as "we should never ban any tech ever for anyone because it MIGHT in the future became important for most people's daily lives...assuming we didn't ban it". It seems like a circular argument to me and doesn't make any argument whatsoever about whether or not said devices SHOULD become part of children's (and adults) daily lives.

haswell 2y ago
> as our devices become increasingly wearable and integrated with daily life This is a forward looking statement. The point is that the integration of wearables is just beginning. Banning them might work for now, but assuming the integration continues and increases, banning them might not be viable in the future. Imagine a scenario where an Apple Watch is also monitoring blood glucose. Or where someone's prescription eyeglasses are also connected to the Internet. These are things that are already happening today, but haven't yet permeated society. Another 10, 20, 30 years of progress will bring new issues and consumer expectations that may make bans less viable. The point of all of this is to think about potential ways to navigate such a future.