What happens when a school bans smartphones? A complete transformation(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
What happens when a school bans smartphones? A complete transformation
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/17/cellphone-smartphone-bans-schools
105 comments
Maybe I'm out of the loop... smartphones are allowed in the first place? When did that happen? In my high school, cell phones and ipods (at the time) were to be in lockers and turned off during the day. It was an insta-detention if you were seen using one.
What's wild to me is that almost all the individual devices a smartphone represents, not even counting the phone itself, would have been confiscated if used in class, for my generation (and I'm a millennial!)
Flashlight? LOL, they might not even wait for you to use it, just assume there's no way you're not going to do something dumb with it, and take it.
A handheld gaming device? Insta-yoink.
Note-passing? Notes confiscated.
Basically an ordered-from-a-back-of-magazine-ad spy kit of a miniature camera and voice recorder? GONE. And you might be on the way to the office for a chat, and parents called, if you'd actually been using any of it.
A glossy fashion magazine, seen out at any point that's not explicitly totally-free time? In the teacher's desk. (and that's on the tame side of the kind of thing one might be looking at on one's phone...)
A portable mini-TV or small radio? Jesus, of course you can't have that in class.
But smartphones? Nope, they can have those. Which is the exact same as having all those things above, and way more.
It's such a crazily-different direction for policy.
Flashlight? LOL, they might not even wait for you to use it, just assume there's no way you're not going to do something dumb with it, and take it.
A handheld gaming device? Insta-yoink.
Note-passing? Notes confiscated.
Basically an ordered-from-a-back-of-magazine-ad spy kit of a miniature camera and voice recorder? GONE. And you might be on the way to the office for a chat, and parents called, if you'd actually been using any of it.
A glossy fashion magazine, seen out at any point that's not explicitly totally-free time? In the teacher's desk. (and that's on the tame side of the kind of thing one might be looking at on one's phone...)
A portable mini-TV or small radio? Jesus, of course you can't have that in class.
But smartphones? Nope, they can have those. Which is the exact same as having all those things above, and way more.
It's such a crazily-different direction for policy.
This policy isnt about use in class. Afaik every school bans devices in class. The question is whether they should be allowed during lunch, in between classes, before/after school.
> Afaik every school bans devices in class.
They super, duper, do not :-(
They super, duper, do not :-(
Hell, at my school you couldn't even listen to a CD at lunch. It boggles the mind.
> Hell, at my school you couldn't even listen to a CD at lunch. It boggles the mind.
That we accept such authoritarianism in schools? It certainly does.
That we accept such authoritarianism in schools? It certainly does.
Part of your job is to keep kids on a schedule. Shit gets messed up and learning is disrupted for many students if you don't. It's also your ass on the line if you don't know where kids are, within reason, all day long.
Devices that don't necessarily, but do tend, to make keeping the schedule harder, exist and aren't needed for education.
("What does a CD player at lunch have to do with that?" if enough kids start listening to music at lunch I 100% guarantee you issues getting them to the next class on time increase in frequency a ton, and that's before you consider that every thing you add like that to a school environment increases the rate and severity of, ah, physical disputes)
So yeah, of course you ban their use.
"You could just only ban them for students for whom they're a problem."
Yeah, you could, but now you're dealing with even more angry parents up your ass because "you're not being fair, and you're singling out my kid". And you're burning more time you don't have dealing with these issues ad-hoc. No, it has to be a blanket ban.
Schools could be a lot less authoritarian if they didn't have to serve kids (or parents...) who can't handle a looser approach, and if they could simply kick out very disruptive kids, et c. But they can't, so they're a lot worse, in a lot of ways, than they hypothetically could be.
Devices that don't necessarily, but do tend, to make keeping the schedule harder, exist and aren't needed for education.
("What does a CD player at lunch have to do with that?" if enough kids start listening to music at lunch I 100% guarantee you issues getting them to the next class on time increase in frequency a ton, and that's before you consider that every thing you add like that to a school environment increases the rate and severity of, ah, physical disputes)
So yeah, of course you ban their use.
"You could just only ban them for students for whom they're a problem."
Yeah, you could, but now you're dealing with even more angry parents up your ass because "you're not being fair, and you're singling out my kid". And you're burning more time you don't have dealing with these issues ad-hoc. No, it has to be a blanket ban.
Schools could be a lot less authoritarian if they didn't have to serve kids (or parents...) who can't handle a looser approach, and if they could simply kick out very disruptive kids, et c. But they can't, so they're a lot worse, in a lot of ways, than they hypothetically could be.
Can't speak for the rest of the country, but in our district smartphones were allowed for a couple years. I don't know the rationale about allowing them in the first place, but it happened in 2020. It took them two years to decide it was an unmitigated disaster and they promptly re-banned all electronics. No music players, phones, headphones, etc. Get caught and it gets confiscated and your parents have to come retrieve it.
Maybe that's draconian. But maybe it's just good sense -- our high school is close to #1 in the state for academic performance, so they are doing something right.
Maybe that's draconian. But maybe it's just good sense -- our high school is close to #1 in the state for academic performance, so they are doing something right.
My 4 year old son has an iPhone, and we’d sooner homeschool him than keep him enrolled if the only schools we could send afford would confiscate or ban it.
I recognize we’re an exception, but he has type 1 diabetes, and his iPhone is essentially a medical device that sends us updates on his glucose levels throughout the day.
I’d hope schools at least make exceptions for cases like this.
I recognize we’re an exception, but he has type 1 diabetes, and his iPhone is essentially a medical device that sends us updates on his glucose levels throughout the day.
I’d hope schools at least make exceptions for cases like this.
> I’d hope schools at least make exceptions for cases like this.
Of course, they absolutely do. I imagine failure to do so would be an ADA violation, at least.
Of course, they absolutely do. I imagine failure to do so would be an ADA violation, at least.
You wouldn't believe what an issue this can turn into. Some parents will fight for their kid's right to use cellphones.
This right here. Parents ultimately run schools, and a surprising proportion of them get really pissy if their kids can't have phones in class. Schools aren't letting kids have phones because they want to.
My wife used to teach and had multiple parents, over a handful of years, who'd semi-frequently call their kids while they were in class. Just to, like, chat. A lot more would text with them, again, usually just to shoot the shit. Lots of parents are... let's be kind I guess and go with really fucking weird.
My wife used to teach and had multiple parents, over a handful of years, who'd semi-frequently call their kids while they were in class. Just to, like, chat. A lot more would text with them, again, usually just to shoot the shit. Lots of parents are... let's be kind I guess and go with really fucking weird.
What's worse, in states with voucher systems, parents can remove not just their kid from the school, but their tax dollars too--so the teachers have to tolerate the phones or funding will dry up for the other students who are trying to pay attention.
I think coupling where your kids go to school with where your tax dollars are going severely misunderstands the point of having there be tax dollars for schools in the first place. Having kids shouldn't give you special powers re: how your taxes are used.
I think coupling where your kids go to school with where your tax dollars are going severely misunderstands the point of having there be tax dollars for schools in the first place. Having kids shouldn't give you special powers re: how your taxes are used.
> I think coupling where your kids go to school with where your tax dollars are going severely misunderstands the point of having there be tax dollars for schools in the first place.
It makes some sense considering the people with kids probably care much more about the details in how those dollars are spent. Not that there are not people without kids who are equally interested (esp. those who work in education), but on avg parents will have much more interest and much more visibility into how it's spent.
What's weird to me is thinking that parents shouldn't get some "special powers". It's like saying the people who live in a particular police precinct shouldn't get any special consideration about how that precinct is run.
It makes some sense considering the people with kids probably care much more about the details in how those dollars are spent. Not that there are not people without kids who are equally interested (esp. those who work in education), but on avg parents will have much more interest and much more visibility into how it's spent.
What's weird to me is thinking that parents shouldn't get some "special powers". It's like saying the people who live in a particular police precinct shouldn't get any special consideration about how that precinct is run.
Whatever influence a non-elected person has over their police precinct should be equal to that of all the other non-elected people in that precinct. The voucher thing is like if you had a different sized influence based on whether you have a criminal record, since presumably you would then have a different relationship with the effects of that funding.
It's just not how democracy works.
(It is, however, how pre-revolution France worked, the revolution was as much about getting rid of the system of privileges as it was about getting rid of the king. I think we should think twice about the extent to which we legitimize the practice of treating different types of people differently.)
It's just not how democracy works.
(It is, however, how pre-revolution France worked, the revolution was as much about getting rid of the system of privileges as it was about getting rid of the king. I think we should think twice about the extent to which we legitimize the practice of treating different types of people differently.)
> equal to all other people in the precinct
Sure. I was trying to contrast those who live within the precinct to those who live outside it.
And any influence is bounded by the amount of variation that's acceptable between precincts.
Sure. I was trying to contrast those who live within the precinct to those who live outside it.
And any influence is bounded by the amount of variation that's acceptable between precincts.
Parents now are the generation that grew up with ubiquitous communication connectivity.
For them, not being in touch is going to feel weird.
For them, not being in touch is going to feel weird.
We need to educate parents better. The children of tech billionaires aren't permitted to use all of these devices or social accounts... because the tech elite know they are harmful to social and intellectual development.
Cigarettes are for plebes, after all.
Cigarettes are for plebes, after all.
I posted elsewhere in the thread that, with the limited dataset I have (which includes families at a few schools of very different kinds, not just, like, my friend group) it sure looks to me like there's a sharp difference between the way the culturally upper-middle (under Fussell's model—the working "professional" class like doctors and lawyers, executives, that sort of thing) and higher, and the culturally middle-or-lower handle device use & access with their kids.
It's a big enough difference that, unless phones turn out not to have much of an effect (an... unlikely proposition, I think) on educational outcomes, I fully expect this to manifest as a widening gap between already-very-inequitable educational outcome stats for the (loosely) rich vs. the poor.
(Example: middle-class public school, 5th grader gets teased for not having a phone. "Your family must be so poor, hahaha!" Nearly the whole class has phones, and most of those have them on their person in class.
Bottom-edge-of-"fancy" private school—only like 25% of the kids in 5th grade have one at all, half of those aren't allowed to bring them to school, and the rest keep them put away, out of reach, during class and lunch and such—there is no teasing, not having your own phone, especially at school and certainly in class, is the overwhelming norm.)
It's a big enough difference that, unless phones turn out not to have much of an effect (an... unlikely proposition, I think) on educational outcomes, I fully expect this to manifest as a widening gap between already-very-inequitable educational outcome stats for the (loosely) rich vs. the poor.
(Example: middle-class public school, 5th grader gets teased for not having a phone. "Your family must be so poor, hahaha!" Nearly the whole class has phones, and most of those have them on their person in class.
Bottom-edge-of-"fancy" private school—only like 25% of the kids in 5th grade have one at all, half of those aren't allowed to bring them to school, and the rest keep them put away, out of reach, during class and lunch and such—there is no teasing, not having your own phone, especially at school and certainly in class, is the overwhelming norm.)
Pretty wild.. what's the point in even making them go to school if you're just going to let them goof off on their phone all day? Just let them sit around at home watching TikTok until they turn 18 and have to get a minimum wage job
Schools could teach kids to do something useful with their phones so they can use tech to their advantage later in life?
How ho you think kids that never learned to responsibly use tech will do in college when they are on their own?
How ho you think kids that never learned to responsibly use tech will do in college when they are on their own?
Kids can't even mutiply two numbers and they are supposed to learn the most complex device ever made from school? lol
At my work, there are certain areas that we are not allowed to have any cameras, and that includes all personal cell phones. I have a colleague whose daughter was at school during an active shooter incident, and she was able to use her phone but he was not able to receive her calls or texts. She was not killed, but I am glad she had a cell phone that day, and I wish he had his too.
policy shouldn't be defined by extreme outlier cases
I've run the numbers on "average likelihood of a given student being present during any kind of shooting on school grounds—the overwhelming majority of which aren't the kind of shooting one thinks of when one sees the term 'school shooting', anyway—at any point during 13 years of k-12 school, in the US" and it helped me conclude it's not a thing worth worrying about, even a little. (I do have kids in school)
The light phone mentioned in this article can still make calls and send texts
This seems to be more of a ban on social media apps in school, which I 100% support and honestly wouldn’t mind it being nationwide.
This seems to be more of a ban on social media apps in school, which I 100% support and honestly wouldn’t mind it being nationwide.
Around here, unfortunately yes. The general argument I've heard is that kids need to be able to contact parents in an emergency, or something.
School shootings come up a lot in these kinds of conversations.
Of course you can run the numbers and realize this plainly falls way below the level at which anyone should be using that use-case as a justification for anything.
(nb. the vast majority of school shootings you'll see in the statistics aren't the sort where kids having phones matters, they're e.g. targeted attacks on a single person, gang- or otherwise crime-related targeted attacks, violence that just by happenstance takes place on school grounds outside and perhaps not even involving any students or staff; all of which tend to be over almost as fast as they start and aren't an ongoing threat to bystanders once they're over, and even those aren't terribly likely to be something a kid is present for during their school career, on average)
Of course you can run the numbers and realize this plainly falls way below the level at which anyone should be using that use-case as a justification for anything.
(nb. the vast majority of school shootings you'll see in the statistics aren't the sort where kids having phones matters, they're e.g. targeted attacks on a single person, gang- or otherwise crime-related targeted attacks, violence that just by happenstance takes place on school grounds outside and perhaps not even involving any students or staff; all of which tend to be over almost as fast as they start and aren't an ongoing threat to bystanders once they're over, and even those aren't terribly likely to be something a kid is present for during their school career, on average)
Oh boy am I glad to live in a first world country where this is not an issue.
To be clear, it's bullshit these are even remotely a real thing we have to worry about in a rich OECD state.
... to be more clear, if you run the numbers, they're still kinda not. Our reaction(s) to them aren't rational (though, one can understand why)
... to be more clear, if you run the numbers, they're still kinda not. Our reaction(s) to them aren't rational (though, one can understand why)
It's amazing how these arguments come about. Were parents freaking out about emergencies at school when they were kids?
During every school I attended growing up (and I graduated in 2007 so this isn't that ancient history) my parents would just call the school office if something urgent came up, and the faculty would use the intercom system to page the room I was in. The teacher paused their lesson, acknowledged the request, and asked me to pack my things and head up to the front office, no questions asked. It was infrequent, but very well understood and executed efficiently.
I'm not sure smartphones have improved on this? If a kid gets a call in class the teacher's almost immediate reaction is annoyance, because there was no chain of authority that led to that distracting element. Now the kid's on the defensive and has to explain that it's their parent, and the whole class gets to wait while the kid awkwardly has this conversation while simultaneously communicating with the teacher that it's a legitimate request, etc. And that's for legitimate emergencies, to say nothing of the troublemakers that will intentionally coordinate fake calls to get out of class and hang out with their friends.
I'm not sure smartphones have improved on this? If a kid gets a call in class the teacher's almost immediate reaction is annoyance, because there was no chain of authority that led to that distracting element. Now the kid's on the defensive and has to explain that it's their parent, and the whole class gets to wait while the kid awkwardly has this conversation while simultaneously communicating with the teacher that it's a legitimate request, etc. And that's for legitimate emergencies, to say nothing of the troublemakers that will intentionally coordinate fake calls to get out of class and hang out with their friends.
Agree with you, but also, I feel like my imagination is lacking here. What kinds of "emergencies" even exist that require a child to resolve them? In all my K-12 education I feel like I think my parents only needed to contact me in class without prior arrangement maybe... once? Or twice? Zero times? Honestly I can't think of a single instance, I'm just assuming there must've been one I've forgotten about, certainly not an "emergency". Even other students being called from class seemed incredibly rare, and even in those cases I would have just assumed things were prearranged and they merely got a notification that the parent had come to pick them up, or something.
A lot of people have become very adept at conjuring up edge cases for why being out of instant communication is just not acceptable any longer.
I am somewhat sympathetic to arguments that lots of things we took for granted growing up really are not especially acceptable today but there are limits.
I am somewhat sympathetic to arguments that lots of things we took for granted growing up really are not especially acceptable today but there are limits.
The US does have a notable increase in school shootings since these parents were kids.
There should be a public phone (manned by an administrator or teacher) that parents can call and get connected to their child or vice versa.
Allowing smartphones for everyone is an unbelievable distraction.
Allowing smartphones for everyone is an unbelievable distraction.
With the rise in school shootings (I graduated in 98, Columbine was for me the first, and one of the deadliest obviously, but ever since it's just escalated).. I've got two boys 4 and 6, they don't have cellphones now, but I freak and feel I need to do damage control/therapy with them everytime they have an active shooter drill. We only ever had to deal with Tornado, and Fire drills.
ADHD tangent aside my point is: I can see the need these days, however I like the idea of a dumb phone that just has the basics. Definitely no tiktok, facebook, etc.
ADHD tangent aside my point is: I can see the need these days, however I like the idea of a dumb phone that just has the basics. Definitely no tiktok, facebook, etc.
To be honest, I think your fear is overblown, but I understand how it is having kids you love.
But let's assume a rare mass shooting actually happens (I forbid this thought)...will there be any point calling your kids? A phone will be more of a liability than an asset at that point..
But let's assume a rare mass shooting actually happens (I forbid this thought)...will there be any point calling your kids? A phone will be more of a liability than an asset at that point..
The fear of harm from shooter drills that the parent expressed is, sadly, not overblown.
That we have so many school shootings is shameful.
That we've decided a good reaction to them is to traumatize huge numbers of students (and staff! My former-teacher wife has stories...) over something that's, as shameful as the cases of it are, in fact extremely unlikely (specifically, an indiscriminate mass shooting at a primary or secondary school) is also shameful.
That we have so many school shootings is shameful.
That we've decided a good reaction to them is to traumatize huge numbers of students (and staff! My former-teacher wife has stories...) over something that's, as shameful as the cases of it are, in fact extremely unlikely (specifically, an indiscriminate mass shooting at a primary or secondary school) is also shameful.
Most schools have maintained this for the past 40+ years.
It's as if the school doesn't have any phones they could use in an emergency.
An emergency like active shooter, not your child had an accident.
During active shooter situations, the school isn't going to call the parents of the students. They have other things to worry about. The kids are calling their parents directly.
During active shooter situations, the school isn't going to call the parents of the students. They have other things to worry about. The kids are calling their parents directly.
> the school isn't going to call the parents of the students
Schools have communication plans for exactly this situation.
If you have a kid in school, you will be aware that schools have no qualms about communicating directly with parents via automated texts, emails, and phone calls, constantly, about nonemergencies. The volume of communication from schools is overwhelming. Putting out a notification about an active shooter incident would be easy. The trick would be getting the school admins to just send it out as a simple message, and not as a link to a Google doc containing a scan of a printout of the notification.
Schools have communication plans for exactly this situation.
If you have a kid in school, you will be aware that schools have no qualms about communicating directly with parents via automated texts, emails, and phone calls, constantly, about nonemergencies. The volume of communication from schools is overwhelming. Putting out a notification about an active shooter incident would be easy. The trick would be getting the school admins to just send it out as a simple message, and not as a link to a Google doc containing a scan of a printout of the notification.
an automated text from your school saying there's a situation does absolutely nothing to alleviate the parent's concern. what a disingenuous thought that this is actually helpful in the least.
the parent wants to know if their special snowflake(s) is okay. these automated systems are absolutely not going to tell them that, and aside from that information, anything else is just seen as the school trying to placate people.
the parent wants to know if their special snowflake(s) is okay. these automated systems are absolutely not going to tell them that, and aside from that information, anything else is just seen as the school trying to placate people.
I’m trying to figure out what useful action the parent is going to take in this situation.
Prents want to hear from their children if - as they imagine the scenario - their child is about to die.
> The kids are calling their parents directly.
To do what? Come save them Delta Force style?
If such an unfortunate thing happens, the kids are dependent on law enforcement, not parents, for safety.
To do what? Come save them Delta Force style?
If such an unfortunate thing happens, the kids are dependent on law enforcement, not parents, for safety.
Hi mom! No, it's crazy, but I'm okay.
That would probably be the primary thing I'd imagine the parent is worried about. If you have a kid in a school with feckless police that stand outside while kids are getting shot at, then yeah, some parents probably are a better rescue option.
That would probably be the primary thing I'd imagine the parent is worried about. If you have a kid in a school with feckless police that stand outside while kids are getting shot at, then yeah, some parents probably are a better rescue option.
Imagine a kid hiding from a shooter and having his phone ring 'cause his parent is concerned.
It's a boarding school, so something a bit different than your standard high school. Imagine if the school rules were no smartphones... at all, except on the school holidays and maybe weekends.
Slightly different context.
Slightly different context.
Those light phones are interesting products and I thought about trying one at one point but seen some mixed reviews.
They're expensive. ~300 USD, while the e-ink and design is nice that's a pretty big bill for something that does less than a modern phone that is also cheaper.
Previous discussion (2020): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21943649
I think the most cost effective solution is probably buying the cheapest used A12+ iPhone one could find. Factory restore, then setup Assistive Access or parental controls, which can limit any ability to install apps or settings without a different passcode to unlock the phone. Have a friend or partner set that passcode so you can't be tempted to add anything smart to your Dumb Phone.
Previous discussion (2020): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21943649
I think the most cost effective solution is probably buying the cheapest used A12+ iPhone one could find. Factory restore, then setup Assistive Access or parental controls, which can limit any ability to install apps or settings without a different passcode to unlock the phone. Have a friend or partner set that passcode so you can't be tempted to add anything smart to your Dumb Phone.
The price is steep but if I used it every day I could probably justify it.
The one thing that I noticed immediately is it seems to still use micro usb.
Without usb c it is a non starter, especially at that price.
The one thing that I noticed immediately is it seems to still use micro usb.
Without usb c it is a non starter, especially at that price.
>Without usb c it is a non starter, especially at that price.
Agreed, didn't notice that! I was also thinking the limited iPhone may be a better route for teens, parents, schools.
Not only for when they break / lose it, but also may be received better socially.
Agreed, didn't notice that! I was also thinking the limited iPhone may be a better route for teens, parents, schools.
Not only for when they break / lose it, but also may be received better socially.
Why can’t someone just make a phone. I don’t need a phone that plays music or can listen to podcast. I just need a phone that can make calls and make texts. I think their problem is they wanted this phone to still be like a smart phone.
You can still buy a super basic Nokia phone that pretty much only does that, and it lasts like a month of battery - I own one, it's great to carry around in places where you might not want to risk your super expensive smartphone.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nokia-1-77-Inch-Feature-Phone-Singl...
I'd happily give this to my own child so they can reach me in emergencies, but there is no risk of them going on TikTok or anything else. It's "just" a phone.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nokia-1-77-Inch-Feature-Phone-Singl...
I'd happily give this to my own child so they can reach me in emergencies, but there is no risk of them going on TikTok or anything else. It's "just" a phone.
Then, why didn’t that school Just give them those Nokia phones?
Because this is an advertising puff piece for the light phone. I’m going to guarantee you that someone in that company has connections to that school.
Because this is an advertising puff piece for the light phone. I’m going to guarantee you that someone in that company has connections to that school.
I don't know. And maybe you're right - but I'd bet it's the attempt by the school the quell all kinds of complaints from parents like "what if my kid gets suddenly lost on the way home? what then????" by giving them a phone that has some mapping capability, it's just crap - but I guess it will do in an emergency.
By the time you build a basic phone, adding these features only costs a few cents more, so they include them to increase market share.
These days phones are generally built from a SoC which already includes more capabilities than just calls and text, and run an operating system which already supports those capabilities.
If you don’t want certain features they can be turned off (check how locked down you can make an iPhone via parental controls, for instance) but it’s hard to avoid paying for them in some way.
These days phones are generally built from a SoC which already includes more capabilities than just calls and text, and run an operating system which already supports those capabilities.
If you don’t want certain features they can be turned off (check how locked down you can make an iPhone via parental controls, for instance) but it’s hard to avoid paying for them in some way.
You’re not including the fact that they need some sort of wonky website for you to upload photos and add Podcasts. So it’s not just the phone they’re building but the whole infrastructure behind it.
And if what you said is true, then why give these kids light phones in the first place. I’m almost wondering if someone from the light phone company has some connection with that school.
And if what you said is true, then why give these kids light phones in the first place. I’m almost wondering if someone from the light phone company has some connection with that school.
Sorry I’m not actually familiar with light phone, so I’ve had a look, and it is something sold that anyone can buy.
They’re trying to build something which people need to find at least a bit palatable. A phone without the ability to play music and podcasts would have very little chance of selling for $300, they’d be up against those senior-oriented big button phones which sell for incredibly cheap.
Edit: I’m also not seeing anyone say that their school allows only light phone
They’re trying to build something which people need to find at least a bit palatable. A phone without the ability to play music and podcasts would have very little chance of selling for $300, they’d be up against those senior-oriented big button phones which sell for incredibly cheap.
Edit: I’m also not seeing anyone say that their school allows only light phone
Most of my wife's high school students write their papers on their phones.
Totally out of the loop
This is an elite boarding school in the Berkshires. Not sure that the cell phone ban is the most important thing in these outcomes and I'd hesitate to draw sweeping generalizations here.
One observation about private v. public schools:
Private schools, perhaps counterintuitively, have greater ability to enforce rules that some parents dislike, than public schools. They can organize around and enforce a general culture in ways that public schools cannot, and this ability increases the more prestigious they are. Families self-select to be generally agreeable to and aligned with the school's culture, and bad fits can simply be sent away. Public schools have to deal with whatever mix of families they happen to serve, period. Private schools are sometimes pointed to as being more-accountable to parents, and that's sort of true, but they also have much greater freedom to tell a loud minority of their "customers" to, frankly, go eff themselves.
An observation of trends I've seen with a limited dataset but that I suspect generalizes pretty well:
Better-off, if you will, parents, or at least those with a "higher-class" cultural background (Fussell's upper-middle and higher—doctors, lawyers, executives, in short) are giving their kids phones later, restricting use more, and are more-amenable to restrictions on phones imposed by schools, than lower-class (Fussell's middle and lower) parents. These factors tend to significantly reduce student phone use in ritzy private schools, "captive" nigh-private-school public schools, and the tip-top of other upper-tier public schools, compared with practically all the rest of the school landscape.
I fully expect this to widen already-large class differences in education.
Private schools, perhaps counterintuitively, have greater ability to enforce rules that some parents dislike, than public schools. They can organize around and enforce a general culture in ways that public schools cannot, and this ability increases the more prestigious they are. Families self-select to be generally agreeable to and aligned with the school's culture, and bad fits can simply be sent away. Public schools have to deal with whatever mix of families they happen to serve, period. Private schools are sometimes pointed to as being more-accountable to parents, and that's sort of true, but they also have much greater freedom to tell a loud minority of their "customers" to, frankly, go eff themselves.
An observation of trends I've seen with a limited dataset but that I suspect generalizes pretty well:
Better-off, if you will, parents, or at least those with a "higher-class" cultural background (Fussell's upper-middle and higher—doctors, lawyers, executives, in short) are giving their kids phones later, restricting use more, and are more-amenable to restrictions on phones imposed by schools, than lower-class (Fussell's middle and lower) parents. These factors tend to significantly reduce student phone use in ritzy private schools, "captive" nigh-private-school public schools, and the tip-top of other upper-tier public schools, compared with practically all the rest of the school landscape.
I fully expect this to widen already-large class differences in education.
Agreed, but some of these surveys quoted are troublesome.
> A survey of a school district in Virginia found that about a third of teachers were telling students to put away their cellphones five to 10 times a class, and 14.7% did so more than 20 times a class.
> When a middle school in Canada surveyed staff, 75% of respondents thought that cellphones were negatively affecting their students’ physical and mental health. Nearly two-thirds believed the devices were adversely affecting academic performances as well.
> A survey of a school district in Virginia found that about a third of teachers were telling students to put away their cellphones five to 10 times a class, and 14.7% did so more than 20 times a class.
> When a middle school in Canada surveyed staff, 75% of respondents thought that cellphones were negatively affecting their students’ physical and mental health. Nearly two-thirds believed the devices were adversely affecting academic performances as well.
I have one part approval for this (back in my day, off my lawn, etc). But I also think about how many general tools cell phones replace, and the sudden added cost is a concern.
Flashlight. Probably not necessary 99% of the time at a school, until it is valuable.
Calculator. "Approved" graphing calculator replacements are stupid expensive, in many cases more expensive than the phone they're replacing.
Camera. We didn't have a ton of these at schools in the 80's, but they weren't entirely absent either. Useful for documenting (and yes, perpetuating) bullying.
Music. Even in the stone ages, we had music and headphones. Great for study hall and general focus.
Dictionary/Encyclopedia. Sure, folks can use bound volumes, but that's not a skill they'll use. Searching for things on the internet at large, is absolutely a skill they need.
Anyways, mixed thoughts. I'd say I turned out fine, but I had to re-learn a lot of mis-information innocently passed on by my peers and teachers.
Flashlight. Probably not necessary 99% of the time at a school, until it is valuable.
Calculator. "Approved" graphing calculator replacements are stupid expensive, in many cases more expensive than the phone they're replacing.
Camera. We didn't have a ton of these at schools in the 80's, but they weren't entirely absent either. Useful for documenting (and yes, perpetuating) bullying.
Music. Even in the stone ages, we had music and headphones. Great for study hall and general focus.
Dictionary/Encyclopedia. Sure, folks can use bound volumes, but that's not a skill they'll use. Searching for things on the internet at large, is absolutely a skill they need.
Anyways, mixed thoughts. I'd say I turned out fine, but I had to re-learn a lot of mis-information innocently passed on by my peers and teachers.
I don't remember needing a fancy calculator until Engineering in University. Possibly they are now needed in High School, but I haven't heard that before?
The article actually addresses the lack of camera as a positive in that it greatly increased interest in photography courses.
The Light Phone they are using can have some basic utility features like a music player, calculator, calendar, etc.
That being said, I'm cynical this is just an ad for Light Phones lol.
The article actually addresses the lack of camera as a positive in that it greatly increased interest in photography courses.
The Light Phone they are using can have some basic utility features like a music player, calculator, calendar, etc.
That being said, I'm cynical this is just an ad for Light Phones lol.
I remember using graphing calculators to do High School geometry. Loved it, we programmed games on it.
> I'm cynical this is just an ad for Light Phones lol.
It is definitely a bit over the top on the praise for it.
> I'm cynical this is just an ad for Light Phones lol.
It is definitely a bit over the top on the praise for it.
SAT allows (and thus requires to be competitive) a graphing calculator, typically a TI-84, but there are approved CASIO ones as well.
Agreed, back when I was in highschool, smartphones were relatively new, and even then the benefits were obvious in the form of being able to use them for music in any sort of study hall and for the calculator, and in university it quickly became very normal to see people taking a photo of things they thought would be especially noteworthy (which was very helpful because professors would often be going too fast to note it down). My highschool had the additional option of bringing and using a laptop in class, which I always used and found to be far more convenient.
I get that social media and texting are distractions in the classroom, but I really don't buy that a blanket ban is the solution. That's just draconian and brings to mind all the other arbitrary rules/limitations I had/have to deal with as a student which just built up resentment and encouraged malicious compliance rather than any respect of the school.
Also brings to mind the old joke about teachers telling kids to solve even complicated equations (without convenient numbers) by hand because "you won't always have a calculator at hand", and how wrong that turned out to be.
Edit: Come to think of it, it's interesting that social media sites haven't thought to do something about this as a PR move. They could sell beacons (specifically to schools) which if the phone detects, it notifies the teacher. Not being able to get away with sneaking a look at a phone would quickly reduce the issue of having to tell kids to put their phones away.
I get that social media and texting are distractions in the classroom, but I really don't buy that a blanket ban is the solution. That's just draconian and brings to mind all the other arbitrary rules/limitations I had/have to deal with as a student which just built up resentment and encouraged malicious compliance rather than any respect of the school.
Also brings to mind the old joke about teachers telling kids to solve even complicated equations (without convenient numbers) by hand because "you won't always have a calculator at hand", and how wrong that turned out to be.
Edit: Come to think of it, it's interesting that social media sites haven't thought to do something about this as a PR move. They could sell beacons (specifically to schools) which if the phone detects, it notifies the teacher. Not being able to get away with sneaking a look at a phone would quickly reduce the issue of having to tell kids to put their phones away.
> how many general tools cell phones replace
The article says the students received phones with some of these tools:
> instead coming with deliberately cumbersome versions of music and mapping apps
The article says the students received phones with some of these tools:
> instead coming with deliberately cumbersome versions of music and mapping apps
In talking to my teacher friends, one thing that I hadn't understood is how being the parent of a child has changed due to mobile devices since I was a child.
Parents obviously worry about their children. Parents exist in a community of other parents that uses phones belonging to children to keep track of their children. It was very hard for me to wrap my head around how strongly parents expect to be able to reach their children at any point in time. Most solutions (e.g. Yonder Pouches) end up shutting down location services not to mention the ability of students to say "yes I'm find". This leads to way more resistance to these policies that I ever would have expected!
Parents obviously worry about their children. Parents exist in a community of other parents that uses phones belonging to children to keep track of their children. It was very hard for me to wrap my head around how strongly parents expect to be able to reach their children at any point in time. Most solutions (e.g. Yonder Pouches) end up shutting down location services not to mention the ability of students to say "yes I'm find". This leads to way more resistance to these policies that I ever would have expected!
I mean, I agree that cell phones can cause interruptions in schools, but doing this at a place like Buxton compared to some of the public schools I’ve taught in, well, that’s a whole different story.
“Buxton School is a private, coeducational, college preparatory, boarding and day school for grades 9–12 located in Williamstown, Massachusetts.“
I mean, it’s one thing to take away a kid, cell phone and offer them nothing and then another thing to take away their cell phone and offer them
“When the weather is nice, the Buxton boarding school moves lunch outside. Students, faculty and guests grab their food from the kitchen, and eat together under a white tent that overlooks western Massachusetts’ Berkshire mountains.”
“Buxton School is a private, coeducational, college preparatory, boarding and day school for grades 9–12 located in Williamstown, Massachusetts.“
I mean, it’s one thing to take away a kid, cell phone and offer them nothing and then another thing to take away their cell phone and offer them
“When the weather is nice, the Buxton boarding school moves lunch outside. Students, faculty and guests grab their food from the kitchen, and eat together under a white tent that overlooks western Massachusetts’ Berkshire mountains.”
Yeah, it seems like you'd basically always get good outcomes in a school like this.
If the students become disruptive instead of just wasting time on their phone it could have a negative impact in many schools.
If the students become disruptive instead of just wasting time on their phone it could have a negative impact in many schools.
Look at it the other way -- the fact that even such an elite school was having serious problems when they were allowing smartphones, shows how pernicious their influence is in education. It's like putting a TV with full access cable on every desk in the classroom. It's no wonder literacy is going down instead of up for the first time in decades.
> Tuition for the 2023-2024 academic year is USD 62 000 for a boarding student and USD 33 000 for a day student. The fee covers room, board, academic study, basic materials for courses, lab fees, field trips, tickets to cultural events, athletics (including ski passes) and programs and activities held on campus.
There's also having to cater to the lowest common denominator. American students are required to go to school, and the catch-all is public school. Going to a private institute is a privilege, so if they don't like the policies they can choose to not go or ignore them and get expelled. If parents or students don't like the policies of their public school, they can complain to the board and... that's it.
Google says enrollment was 78 students nine years ago, let's guess it's around 100 now; 25 kids per grade, managing those cell phones is a tractable problem compared to a school with 1000 kids.
Similar phone ban in Minnesota discussed last year (221 comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38522142
I guess I date myself, but cell phones were banned in my high school because of a strong association at the time with drug dealers. A teacher seeing one was equivalent to seeing contraband.
in the mid-90s, i was branded a drug dealer because i bought a pager. this was essentially when i finally succumbed to the realization that people are idiots.
Related from a few months ago:
Florida School District Banned Cellphones. Here's What Happened
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/31/technology/florida-school...
Florida School District Banned Cellphones. Here's What Happened
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/31/technology/florida-school...
France banned mobile phone use in Primary and Middle school in 2018 - anyone have data on the impact on educational performance? China followed suit in 2021. I think that is it though for state wide suppression of mobile phone use in the classroom
Worsening Pisa results, but no other data.
Can you not "lock down" a smart phone to emergency calls + whitelist of numbers (mom, dad, etc)?
I'd prefer my kids to keep their phone, but only able to contact me during school hours (otherwise the device is as useful as a brick).
I'd prefer my kids to keep their phone, but only able to contact me during school hours (otherwise the device is as useful as a brick).
[deleted]
I hope this is the beginning of the new anti-smoking campaigns
We learned during the COVID school shutdowns that schools would really prefer parents not be aware of what actually goes on during a typical schoolday.
Great, but this is a private boarding school. I'm more concerned about the (over) use of Chromebooks in public schools. It's trivial for kids to tab over to Youtube or a gaming site in the middle of class. I would've done the same thing if I'd been given a laptop for 6 hours a day in school. When I see my kids trying to write math equations or use a virtual ruler/compass to do math homework, it really pains me. Let's go back to writing things by hand.
I don't see why schools really need to provide access to the open internet. Providing computer access is fine, but the network should be internal. Wikipedia PR Britannica can me mirrored, as well as any videos that teachers decide to have cached.
Most schools utilize cloud-based education platforms (Google Classroom, Canvas, etc) that require connectivity. Local hosting requires infra + someone to manage it, not to mention that there aren't very many good self hosted edu software resources.
Closed network != local network
> there aren't very many good self hosted edu software resources
I'm not sure if that's a problem, but that feels like one.
> there aren't very many good self hosted edu software resources
I'm not sure if that's a problem, but that feels like one.
Those phones contain all the knowledge the school pretends to teach the students. Techers are worried because they see telephones as competition.
This would be a nice experiment: Divide the students into two groups and let one group come to school without phones and let the other group stay home and learn the same material from their phones. If the material to be learned is well-defined I believe that students staying at home with their phones will learn the material much faster.
The only good thing about the school is that you get to hang out with your peers. The education system is not good for teaching.
This would be a nice experiment: Divide the students into two groups and let one group come to school without phones and let the other group stay home and learn the same material from their phones. If the material to be learned is well-defined I believe that students staying at home with their phones will learn the material much faster.
The only good thing about the school is that you get to hang out with your peers. The education system is not good for teaching.
Obviously you don't have kids and don't work with kids and your only experience with children in your childless social circle is vaguely remembering your own childhood.
Kids aren't looking at Wikipedia on their phones. Statistically speaking, they are probably looking at some AI generated TikTok video compilation of funny inside jokes, or something.
> The only good thing about the school is that you get to hang out with your peers.
Not if all your peers are too zombied out looking at their phones everytime they get a free moment between classes
Kids aren't looking at Wikipedia on their phones. Statistically speaking, they are probably looking at some AI generated TikTok video compilation of funny inside jokes, or something.
> The only good thing about the school is that you get to hang out with your peers.
Not if all your peers are too zombied out looking at their phones everytime they get a free moment between classes
Children, by and large, are not very good at self control. Give them free reign to learn at their own pace, and you will see some do very well, and many do extremely poorly.
The public education system (at least primary/secondary) is not about maximizing a few students' learning potential, but the average education of the collective.
Our current system does need major reforms, but to send kids home with phones to learn on their own? Not an effective solution imo.
The public education system (at least primary/secondary) is not about maximizing a few students' learning potential, but the average education of the collective.
Our current system does need major reforms, but to send kids home with phones to learn on their own? Not an effective solution imo.
> If the material to be learned is well-defined I believe that students staying at home with their phones will learn the material much faster.
Extremely wrong. Most people don't have the will and motivation to learn complex stuff on their own without external pressure, especially stuff they're not naturally interested in.
There's a reason people still go to college despite all the knowledge being available freely online. There's great value in learning in a structured environment alongside peers with whom you can freely exchange knowledge.
Extremely wrong. Most people don't have the will and motivation to learn complex stuff on their own without external pressure, especially stuff they're not naturally interested in.
There's a reason people still go to college despite all the knowledge being available freely online. There's great value in learning in a structured environment alongside peers with whom you can freely exchange knowledge.
Hmmm... 3,000+ years of education, or some rando on hn.
Tough call, folks!
Tough call, folks!
LMAO