As reported by my son who is in a 'phone free' high school here in the US, the policy is entirely useless. They make them put their phones in the 'phone hotel' at the beginning of the day, and they can retrieve them at the end. But many kids just put an old decoy phone in the hotel and keep their actual phone with them. Even if they don't do this, they're required to use laptops for class, and even with the school attempting to lock the laptops down, the kids all know how to get access to messaging, games, video, and social media on them. So they can do everything they would do with their phones anyway.
it sounds like because they have access to a school laptop, you're assuming the consequences of smartphone usage will still apply. what are the odds that the impact is actually identical? it's almost certainly not. and if i had to put money on it, i would say the impact is significantly reduced.
A century ago in the US, a lot of support for Prohibition came from the impact of liquor, yet Prohibition itself also banned beer.
I can very easily believe that the backlash against dark patterns, against deliberately addictive apps (games and social media), against advertising getting squeezed into what would otherwise be normal conversations, against the surveillance that currently manifests as GDPR cookie popups because almost everyone both corporate and government would rather annoy people than stop snooping, may well lead to a new Prohibition on all such things.
But will this new Prohibition throw out the baby with the bathwater? Smartphones do a lot of genuinely useful things.
Do you have kids? I have a 4-year old girl. And while parenting is so much harder without iPad and iPhone, my daughter is genuinely more interested in the world and imagination play than looking at screens. At age 2, was curious about the other kids with iPads, but now she shows no interest in screens. And we’re doing fine with static or minimally electronic toys. She has a whole adolescent/adult life ahead of her of screens.
This is about a developing child’s mind and the precautionary principle of knowing with the evidence we have now that social media is extremely harmful to mental health, especially to adolescent girls. This is not the same as outlawing alcohol to grown adults.
Myself, I grew up with a Commodore 64, whose user manual didn't only teach me to code, but was even part of me learning to read.
But everyone is different, what worked fine for me isn't necessarily even a good idea for others.
> This is about a developing child’s mind and the cautionary principle of knowing with the evidence we have now that it is extremely harmful to mental health, especially to girls. This is not the same as outlawing alcohol to grown adults.
Sounds like you agree with me that much of the current stuff is bad. I'm saying that some of the rest is both harmless and helpful.
What useful things could a smartphone do during school hours.
You have a literal internet connected computer with any function you could care to name, interactive touch screen display, full sound with headphones being provided by the student.
The situation we have now is that there are few apps that are suitable for a classrooms, even fewer which teachers would be allowed to use and none which are endorsed or included in the curriculum[1].
Meanwhile students phones have no central management unless by parents using a specialist app, are not automatically locked down to appropriate use during school hours, meaning they just get used for messaging and inappropriate stuff.
There is no reason that a students phone couldn't become the world's most amazing educational tool the moment they walk onto school premises - the world just hasn't caught up yet and probably won't for a while.
[1] I don't know this, but I'm sure they're providing iPads or something if they're actually doing anything around this.
All the same things as internet connected computers in general — world's information at your fingertips, quiz apps to reduce the delay between doing a test and finding out what you need to focus on, etc. — except easier to take on field trips and hook up with heart rate monitors during PE.
Dumb phone things, apps for blood sugar monitoring, checking public transport delays,....
There are enough stories about children dying because schools locked away medication. I have very little trust that schools will apply any common sense.
This doesn't sound particularly analogous to Prohibition. Mobile computers are being banned from schools, not from everywhere. As far as I'm aware, liquor and beer are also banned from schools and presumably always have been, before, during, and after Prohibition.
I was trying to suggest that at least some of these things will be banned everywhere, not that they have already been. Small scale prohibitions happened well before there was enough drive for the 18th Amendment to be proposed.
I'm not even sure the detail — will it look like a Butlerian Jihad on all tech because AI is everywhere and enough people hate that, or "just" a ban on all social media (including this website) — but the vibes have been brewing for a while now, and it could well take the shape of smartphones being wound back to 8310s.
> As far as I'm aware, liquor and beer are also banned from schools and presumably always have been, before, during, and after Prohibition.
So it's fine for the analogy that phones might get banned from schools before some kind of larger social rejection on par with the example I gave, yes?
To me, the necessity to have a banning "law" is a sign of failure. We should teach children the why and how, incentive them to put, by themselves, their phone in a lockbox and eventually consider them as growing adult and not irresponsible childs.
You're assuming children (on average) have the same capacity to make reasoned decisions as adults so long as you just "teach" them.
There's a reason why we don't let 8-year-olds drive, and its not just that nobody bothered to take the time to teach them.
And no, no matter how many times I tell my three-year-old the stove is hot, I'm not going to put them in charge of cooking dinner on the stove. Instead, I'll ban them from using the stove outside of extremely supervised limited circumstances. I'm also not going to put them in charge of chopping things with sharp knives either. Instead I'll find other more age-appropriate ways for them to participate in making the meal.
We're talking about childrens that have between 11-18 years old.
I'm also not saying that teachers could ask nicely and then do nothing if the rule is broken. Actually, one could ask students to either put their phones in their bag or in a "safe phone-box", and still seize the phone if it's used.
Bringing awarness is important, when it comes to fighting addiction.
Most adults wouldn't wear seatbelt nor would they respect the gazillions of traffic laws that make the road safer for the drivers and the pedestrian if it wasn't mandatory.
Same for fire hazard in buildings or strict hygiene rules in hospital to avoid infections.
And thousands of laws that make people behave in general. Like prohibiting murder.
"Here, kiddo. You're on your own, against the trillion dollar companies who employ entire teams of psychologists to identify and exploit addiction mechanisms."
As reported by my son who is in a 'phone free' high school here in the US, the policy is entirely useless. They make them put their phones in the 'phone hotel' at the beginning of the day, and they can retrieve them at the end. But many kids just put an old decoy phone in the hotel and keep their actual phone with them. Even if they don't do this, they're required to use laptops for class, and even with the school attempting to lock the laptops down, the kids all know how to get access to messaging, games, video, and social media on them. So they can do everything they would do with their phones anyway.
are you sure the damage is the same?
it sounds like because they have access to a school laptop, you're assuming the consequences of smartphone usage will still apply. what are the odds that the impact is actually identical? it's almost certainly not. and if i had to put money on it, i would say the impact is significantly reduced.
still there, sure, but this is a spectrum
Ironically, I think that circumventing lockdowns will teach them far more about technology than the policy to use them for class in the first place.
I can see it going either way.
A century ago in the US, a lot of support for Prohibition came from the impact of liquor, yet Prohibition itself also banned beer.
I can very easily believe that the backlash against dark patterns, against deliberately addictive apps (games and social media), against advertising getting squeezed into what would otherwise be normal conversations, against the surveillance that currently manifests as GDPR cookie popups because almost everyone both corporate and government would rather annoy people than stop snooping, may well lead to a new Prohibition on all such things.
But will this new Prohibition throw out the baby with the bathwater? Smartphones do a lot of genuinely useful things.
Do you have kids? I have a 4-year old girl. And while parenting is so much harder without iPad and iPhone, my daughter is genuinely more interested in the world and imagination play than looking at screens. At age 2, was curious about the other kids with iPads, but now she shows no interest in screens. And we’re doing fine with static or minimally electronic toys. She has a whole adolescent/adult life ahead of her of screens.
This is about a developing child’s mind and the precautionary principle of knowing with the evidence we have now that social media is extremely harmful to mental health, especially to adolescent girls. This is not the same as outlawing alcohol to grown adults.
Good for you, and good for her.
I wish I had kids, but sadly not yet.
Myself, I grew up with a Commodore 64, whose user manual didn't only teach me to code, but was even part of me learning to read.
But everyone is different, what worked fine for me isn't necessarily even a good idea for others.
> This is about a developing child’s mind and the cautionary principle of knowing with the evidence we have now that it is extremely harmful to mental health, especially to girls. This is not the same as outlawing alcohol to grown adults.
Sounds like you agree with me that much of the current stuff is bad. I'm saying that some of the rest is both harmless and helpful.
4 replies →
what useful thing does a smartphone do during school hours?
What useful things could a smartphone do during school hours.
You have a literal internet connected computer with any function you could care to name, interactive touch screen display, full sound with headphones being provided by the student.
The situation we have now is that there are few apps that are suitable for a classrooms, even fewer which teachers would be allowed to use and none which are endorsed or included in the curriculum[1].
Meanwhile students phones have no central management unless by parents using a specialist app, are not automatically locked down to appropriate use during school hours, meaning they just get used for messaging and inappropriate stuff.
There is no reason that a students phone couldn't become the world's most amazing educational tool the moment they walk onto school premises - the world just hasn't caught up yet and probably won't for a while.
[1] I don't know this, but I'm sure they're providing iPads or something if they're actually doing anything around this.
3 replies →
All the same things as internet connected computers in general — world's information at your fingertips, quiz apps to reduce the delay between doing a test and finding out what you need to focus on, etc. — except easier to take on field trips and hook up with heart rate monitors during PE.
Dumb phone things, apps for blood sugar monitoring, checking public transport delays,....
There are enough stories about children dying because schools locked away medication. I have very little trust that schools will apply any common sense.
4 replies →
Looking stuff up during lunch or study hall. School hours != in class but it often means doing assignments.
14 replies →
This doesn't sound particularly analogous to Prohibition. Mobile computers are being banned from schools, not from everywhere. As far as I'm aware, liquor and beer are also banned from schools and presumably always have been, before, during, and after Prohibition.
I was trying to suggest that at least some of these things will be banned everywhere, not that they have already been. Small scale prohibitions happened well before there was enough drive for the 18th Amendment to be proposed.
I'm not even sure the detail — will it look like a Butlerian Jihad on all tech because AI is everywhere and enough people hate that, or "just" a ban on all social media (including this website) — but the vibes have been brewing for a while now, and it could well take the shape of smartphones being wound back to 8310s.
> As far as I'm aware, liquor and beer are also banned from schools and presumably always have been, before, during, and after Prohibition.
So it's fine for the analogy that phones might get banned from schools before some kind of larger social rejection on par with the example I gave, yes?
To me, the necessity to have a banning "law" is a sign of failure. We should teach children the why and how, incentive them to put, by themselves, their phone in a lockbox and eventually consider them as growing adult and not irresponsible childs.
You're assuming children (on average) have the same capacity to make reasoned decisions as adults so long as you just "teach" them.
There's a reason why we don't let 8-year-olds drive, and its not just that nobody bothered to take the time to teach them.
And no, no matter how many times I tell my three-year-old the stove is hot, I'm not going to put them in charge of cooking dinner on the stove. Instead, I'll ban them from using the stove outside of extremely supervised limited circumstances. I'm also not going to put them in charge of chopping things with sharp knives either. Instead I'll find other more age-appropriate ways for them to participate in making the meal.
We're talking about childrens that have between 11-18 years old.
I'm also not saying that teachers could ask nicely and then do nothing if the rule is broken. Actually, one could ask students to either put their phones in their bag or in a "safe phone-box", and still seize the phone if it's used.
Bringing awarness is important, when it comes to fighting addiction.
1 reply →
let's keep all the junk foods in schools too. children should be responsible enough to choose the fruit salad over the battered fries
Most adults wouldn't wear seatbelt nor would they respect the gazillions of traffic laws that make the road safer for the drivers and the pedestrian if it wasn't mandatory.
Same for fire hazard in buildings or strict hygiene rules in hospital to avoid infections.
And thousands of laws that make people behave in general. Like prohibiting murder.
"Here, kiddo. You're on your own, against the trillion dollar companies who employ entire teams of psychologists to identify and exploit addiction mechanisms."
How many children do you have, what ages, and how’s your method going?