3 ms·

To those saying this shouldn't be law, and instead school policy, that is precisely what this bill is requiring is it not? Further, it gives protection to stude

To those saying this shouldn't be law, and instead school policy, that is precisely what this bill is requiring is it not? Further, it gives protection to students who might need a device for whatever reason. That's probably the most important piece of this bill. Many students require the use of assisted technology and poorly run school systems, such as the one I was in, are more likely to harm students if they are to roll their own policy without such protection. This seems reasonable to me.

Aloha 2y ago
Parents will howl at the local admin if its locally changeable policy - I suspect that the thought of being out of touch with their children is unbearable.
- vundercind 2y ago
  This is exactly why they’re not already banned in practically all schools. Teachers and admin want to. Enough parents throw a fit if they can’t text their kid in class just to shoot the shit (seriously) that lots of schools have just given up, though. There are only so many hours in the day.
roenxi 2y ago
This is a minor matter that is a strictly California thing so sure, they can roll this way if they want. Worse things have happened. But if you want the outline of why this sort of thing shouldn't be a law, the issue here is that it might be that the best educators will ban devices. It might be that the best educators encourage and leverage devices. Or it might even be that they take no position on the matter. Any which way, either there is consensus and the Californian legislature doesn't need to act because the schools can, or there is no consensus and the Californian legislature should leave it to parents and educators to sort out without pretending it has some sort of competence to add anything to the mix. Legislating everything that seems like a good idea at the time is a pretty safe way to end up doing real damage as people initially had many options to act cleverly but now do not. This is not something that the politicians have any reason to be dealing with.
- goosejuice 2y ago
  To be clear, I agree with some of what you're saying. I think bans on anything are generally questionable and prefer to see individuals, children included, given agency over what they find is best for their situation. I also see the value in school choice. I also know that people are stupid, children included, and don't always act in their best interest. Hence why there's restrictions on nicotine, alcohol, and driving for youth and that generally isn't a partisan issue. However, this bill doesn't appear to specify how phones are restricted, just that there is a school policy. Further it gives protections to students who need it. This is why I find it reasonable. Schools still appear to have a choice in implementation. That said I'm not a Californian, I'm childless, and I only scanned through the bill.

Aloha 2y ago

Parents will howl at the local admin if its locally changeable policy - I suspect that the thought of being out of touch with their children is unbearable.

vundercind 2y ago
This is exactly why they’re not already banned in practically all schools. Teachers and admin want to. Enough parents throw a fit if they can’t text their kid in class just to shoot the shit (seriously) that lots of schools have just given up, though. There are only so many hours in the day.

roenxi 2y ago

This is a minor matter that is a strictly California thing so sure, they can roll this way if they want. Worse things have happened. But if you want the outline of why this sort of thing shouldn't be a law, the issue here is that it might be that the best educators will ban devices. It might be that the best educators encourage and leverage devices. Or it might even be that they take no position on the matter. Any which way, either there is consensus and the Californian legislature doesn't need to act because the schools can, or there is no consensus and the Californian legislature should leave it to parents and educators to sort out without pretending it has some sort of competence to add anything to the mix. Legislating everything that seems like a good idea at the time is a pretty safe way to end up doing real damage as people initially had many options to act cleverly but now do not. This is not something that the politicians have any reason to be dealing with.

goosejuice 2y ago
To be clear, I agree with some of what you're saying. I think bans on anything are generally questionable and prefer to see individuals, children included, given agency over what they find is best for their situation. I also see the value in school choice. I also know that people are stupid, children included, and don't always act in their best interest. Hence why there's restrictions on nicotine, alcohol, and driving for youth and that generally isn't a partisan issue. However, this bill doesn't appear to specify how phones are restricted, just that there is a school policy. Further it gives protections to students who need it. This is why I find it reasonable. Schools still appear to have a choice in implementation. That said I'm not a Californian, I'm childless, and I only scanned through the bill.