About ‘better at hiding them’; maybe so; but that will largely be down to how the rule is enforced. Some schools basically just say “please don’t carry your phone. Put it in your locker.” In those schools, basically every student has their phone in their pocket. Whereas other schools are more strict about it. The phone can be confiscated on site, and in some cases require the parent to collect it. In those cases, compliance goes way up.
As for ‘no phones for teachers and admin’; unfortunately, some of the jobs and responsibilities of teachers are done using a phone. Teachers are required to carry a phone during yard-duty, for emergency purposes. And teachers often use their phone to mark class attendance rolls. … But its definitely a bad look when a teacher is walking down a school corridor staring at their phone while student phones are banned.
As for the reasons for the ban… well, they are many and varied - including all of the things you mentioned. (liability, mental health vs bullying in particular, and distraction from class activities.)
Are they going to allocate money to every school to employ technologies to prevent cell phone usage on the premises? Unlikely because, as I said, this law is to prohibit students from having cell phones, not teachers or administration.
So what happens when a school now has to confiscate and hold $1000 phones en masse? It makes them a target for theft. It makes them a target for lawsuit in the event that any of those phones are misplaced, stolen, damaged etc.
Teachers and admins didn’t used to have cell phones in schools either. What are they doing on a phone that they can’t use a landline and a computer for? Why is a cell phone so important for yard duty? Why is it a requirement? What does the cell phone do that a landline can’t do?
To avoid any risk of legal liability the school rule becomes “do not bring a mobile phone to school”, similar to the advice that schools give about valuables in general - especially on sport days. Bring at your own risk. This is especially true when it is a government policy - i.e. not the school’s decision.
Note, this article is talking about France. But as has been pointed out, France is not the first country to do this. I live in Australia, and my comments are based on the phone bans here which have been in place here for a few years (I think the state of Victoria was first, and all states have seen one-by-one followed that example because they see it as a good idea.)
The discussion about whether or not teachers should have smart phones is a separate issue. It has a totally different pros and cons, benefits and challenges.
Schools likely already have a policy about bringing valuables items to schools which applies here. They also likely have policies about objects that are distractions in class or not suitable for school environments with protocols in place to enforce and or deal with said objects. So tell me. Why is this different? I know the article is talking about France.
So, explain to me why this law is necessary? What does it achieve? What does it do that wasn’t already being implemented?
The primary purpose of making it a government policy is to defuse the endless arguments and pushback that schools were fighting to stop students using phones.
If the rule is a case-by-case thing implemented by individual classroom teachers, it doesn’t work at all - because students will quickly see and exploit differences in how the rule is enforced by different teachers. It means the phones still get used, and any attempt to remove that distraction becomes a massive battle of “why are you targeting me. That other student is allowed to use theirs. The other teachers don’t mind.” etc etc.
Having a clear school-wide policy mostly fixes that; but it still gets a very similar effect from the parents. “I give my child permission, because they need it for such-and-such reason”. It can be dealt with, but it is genuinely a large burden on the school. But having a clear government policy removes that battle for the school. The answer is always clear “it’s a government policy, it is not our decision to make”. (By the way, there are still some exemptions for medial reasons; but again, there are no case-by-case arguments, because the policy is the same for all schools.)
So in short its about consistency; to reduce conflict between teachers and students, and between schools and parents.
Flip that argument around for me and tell me what that argument is. Because what it seems like it boils down to is a version of favoritism which will still exist and be taken advantage of under the law. What does this law fix exactly? How does this law prevent favoritism?
I don’t know what you mean by favouritism. The reasoning for the phone ban goes something like this:
Teachers and education researchers have agreed that children are less productive in school due to mobile phones.
But preventing children from using their phones in school creates significant additional workload, due to conflicts and arguments.
Various governments have recognised this, and have created a law which can remove the phones without the workload.
If you’re talking again about the fact that teachers are allowed phones but students are not, then I’m disappointed. I’ve put in quite a bit of good faith effort into talking about this stuff. At the start of our conversation I felt that I was answering genuine questions, and perhaps helping clarify why someone might want a law like this. But now I’m starting to feel like that was entirely wasted, because you never wanted to think about it anyway - you only wanted to fight it. That’s how I’m starting to feel. Maybe I’m wrong, but this ‘how does the law prevent favoritism’ seems like a totally bullshit line to reasoning to me.
Different laws and rules target different groups of people for different reasons. There’s a huge list of rules and responsibilities that apply exclusively to teachers and not other professions. And there’s a heap of rules that apply to children and not adults. There can be different rules for different reasons. As for phone usage, I’d personally be totally fine if all smart phones were phased out for everyone for all purposes across the entire world. But I do think it’s a false equivalence to say that if phones are banned for students they should also be banned for everyone else. It a totally separate argument. And note: I’m not introducing this law. I didn’t ask for it. I didn’t design it. I don’t even live in the country that the article is from. I’m only try to outline what I understand to be the motivation. If you think something negative is going to result from this law, you should try to outline what that is. What-aboutisms are not helpful.
Man. I read the article. You all seem to be taking what I said as “I think students should have cell phones in schools”. In actuality I don’t think there’s any reason for students to have cell phones in schools.
So my argument isn’t that I think the ban is bad. My argument is that this is a piss poor way of going about it that doesn’t really add any benefits (especially when you consider that the law preventing students from using cell phones in schools has been on the books since 2018).
So this is not an argument about what researchers found as far as differences in the mental health of students allowed to have phones (which is a big jump because at best the phones are tolerated in students pockets or bags not allowed to use them in school during lessons), vs those that aren’t. That part of what has been said up and down this comment section is irrelevant. It has nothing at all to do with my original comment.
I don’t care what governments recognize about a correlation between student mental health or well being and cell phone use. That’s not got anything at all to do with what I said.
If you’re disappointed it’s literally because you didn’t read.
Don’t know any delinquent teenagers do you? And don’t even start with the “must be American BS” because I’d be happy to Google some news stories for you.
About ‘better at hiding them’; maybe so; but that will largely be down to how the rule is enforced. Some schools basically just say “please don’t carry your phone. Put it in your locker.” In those schools, basically every student has their phone in their pocket. Whereas other schools are more strict about it. The phone can be confiscated on site, and in some cases require the parent to collect it. In those cases, compliance goes way up.
As for ‘no phones for teachers and admin’; unfortunately, some of the jobs and responsibilities of teachers are done using a phone. Teachers are required to carry a phone during yard-duty, for emergency purposes. And teachers often use their phone to mark class attendance rolls. … But its definitely a bad look when a teacher is walking down a school corridor staring at their phone while student phones are banned.
As for the reasons for the ban… well, they are many and varied - including all of the things you mentioned. (liability, mental health vs bullying in particular, and distraction from class activities.)
Are they going to allocate money to every school to employ technologies to prevent cell phone usage on the premises? Unlikely because, as I said, this law is to prohibit students from having cell phones, not teachers or administration.
So what happens when a school now has to confiscate and hold $1000 phones en masse? It makes them a target for theft. It makes them a target for lawsuit in the event that any of those phones are misplaced, stolen, damaged etc.
Teachers and admins didn’t used to have cell phones in schools either. What are they doing on a phone that they can’t use a landline and a computer for? Why is a cell phone so important for yard duty? Why is it a requirement? What does the cell phone do that a landline can’t do?
To avoid any risk of legal liability the school rule becomes “do not bring a mobile phone to school”, similar to the advice that schools give about valuables in general - especially on sport days. Bring at your own risk. This is especially true when it is a government policy - i.e. not the school’s decision.
Note, this article is talking about France. But as has been pointed out, France is not the first country to do this. I live in Australia, and my comments are based on the phone bans here which have been in place here for a few years (I think the state of Victoria was first, and all states have seen one-by-one followed that example because they see it as a good idea.)
The discussion about whether or not teachers should have smart phones is a separate issue. It has a totally different pros and cons, benefits and challenges.
Schools likely already have a policy about bringing valuables items to schools which applies here. They also likely have policies about objects that are distractions in class or not suitable for school environments with protocols in place to enforce and or deal with said objects. So tell me. Why is this different? I know the article is talking about France.
So, explain to me why this law is necessary? What does it achieve? What does it do that wasn’t already being implemented?
The primary purpose of making it a government policy is to defuse the endless arguments and pushback that schools were fighting to stop students using phones.
If the rule is a case-by-case thing implemented by individual classroom teachers, it doesn’t work at all - because students will quickly see and exploit differences in how the rule is enforced by different teachers. It means the phones still get used, and any attempt to remove that distraction becomes a massive battle of “why are you targeting me. That other student is allowed to use theirs. The other teachers don’t mind.” etc etc.
Having a clear school-wide policy mostly fixes that; but it still gets a very similar effect from the parents. “I give my child permission, because they need it for such-and-such reason”. It can be dealt with, but it is genuinely a large burden on the school. But having a clear government policy removes that battle for the school. The answer is always clear “it’s a government policy, it is not our decision to make”. (By the way, there are still some exemptions for medial reasons; but again, there are no case-by-case arguments, because the policy is the same for all schools.)
So in short its about consistency; to reduce conflict between teachers and students, and between schools and parents.
Flip that argument around for me and tell me what that argument is. Because what it seems like it boils down to is a version of favoritism which will still exist and be taken advantage of under the law. What does this law fix exactly? How does this law prevent favoritism?
I don’t know what you mean by favouritism. The reasoning for the phone ban goes something like this:
If you’re talking again about the fact that teachers are allowed phones but students are not, then I’m disappointed. I’ve put in quite a bit of good faith effort into talking about this stuff. At the start of our conversation I felt that I was answering genuine questions, and perhaps helping clarify why someone might want a law like this. But now I’m starting to feel like that was entirely wasted, because you never wanted to think about it anyway - you only wanted to fight it. That’s how I’m starting to feel. Maybe I’m wrong, but this ‘how does the law prevent favoritism’ seems like a totally bullshit line to reasoning to me.
Different laws and rules target different groups of people for different reasons. There’s a huge list of rules and responsibilities that apply exclusively to teachers and not other professions. And there’s a heap of rules that apply to children and not adults. There can be different rules for different reasons. As for phone usage, I’d personally be totally fine if all smart phones were phased out for everyone for all purposes across the entire world. But I do think it’s a false equivalence to say that if phones are banned for students they should also be banned for everyone else. It a totally separate argument. And note: I’m not introducing this law. I didn’t ask for it. I didn’t design it. I don’t even live in the country that the article is from. I’m only try to outline what I understand to be the motivation. If you think something negative is going to result from this law, you should try to outline what that is. What-aboutisms are not helpful.
Man. I read the article. You all seem to be taking what I said as “I think students should have cell phones in schools”. In actuality I don’t think there’s any reason for students to have cell phones in schools.
So my argument isn’t that I think the ban is bad. My argument is that this is a piss poor way of going about it that doesn’t really add any benefits (especially when you consider that the law preventing students from using cell phones in schools has been on the books since 2018).
So this is not an argument about what researchers found as far as differences in the mental health of students allowed to have phones (which is a big jump because at best the phones are tolerated in students pockets or bags not allowed to use them in school during lessons), vs those that aren’t. That part of what has been said up and down this comment section is irrelevant. It has nothing at all to do with my original comment.
I don’t care what governments recognize about a correlation between student mental health or well being and cell phone use. That’s not got anything at all to do with what I said.
If you’re disappointed it’s literally because you didn’t read.
Lol yeah criminals are going to raid schools to grab a couple of phones, sure buddy, take your meds now
Don’t know any delinquent teenagers do you? And don’t even start with the “must be American BS” because I’d be happy to Google some news stories for you.
I can tell you didn’t read either.