5 ms·

How is this effective at all? Every kid will continue to use them surreptitiously, as they always have.

by basisword 3mo ago

happypappy123 3mo ago
[dead]
- basisword 3mo ago
  The only friction here is 'you're not allowed to do that' - which doesn't typically work on teenagers. We had the same rules for dumbbphones and iPod's 20 years ago and it didn't work then.
  - oblio 3mo ago
    I've talked to parents of kids where they banned smartphones and the difference is palpable. And good.
  - Jtsummers 3mo ago
    In many US schools, they'd take those things away (and return them at end of day, typically) 20-30 years ago. But it helps when it's policy, if it's not a policy then the teacher has no backing from the school.
  - bilekas 3mo ago
    It definitely reduced usesge though. I was the same age in teens with dumb phones and they were only banned in class. Either way, it's better to have the restrictions in this case than a free for all because teenagers will push limits constantly. I don't see a downside to this.
  - throw1234567891 3mo ago
    If it’s legally grounded you get more options.
  - amelius 3mo ago
    > which doesn't typically work on teenagers Depends. You have "good kids" and "bad kids". If this law helps the good kids, then that's at least a win.
  - zdragnar 3mo ago
    It absolutely worked in my school a little over 20 years ago. Teachers and staff always took away disallowed devices and that set the tone quite well.
  - Rebelgecko 3mo ago
    Fwiw when I was in school kids would definitely check their phones from time to time or send an occasional surreptitious text. But it wasn't as pervasive as it is today- I was pretty shocked to see even at the elementary school level how much class time kids spend on their personal devices
  - dbbk 3mo ago
    Eh? It did work. You'd get it confiscated off you.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
oblio 3mo ago
This type of repetitive comment[1] is a bit like the bike lanes discussion: 1.City introduces bike lanes on street. 2. Residents complain about parking spaces going away, businesses complain about future bankruptcies due to fewer customers, general uproar is huge. 3. Residents discover bike lanes are quiet, and they also reduce ambient noise levels due to reduced car traffic, air is also cleaner, roads and intersections are safer. 4. Businesses (re) discover that cars don't buy things, people in big metal boxes going 50+kmph don't buy as many things. But people biking and walking are... foot traffic... and business goes up. 5. City decides to introduce bike lanes on another street. 6. Cycle repeats. To your point about phones, it is very effective. If nobody can take their phone out on the school premise, suddenly it's very obvious who's trying to break the rule and guess what. Kids play, kids talk face to face, etc. * * * [1] This type of comment is one of the first things posted for these types of articles.
- ck2 3mo ago
  and completely seriously: 7. right-wing gains power and bans bike lanes anyway, labeling them "leftist" city after city in various states/countries but back to phones the real problem is they can't rule that parents must be responsible for their children I find the moral panic about kids with phones/internet access fascinating because of course it's a problem, but it's not the root cause of the problem ps. I am so old we weren't allowed to have calculators in school, absolutely forbidden
  - oblio 3mo ago
    > the real problem is they can't rule that parents must be responsible for their children It's impossible for the average parent to police their child's smartphone. They just don't have, and never will have, the technical skills. > I find the moral panic about kids with phones/internet access fascinating And for those parents, which are quite rare, that do have the technical skills AND the involvement to ban smartphone usage at young ages, guess what. When Joey and Mickey and Sarah all have smartphones and are doom scrolling TikTok, even those parents lose. If all socializing moves to smartphones, the weirdo kids that don't have them or access to the "cool stuff" are automatically excluded. It's extremely alienating and nothing like not having calculators or PCs. Back in your day (or mine), huge corporations more akin to drug dealers employing tens of psychologists weren't trying to get kids addicted to calculators.
cromka 3mo ago
Every kid? Seriously?
vel0city 3mo ago
I can only speak for what I've seen, and my state has banned phones during school. Before the ban, students would just openly use devices during class. Teachers were essentially powerless to do anything. Kids would be openly playing games, watching videos, etc with practically no recourse. Now with the state law actually forcing it, enforcement is mugh higher. If phones are caught out the administration takes the devices and requires a parent to come into the school to sign off and release the device. Does some usage still happen? Sure. Is it far less than before and considerably less during actual classtime? Absolutely. It's like you're arguing murder still happens even though it's illegal so what's the point of making it a crime.

How is this effective at all? Every kid will continue to use them surreptitiously, as they always have.

happypappy123 3mo ago

[dead]

basisword 3mo ago
The only friction here is 'you're not allowed to do that' - which doesn't typically work on teenagers. We had the same rules for dumbbphones and iPod's 20 years ago and it didn't work then.
- oblio 3mo ago
  I've talked to parents of kids where they banned smartphones and the difference is palpable. And good.
- Jtsummers 3mo ago
  In many US schools, they'd take those things away (and return them at end of day, typically) 20-30 years ago. But it helps when it's policy, if it's not a policy then the teacher has no backing from the school.
- bilekas 3mo ago
  It definitely reduced usesge though. I was the same age in teens with dumb phones and they were only banned in class. Either way, it's better to have the restrictions in this case than a free for all because teenagers will push limits constantly. I don't see a downside to this.
- throw1234567891 3mo ago
  If it’s legally grounded you get more options.
- amelius 3mo ago
  > which doesn't typically work on teenagers Depends. You have "good kids" and "bad kids". If this law helps the good kids, then that's at least a win.
- zdragnar 3mo ago
  It absolutely worked in my school a little over 20 years ago. Teachers and staff always took away disallowed devices and that set the tone quite well.
- Rebelgecko 3mo ago
  Fwiw when I was in school kids would definitely check their phones from time to time or send an occasional surreptitious text. But it wasn't as pervasive as it is today- I was pretty shocked to see even at the elementary school level how much class time kids spend on their personal devices
- dbbk 3mo ago
  Eh? It did work. You'd get it confiscated off you.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]

oblio 3mo ago

This type of repetitive comment[1] is a bit like the bike lanes discussion: 1.City introduces bike lanes on street. 2. Residents complain about parking spaces going away, businesses complain about future bankruptcies due to fewer customers, general uproar is huge. 3. Residents discover bike lanes are quiet, and they also reduce ambient noise levels due to reduced car traffic, air is also cleaner, roads and intersections are safer. 4. Businesses (re) discover that cars don't buy things, people in big metal boxes going 50+kmph don't buy as many things. But people biking and walking are... foot traffic... and business goes up. 5. City decides to introduce bike lanes on another street. 6. Cycle repeats. To your point about phones, it is very effective. If nobody can take their phone out on the school premise, suddenly it's very obvious who's trying to break the rule and guess what. Kids play, kids talk face to face, etc. * * * [1] This type of comment is one of the first things posted for these types of articles.

ck2 3mo ago
and completely seriously: 7. right-wing gains power and bans bike lanes anyway, labeling them "leftist" city after city in various states/countries but back to phones the real problem is they can't rule that parents must be responsible for their children I find the moral panic about kids with phones/internet access fascinating because of course it's a problem, but it's not the root cause of the problem ps. I am so old we weren't allowed to have calculators in school, absolutely forbidden
- oblio 3mo ago
  > the real problem is they can't rule that parents must be responsible for their children It's impossible for the average parent to police their child's smartphone. They just don't have, and never will have, the technical skills. > I find the moral panic about kids with phones/internet access fascinating And for those parents, which are quite rare, that do have the technical skills AND the involvement to ban smartphone usage at young ages, guess what. When Joey and Mickey and Sarah all have smartphones and are doom scrolling TikTok, even those parents lose. If all socializing moves to smartphones, the weirdo kids that don't have them or access to the "cool stuff" are automatically excluded. It's extremely alienating and nothing like not having calculators or PCs. Back in your day (or mine), huge corporations more akin to drug dealers employing tens of psychologists weren't trying to get kids addicted to calculators.

cromka 3mo ago

Every kid? Seriously?

vel0city 3mo ago

I can only speak for what I've seen, and my state has banned phones during school. Before the ban, students would just openly use devices during class. Teachers were essentially powerless to do anything. Kids would be openly playing games, watching videos, etc with practically no recourse. Now with the state law actually forcing it, enforcement is mugh higher. If phones are caught out the administration takes the devices and requires a parent to come into the school to sign off and release the device. Does some usage still happen? Sure. Is it far less than before and considerably less during actual classtime? Absolutely. It's like you're arguing murder still happens even though it's illegal so what's the point of making it a crime.