There’s a lot of people here immediately jumping to the “cell phones bad!” conclusion.
Phones are a part of kids lives nowadays. Banning them in schools isn’t going to help anyone. How are children supposed to learn to use technology safely and effectively if we just take it away from them instead? I don’t want to imply that it is only a teachers job to teach kids about safe technology use, because it isn’t, but kids spend 30+ hours a week at school. It is a large portion of their lives and what they learn in the classroom often ends up reflected in their lives outside of school.
I think everyone who jumps to the conclusion to ban cell phones in schools is missing the point. All it does is encourage kids to use their technology in unsupervised spaces instead. It doesn’t teach them how to use it safely or effectively, and it doesn’t prevent them from participating in cyber bullying. All it does is push issues such as that outside of the school where kids have arguably less resources and support systems to deal with it.
We can all agree that alcohol isn’t bad by itself and that we can learn to use it safely (don’t drink too much, knowing when we had enough etc…). And yet we keep away alcohol from children. Why? Because it is a well-known fact that children may not have the capability to limit themselves; they might very well become addicted and fall into it.
Why should it be any different for mobile phones? We know it can become an addiction. And we also know that children do not have the means to limit themselves because of their young age.
Deliberately letting a kid having a phone for an indefinite amount of time is being irresponsible. What would be responsible is only allowing to use the phone for a limited time.
Schools banning phone could be one way towards that. It would be a good way too because the kid would not be suffering from any social pressure from their peers as everyone would be concerned with the ban.
I started learning to code at 9 years old and that helped me become a professional developer in my teens. Preventing access to technology is just removing opportunities from your children. Teach them responsible usage, if it was possible 30 years ago it’s possible now.
Staring down enshittified platforms instead of learning actual social interaction. 👌
E: This may come off as it’s their fault. That’s not the case of course. That’s why adults are having this conversation. The adults before them built the system that gave us these companies which create those enshittified platforms in the neverending search of profit.
They learn to customize their phones, can figure out how to build apps for them, etc. Mobile programming is, predictably, a very good skill to have right now.
Yeah, and they can learn that during a class or vocational semester for the subject, but everyone needs a solid baseline in core subjects without being constantly distracted.
Which is fine. Programming is only an example of where opportunity was found in his time, not where current/future people will find opportunity. We don’t know what the new opportunities will be. If we did, we’d have already opportunized them to death.
I’m all in to get programming classes where children learn to code on PCs. That’s a high pass for me. But AFAIK children aren’t doing programming on their phones.
In general i doubt using a phone at school is going to help them program or teach them about technology. They have plenty of time to explore phones on their own when they get home, especially now that kids don’t go much outside anymore. It’s not like a school ban would be cutting that away from them.
This is just a bad comparison, comparing a drug to electronics makes literally 0 sense.
We don’t let kids eat during class because it’s disruptive, should we ban eating in schools all together? Kids aren’t allowed to play sports in the hallways, sports can cause injuries, ban sports at school?
That’s the logic of this comparison, that is, none at all.
It’s an analogy. It’s inaccurate as all analogies are. Yet it’s useful to make the point that banning children from doing X or Y isn’t unprecedented or unacceptable.
Kids go to school for much more than what they learn in class. A fully formed human being that can function in a society requires a lot of social interaction training. That’s what school is for in-between classes. If kids are staring down their phones during that time instead of interacting with each other, that training is lost. Worse, instead of that, they get trained on a false social reality as portrayed by whatever enshittified platform they’re currently on, based on whatever behavior makes the most money today. Is this enough to visualize the damage phones in hallways cause?
I am comparing a drug to a drug that’s the whole point. Phones are drugs. For adults and children alike.
The problem is not in the phone itself. It’s in the lack of doing things that kids should normally be doing at that age. They will play with their phone instead of playing physically (less tonus), sleeping (constant tiredness), talking with their parents (learning) or other kids (socializing).
I know kids like that in my family. You can tell from the dark lines under their eyes that they spend most of their day staring at a screen. And if you ask them to play outside they just don’t know what to do, they need access to a screen even with other kids. It’s really a scary sight. And its a drug yes
Cars are very much part of our lives and we decided that there was a minimum age to own and operate them. I could potentially get behind a system where we don’t let children below a certain age operate / own a phone.
It’s illegal to smoke with a kid in your car, but we have no problem giving a 10 year old kid unfiltered internet 24/7 as a society.
I don’t strictly disagree, but the damage misusing a car can cause is a lot more obvious and quantifiable than a phone, so it is a much harder argument to make
That said, high school students do drive and they can’t do so in the classroom, so we’re rapidly approaching an apples and oranges argument with regards to how phones should specifically look inside of school.
This is a hot take that I can get on board with. I think in order for this to happen we (as a society) will have to come to grips with the real damage device addiction can do to our lives. The harm is easy to find with second hand smoke and alcohol but we do a great job turning a blind eye to all the issues we’re causing for ourselves by being stuck on our devices.
I’ll counter your hot take. I don’t think kids should have unfiltered or unsupervised access to the internet. That’s exactly what I’m stating in my original comment. Classrooms are supervised spaces where kids can learn how to use the internet and technology as a tool. We can’t just go “you’re 8 so you can’t use technology.” That isn’t an effective way to teach children about the world. Allowing them to use technology in safe, supervised settings, and teaching them how to use it safely and effectively is more useful than straight up banning it until they pass a certain age threshold.
Growing up, I had access to a computer from the age of 2. I could use it to play games, listen to music, make greeting cards, etc. but I had daily time limits for the amount of screen time I was allowed. I also wasn’t allowed unsupervised internet usage. This was far more effective than completely banning me from using the computer until I was older, in my opinion. I was far more technically literate than the majority of my friends by the time I hit first grade, and it helped immensely throughout my school years. When you know how to use a tool safely and effectively, you can use it to complete tasks and projects far more efficiently. If we get hung up on labelling all technology as equal and bad and banning it, we’re missing the good parts of it. Nothing is inherently bad. The use is what makes it bad. If we teach proper use, we lower the chances of the bad things happening.
I give my children unfettered access to technology. It is very much a last resort for them, only picking up a device when they have exhausted all other visible opportunity to do something more interesting. Suggesting that they do almost anything else is met with “Yeah! Let’s do that!”
If a student is reaching for their phone in class, the problem is with something about the class. Being old, cell phones came in giant bags when I was a student, but we played with our calculators, doodled, or anything else to stave off the same boredom when we had a horrible teacher who had no clue as to what they were doing. The phone is just a more modern version of the exact same quest for distraction.
I think the point is that we need to question why we are wasting our students’ time in classes which are not providing value. There is a lot of sentimental attachment to school, but ultimately there is no need for make work projects. The focus needs to be on delivering value and where that is not being delivered a rethink is necessary.
Phone use, or any such distraction, is a symptom telling us that there is a problem in value delivery. Suppressing a symptom does not cure the illness.
Distractions don’t help, but they also don’t hinder, so long as value is being delivered. What would even compel one to reach for their phone if greater value is derived by not using it?
Of course, if you have attended school before you know full well that value is not consistently delivered. A lot of teachers don’t know how to approach a class, period. Even when they do, not all students can be approached the same way. When the stars align value can be provided, but it is a highly imperfect system.
Nothing in life is perfect, and knowing that, why shove the clearly imperfect parts down students’ throats unnecessarily? They are not deriving value from it. Again, I understand the sentimental attachment, but that is not a good reason.
Distractions don’t help, but they also don’t hinder,
Lol yes they do practically by definition. A distraction provides no value pretty much by definition.
Nothing in life is perfect, so why are we adding even more distractions in class. Nothing in life is perfect, so why don’t we help the situation by removing phones from class. Improve the situation by getting good teachers, and we can add even more by not having them compete with the insanely engineered to be addictive tiktok during class time. These work together.
A distraction, by definition, must provide some amount of value. The amount is likely low, but must offer more than what it is in competition with. Certainly when a class is offering no value, the value of a distraction need not be high to be able to offer more value.
We agree that students not deriving value are a distraction to the teacher. Send them on their way to find something that is providing them value/more value than TikTok. While we have primarily focused on the wasting of student time, we have also touched on it being a waste of teacher time. As before, we don’t need make work projects.
The focus must be on value delivery. When value is not being delivered, there needs to be a rethink. Suppressing a symptom does not cure the illness and sentimental attachment is not good reason to hang on to an illness.
Lol no a distraction does not provide value, by itself. And no it does not offer more value than an actual class. That’s not what a distraction is.
Value is being delivered in class, and the distraction is distracting from that value. And removing phone helps remove that distraction. This is not one or the other, you add things that help and you take away things that hurt. It’s not a binary. You do things together.
You’re so twisted around on terms and trying to twist the result means, and then trying to put it as a binary one thing or the other. Factors work together. I’m not replying further.
A distraction must provide value and it must provide more value than the alternative. Humans always seek to maximize available value, so if there is no value proposition then the behaviour will not take place.
The dopamine hit of TikTok can be pretty decent value, all things considered. An un-engaging teacher droning on is of decidedly low value. If the teacher cannot rise above TikTok, TikTok is going to win every time.
Decent value is not high value, though. It is not that hard to provide value that exceeds that of TikTok. You only have to step outside to see kids doing all kinds of interesting things without phones in their faces. Again, you only see the phones come out when the alternative is of depressingly low value.
I get the feeling you are trying to push what you find valuable onto others. Life doesn’t work that way. Value is determined by each individual for themselves.
There’s a lot of people here immediately jumping to the “cell phones bad!” conclusion.
Phones are a part of kids lives nowadays. Banning them in schools isn’t going to help anyone. How are children supposed to learn to use technology safely and effectively if we just take it away from them instead? I don’t want to imply that it is only a teachers job to teach kids about safe technology use, because it isn’t, but kids spend 30+ hours a week at school. It is a large portion of their lives and what they learn in the classroom often ends up reflected in their lives outside of school.
I think everyone who jumps to the conclusion to ban cell phones in schools is missing the point. All it does is encourage kids to use their technology in unsupervised spaces instead. It doesn’t teach them how to use it safely or effectively, and it doesn’t prevent them from participating in cyber bullying. All it does is push issues such as that outside of the school where kids have arguably less resources and support systems to deal with it.
We can all agree that alcohol isn’t bad by itself and that we can learn to use it safely (don’t drink too much, knowing when we had enough etc…). And yet we keep away alcohol from children. Why? Because it is a well-known fact that children may not have the capability to limit themselves; they might very well become addicted and fall into it.
Why should it be any different for mobile phones? We know it can become an addiction. And we also know that children do not have the means to limit themselves because of their young age.
Deliberately letting a kid having a phone for an indefinite amount of time is being irresponsible. What would be responsible is only allowing to use the phone for a limited time.
Schools banning phone could be one way towards that. It would be a good way too because the kid would not be suffering from any social pressure from their peers as everyone would be concerned with the ban.
I started learning to code at 9 years old and that helped me become a professional developer in my teens. Preventing access to technology is just removing opportunities from your children. Teach them responsible usage, if it was possible 30 years ago it’s possible now.
Nobody does programming on their phones
Staring down enshittified platforms instead of learning actual social interaction. 👌
E: This may come off as it’s their fault. That’s not the case of course. That’s why adults are having this conversation. The adults before them built the system that gave us these companies which create those enshittified platforms in the neverending search of profit.
They learn to customize their phones, can figure out how to build apps for them, etc. Mobile programming is, predictably, a very good skill to have right now.
Yeah, and they can learn that during a class or vocational semester for the subject, but everyone needs a solid baseline in core subjects without being constantly distracted.
Which is fine. Programming is only an example of where opportunity was found in his time, not where current/future people will find opportunity. We don’t know what the new opportunities will be. If we did, we’d have already opportunized them to death.
I’m all in to get programming classes where children learn to code on PCs. That’s a high pass for me. But AFAIK children aren’t doing programming on their phones.
In general i doubt using a phone at school is going to help them program or teach them about technology. They have plenty of time to explore phones on their own when they get home, especially now that kids don’t go much outside anymore. It’s not like a school ban would be cutting that away from them.
This is just a bad comparison, comparing a drug to electronics makes literally 0 sense.
We don’t let kids eat during class because it’s disruptive, should we ban eating in schools all together? Kids aren’t allowed to play sports in the hallways, sports can cause injuries, ban sports at school?
That’s the logic of this comparison, that is, none at all.
It’s an analogy. It’s inaccurate as all analogies are. Yet it’s useful to make the point that banning children from doing X or Y isn’t unprecedented or unacceptable.
Kids go to school for much more than what they learn in class. A fully formed human being that can function in a society requires a lot of social interaction training. That’s what school is for in-between classes. If kids are staring down their phones during that time instead of interacting with each other, that training is lost. Worse, instead of that, they get trained on a false social reality as portrayed by whatever enshittified platform they’re currently on, based on whatever behavior makes the most money today. Is this enough to visualize the damage phones in hallways cause?
I am comparing a drug to a drug that’s the whole point. Phones are drugs. For adults and children alike.
The problem is not in the phone itself. It’s in the lack of doing things that kids should normally be doing at that age. They will play with their phone instead of playing physically (less tonus), sleeping (constant tiredness), talking with their parents (learning) or other kids (socializing).
I know kids like that in my family. You can tell from the dark lines under their eyes that they spend most of their day staring at a screen. And if you ask them to play outside they just don’t know what to do, they need access to a screen even with other kids. It’s really a scary sight. And its a drug yes
Dopamine receptors outnumbering all others on their neurons.
You’re so close the understanding the problem
I understand the problem, I agree that kids shouldn’t be on their phone in class. I stand by my point though, which is that this is a bad comparison.
This is going to be my hot take of the day.
Cars are very much part of our lives and we decided that there was a minimum age to own and operate them. I could potentially get behind a system where we don’t let children below a certain age operate / own a phone.
It’s illegal to smoke with a kid in your car, but we have no problem giving a 10 year old kid unfiltered internet 24/7 as a society.
I don’t strictly disagree, but the damage misusing a car can cause is a lot more obvious and quantifiable than a phone, so it is a much harder argument to make
That said, high school students do drive and they can’t do so in the classroom, so we’re rapidly approaching an apples and oranges argument with regards to how phones should specifically look inside of school.
This is a hot take that I can get on board with. I think in order for this to happen we (as a society) will have to come to grips with the real damage device addiction can do to our lives. The harm is easy to find with second hand smoke and alcohol but we do a great job turning a blind eye to all the issues we’re causing for ourselves by being stuck on our devices.
I’ll counter your hot take. I don’t think kids should have unfiltered or unsupervised access to the internet. That’s exactly what I’m stating in my original comment. Classrooms are supervised spaces where kids can learn how to use the internet and technology as a tool. We can’t just go “you’re 8 so you can’t use technology.” That isn’t an effective way to teach children about the world. Allowing them to use technology in safe, supervised settings, and teaching them how to use it safely and effectively is more useful than straight up banning it until they pass a certain age threshold.
Growing up, I had access to a computer from the age of 2. I could use it to play games, listen to music, make greeting cards, etc. but I had daily time limits for the amount of screen time I was allowed. I also wasn’t allowed unsupervised internet usage. This was far more effective than completely banning me from using the computer until I was older, in my opinion. I was far more technically literate than the majority of my friends by the time I hit first grade, and it helped immensely throughout my school years. When you know how to use a tool safely and effectively, you can use it to complete tasks and projects far more efficiently. If we get hung up on labelling all technology as equal and bad and banning it, we’re missing the good parts of it. Nothing is inherently bad. The use is what makes it bad. If we teach proper use, we lower the chances of the bad things happening.
It has a time and place. I think the point here is that the time and place is not in class.
I give my children unfettered access to technology. It is very much a last resort for them, only picking up a device when they have exhausted all other visible opportunity to do something more interesting. Suggesting that they do almost anything else is met with “Yeah! Let’s do that!”
If a student is reaching for their phone in class, the problem is with something about the class. Being old, cell phones came in giant bags when I was a student, but we played with our calculators, doodled, or anything else to stave off the same boredom when we had a horrible teacher who had no clue as to what they were doing. The phone is just a more modern version of the exact same quest for distraction.
I think the point is that we need to question why we are wasting our students’ time in classes which are not providing value. There is a lot of sentimental attachment to school, but ultimately there is no need for make work projects. The focus needs to be on delivering value and where that is not being delivered a rethink is necessary.
Phone use, or any such distraction, is a symptom telling us that there is a problem in value delivery. Suppressing a symptom does not cure the illness.
You don’t have to look very far to know your n of 1 isn’t representative.
And adding more distraction opportunities doesn’t help.
Distractions don’t help, but they also don’t hinder, so long as value is being delivered. What would even compel one to reach for their phone if greater value is derived by not using it?
Of course, if you have attended school before you know full well that value is not consistently delivered. A lot of teachers don’t know how to approach a class, period. Even when they do, not all students can be approached the same way. When the stars align value can be provided, but it is a highly imperfect system.
Nothing in life is perfect, and knowing that, why shove the clearly imperfect parts down students’ throats unnecessarily? They are not deriving value from it. Again, I understand the sentimental attachment, but that is not a good reason.
Lol yes they do practically by definition. A distraction provides no value pretty much by definition.
Nothing in life is perfect, so why are we adding even more distractions in class. Nothing in life is perfect, so why don’t we help the situation by removing phones from class. Improve the situation by getting good teachers, and we can add even more by not having them compete with the insanely engineered to be addictive tiktok during class time. These work together.
A distraction, by definition, must provide some amount of value. The amount is likely low, but must offer more than what it is in competition with. Certainly when a class is offering no value, the value of a distraction need not be high to be able to offer more value.
We agree that students not deriving value are a distraction to the teacher. Send them on their way to find something that is providing them value/more value than TikTok. While we have primarily focused on the wasting of student time, we have also touched on it being a waste of teacher time. As before, we don’t need make work projects.
The focus must be on value delivery. When value is not being delivered, there needs to be a rethink. Suppressing a symptom does not cure the illness and sentimental attachment is not good reason to hang on to an illness.
Lol no a distraction does not provide value, by itself. And no it does not offer more value than an actual class. That’s not what a distraction is.
Value is being delivered in class, and the distraction is distracting from that value. And removing phone helps remove that distraction. This is not one or the other, you add things that help and you take away things that hurt. It’s not a binary. You do things together.
You’re so twisted around on terms and trying to twist the result means, and then trying to put it as a binary one thing or the other. Factors work together. I’m not replying further.
A distraction must provide value and it must provide more value than the alternative. Humans always seek to maximize available value, so if there is no value proposition then the behaviour will not take place.
The dopamine hit of TikTok can be pretty decent value, all things considered. An un-engaging teacher droning on is of decidedly low value. If the teacher cannot rise above TikTok, TikTok is going to win every time.
Decent value is not high value, though. It is not that hard to provide value that exceeds that of TikTok. You only have to step outside to see kids doing all kinds of interesting things without phones in their faces. Again, you only see the phones come out when the alternative is of depressingly low value.
I get the feeling you are trying to push what you find valuable onto others. Life doesn’t work that way. Value is determined by each individual for themselves.