A state wide mono-culture based on an unsolved cultural issue isn't "education" it's inherently heavy handed.
It also actively harms schools that may be trying to teach students how to use cell phones productively in their lives to help them solve problems rather than pretending as though they don't exist.
You can't get/keep many jobs without one here, so it would make sense that being able to have/use one should be part of the education for said jobs.
I haven't a job in ~7+ years that didn't require 2 factor applications on personal devices to be able to access company resources such as email, elevated security accounts, VPN connections, etc.
How it's handled in countries such as Norway or The Netherlands is that those kinds of classes are exempt from the ban. It's not a hard issue to solve.
Part of that is teaching people how to control their impulses and stay on task.
Your workspace isn't going to have you hang your phone up on the wall somewhere when you come into work and have someone tell you "now is the time to use your phone."
College isn't going to do it either.
We also could take some cues that maybe this isn't all as serious as we make it out to be. My high school back in the 2010s gave us a ton of busy work, insisted on making it effectively mandatory if you wanted a decent grade, didn't let people go to the bathroom without asking permission and using a sign out sheet, insisted every second of every lesson was crucial, and was very strict about not pulling out your cell phone basically ever (kids still snuck texts here and there).
I see more merits for small children, but in general I'm strongly in favor of radical changes to how we approach education ... because learning should be fun but is not for so many people ... and we forget so much of what we've been "taught" anyways.
I stand corrected. It doesn't include that as far as we know, on account of the bill not existing yet, not even in draft form. If you don't mind, I'm going to ignore everything else you say now.
Unless you're talking about treating smart phones like cigarettes it's not going to work the way you think it is though.
But no instead she's going to try and make parents buy another phone to send to school with their kids and do what with 800 dollar smart phones? What's the enforcement mechanism?
Are you ready for all the stories of the government confiscating expensive hardware from kids?
And for what gain? The second the kids are out of school the smart phones will come out again. So the only advantage is inside the school itself and we already have policies that deal with that.
This ban, especially being placed into state law, doesn't have anywhere good to go and is just going to be the modern DARE program, teaching kids the rules don't matter.
Early testsresults in the Netherlands have shown great succes. Less cyber bullying, more socializing by students, and better engagement in classroom. The students actually prefer it too.
I thought it was stupid too, but I've come around to it. A box full of dopamine hits is not for teenagers to decide wether they can interact with it or not.
Every teacher I know is happy with this move. Personally, I think kids could do fine with a flip phone. Maybe this will bring them back more on the market, too.
I work in a high school in a California school district where they're discussing banning cell phones.
Most teachers I've talked to about it think it's really fucking stupid because you're not going to be able to ban them, partly because a TON of parents showed up at the school board meeting to say they would send them with their kid anyway for a variety of reasons. The board also talked about different things they could buy to take phones and lock them up during class or as students come in. Most of the solutions were pretty expensive, and some of the schools are literally falling apart, so that also pissed people off.
A great start would be to have a campus-wide rule that is CONSISTENT. Some teachers give out a detention if they even see the phone. Some do activities with QR codes and use them as tools. Some have boxes on the corner of their desk and students are required to keep their phone in the box so the teacher can see if they reach for it. We have students with free periods, and if they don't go home, they hang out outside around campus or in the library. Should phones be banned then too? Or just during class?
There are so many ways to try to deal with it, and at least in my school (not even the district as a whole), every teacher deals with it differently. I doubt the state of New York is all that different.
That makes sense, too. Admittedly, my circle of teachers I know may be less than yours, but the ones I know seemed very exasperated with them. What do you sense a good, consistent rule would be?
Honestly, I'm at a loss. It's so hard to get a single school of teachers to stick to one policy, let alone at a district or state level. When I send an all-staff email at my school (and they're occasionally important with scheduling details), Outlook often tells me that only 67% of them even opened it.
I feel like you'd either have to:
a) incorporate cellphones as a tool in class and have standard repercussions (e.g. 1st/2nd time earn a detention, 3rd time earn a Saturday school) for kids texting/on social media, or
b) do something like a box on the desk so it's visible but they can't touch it.
I just don't think it's possible to ban them at school. Too many parents don't respect any school authority figures after COVID with all the culture war stuff (fight to return to full day school, fight to not wear masks, fight to censor bipoc and lgbtq+ books/lessons/celebrations, etc.). I think either way, it'll just end up being another shitty part of a teacher's job.
I mean that students can access that capability through a plethora of district provided resources. In the US, nearly every classroom has a fleet of laptops. Students don't need to use a device that lets them screw around and goof off anymore than that lol
I agree that there is some benefit for classrooms without that technology, but, honestly, it's more detrimental to the students' mental health and learning process, regardless.
Most kids in middle and many in high school cannot psychologically handle/manage using their cell phone appropriately in class. We can't expect them to. They're kids. They take pictures of each other without permission (usually, generally, innocent, but sometimes not), they spend hours of instructional time scrolling inane crap on Instagram or Twitter or whatever, or they straight up play fortnite all class.
Most of these kids have not yet been equipped with the media and tech literacy skills they need to make good choices regarding their technology. This comes down to the inherent lag time in the field of education and while we began addressing this over the last few years, a lot of kids have been raised by smartphones more than they have been by their parents.
Until that connection between student and smart phone is treated with greater respect and understanding, which will take a massive culture shift, kids don't need to access phones in class.
When i hear about social media hurting mental health i remember my time through school, before social media was a thing. The amounts are anecdotal of course, but all the same issues were definitely present. Bullying and harassment, body image problems, relationship problems, rumors and gossip and classism and bigotry. Social media is just another form of human interaction, human interaction itself can get ugly.
Social media use is related to classroom distractions, but I'd say it is it's own can of worms that needs to be addressed.
The issue is both with scope and amplification of persistent issues like those you mentioned as well as the detached nature of communication over these apps or just on the internet in general.
Human interactions are definitely ugly and awkward at times, especially between kids as they try to make sense of their world. The increased amount/prevalence of these opportunities for communication through an algorithmic lens that perpetuates unrealistic societal expectations and is designed to keep the user constantly engaged both take a greater toll on mental health and distract people (adults included) from the task at hand or reality in general.
If I used books for answers at work I'd be without a job pretty quick. It's a slow antiquated technique. I don't think kids need to look up answers on cell phones at school, but it would be smart to educate students how to use tools/resources that they will need and use in their daily lives.
The number of books that these students will reference in the their future careers in minimal. The number of phones/computer based systems is high.
If you are just teaching kids to regurgitate text from a textbook at this point they will forever be behind any LLM that exists. They need to learn to use information, quickly, and how to source it from reliable sources.
I very much think smartphones do not belong in the classroom.
That said, I also very much think that assault rifles don't belong in schools. And until we can prevent that, we can't really take away the only way for parents to figure out if their kid is dead or just traumatized.
Are increasingly unavailable on basically any real phone plan and effectively require a dedicated purchase. Rather than giving the kid yoru old motorola you kept in the drawer.
Also, as 9-11 and other "holy shit" moments taught us, having a wide range of ways to communicate with people when EVERYONE is trying to call or even text people (SMS is a best effort protocol for a reason) is important.
Again, if we actually care about the children? Stop fucking shooting them to death. Maybe then we can figure out why they don't need to be constantly connected to everyone they know.
A Light Phone or Light phone 2 is capable of doing literally everything you need from a smart phone without the bloat and distraction. It's legitimate with most service providers as well.
There's viable options out there that aren't "flip phones".
Light phones also cost 300-800 (!?!?!) USD and aren't carried by phone providers who give people "a free upgrade" every few years.
Yes, there are the parents who buy their toddler a flagship iphone. The vast majority are just taking the phone they were totally going to recycle that has been living in the junk drawer for years and give it to their kid for emergencies and fortnite.
The vast majority of phone providers (in the US at least, which is where this is pertinent) have heavily subsidized phones if you agree to an N-month contract. And while the price of that can come out worse, it is also a lot easier for underprivileged people to spend an extra few bucks a month for two years than to set aside that money to make the couple hundred dollar purchase (for better or for worse).
And if you are willing to actually talk to a CSR you can often get the price to pay off that phone completely negated. Which IS good if that phone plan is good for you.
To my knowledge, Light does not partner with any of the major carriers so that is not an option. So you are buying those phones, regardless.
The Internet loves to build this strawman of a first grader who has the latest top end iphone. And... some of those do exist. But mostly it is parents getting a phone either "for free" or actually for free because they agree to not leave Verizon or whatever for 2 years and giving the old one to their kid.
I mean, you could get social media companies to turn posting off during school hours, that'd sure take the wind out of the sales of most of the most blatant things students do when they pull their phones out in class
Little derps get their news from that shit anyways, let's treat it the same as the 24 hour news cycle crisis and just make the companies stop for the parts of the day where people need most to be focusing on other shit. No airwaves, no airwaves occupying everyone's eyeballs and sending them into doomscroll mode.
Honestly that could be a pretty good gimmick for a new social media company in general, you can write, snap, record, photograph whatever, BUT all posts publish in the morning or evening "editions" and comments are open for 2 hours after (you can go back and comment on old posts), I feel like it could be an artificial scarcity thing, if people only have limited time when they can use the platform in a day, they'll make the most of that time whenever they're able.
Got it. Fuck the "little derps". Their blood makes great gun lube, huh?
ANYTHING to prevent people from actually approaching the real problem of the mass availability of firearms that puts children in a situation where they need to be able to say goodbye to their parents before they are sacrificed to the altar of the AR-15.
Nobody's talking about giving guns the Elizabeth Baathory skincare regime but you chief.
But sure, kids being restricted to call text and messaging during school hours is EXACTLY the same as just asking them to line up against the wall for the shooter.
You understand that a lot of communication in that scenario can, at worst, lead to crucial misinformation about what's going on and, at best, is unnecessary, don't you?
Obviously, these shootings happen, but the solution is not to arm each student with a cell phone, just as it sure as hell isn't to arm each teacher with a firearm.
The detrimental effects of cell phone usage in the classroom are well documented and plain as day if you just walk into a high school or middle school lesson. Even with highly engaging teachers and lessons, there are kids who slip through the cracks because nobody can compete with the newest fad app designed to melt a child's brain and possibly drain their parent's bank accounts.
This move addresses a significant issue within our school system. Addressing gun violence in the US is a very complex issue that needs to be tackled through a lot of different fronts. Kids having smart phones in school will not address that issue.
Obviously, these shootings happen, but the solution is not to arm each student with a cell phone, just as it sure as hell isn’t to arm each teacher with a firearm.
You're right. The solution is fucking gun control. Not isolating those kids out of fear that they might give the cops misinformation and there won't e a safe space to play flappy bird while children are being executed.
So how about you shut the fuck up about how it is more important to isolate the kids than to protect them? Hmm?
I think flip/dumb phones are still allowed with most smartphone bans, are you suggesting this one is different?
I think this is less about isolating kids than it is separating them from distracting and addictive apps.
Also it creates a class distinction in schools - some kids don't have them causing them to be socially isolated
Personally I think the schools should be handing out locked down wifi phones to students without smart phones. But I don't think any part of this is about isolating students.
Would you allow the children to have a cell phone in school so they can say goodbye to their parents before they are shot to death? Seems a fair concession vs the apparent need to prevent the kids from spreading misinformation about a gunman roaming the school.
What's with the fetishization of school shootings in this thread?
This whole argument is weird. Kids don't need smart phones in school. Is your argument that we should let kids have smart phones so they can call their parents if there is ever a school shooting? Do you think every kid should be prepared for imminent death at all times in the classroom? What's the actual argument?
I'm stating that smart phones are a net negative to any learning environment and there are already effective modes of communication within schools.
At that point, take your kids out of school if you're that worried about them being able to say goodbye.
During the 99.99999999% of the time the school isn't being shot up, the goal is for the kids to learn. Even with as many school shootings as we have now, the odds of your kids being in one is still incredibly small. Way higher than it should be, but ensuring the kids are getting quality education is still the top priority on a day to day basis.
This wasn't possible 10 years ago so why does it matter today?
Besides, the cops are just going to arrest you if you try to go in, they have to stand outside and let the shooter play themselves out shooting your kids before they'll let anyone in.
The problem with this position is that your child being a victim of a school shooting is extremely rare. Phones are ubiquitous. You're trading the risk of something that will likely not happen to any one student (and won't really help anything anyway), for a near guaranteed risk of serious damage to many kids education.
I actually have a child, unlike some of the people downvoting you, and I agree with you. I’m not willing to watch my kid’s educational environment destroyed by smartphones all for the sake of some “but muh child” panic. My kid doesn’t even own a smartphone. Anyone want to tell me that I’m somehow risking their life? If there’s a shooter at their school, me knowing what’s happening in real time will not save their life.
As a footnote, the top commenter hinted that if someday we could solve the gun / danger thing, THEN we could remove smartphones. But the reality is that that panic will never be satisfied. There will never come a point when people say “I’m content that there are no dangers to my child during the day.”
Ban fucking phones in class. Maybe it’s just me living through my whole childhood without one just fine, but ffs people don’t even see how addicted to them we’ve become. Kids deserve a chance at at least a few years of life without that.
“I have seen these addictive algorithms pull in young people, literally capture them and make them prisoners in a space where they are cut off from human connection, social interaction and normal classroom activity,” she said.
The smartphone-ban bill will follow two others Hochul is pushing that outline measures to safeguard children’s privacy online and limit their access to certain features of social networks.
In New York, the bills have faced pushback from big tech, trade groups and other companies, which collectively spent more than $800,000 between October and March lobbying against one or both of them, according to public disclosure records.
This differs from other state-level bills across the country, which place some reliance on self-policing by tech companies to decide which features could be harmful by completing assessments of whether products are “reasonably likely” to be accessed by children.
“Meta itself admits its own parental controls aren’t widely used – they’re often confusing and frequently fail to work as intended,” said Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, a policy advocacy organization.
The major social media firms have faced increasing scrutiny over harms against children, including sextortion scams, grooming by predators and worsening mental health.
The original article contains 922 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
