• AuntieFreeze@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    6 months ago

    They did something similar in Indiana. It’s not a ‘the cops are coming’ thing. It’s more about having a law that the school can reference when whiny ass parents get mad when a teacher takes a students phone away because it’s disrupting class.

    • Masamune@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I was trying to think how this could be enforced. It actually makes sense when you frame it this way, didn’t think about the parent side. “Sorry Karen, that’s the law! Your kid week get her phone back in a week!”

    • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      When I was at school we weren’t allowed to eat in class. One day we had a supply teacher who caught a kid trying to eat a sandwich. The teacher confiscated the sandwich and ate it at the front of the class.

      Now imagine if it had been a phone: kid tries to use phone, teacher confiscates phone, teacher tries to root phone and bricks it in the process. “You can have this back at the end of the day.”

  • Bye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    6 months ago

    Good. Kids don’t need cell phones, and they really are a huge distraction.

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    6 months ago

    Makes sense. They’re distracting. Not sure why they were allowed in the first place.

  • qaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    6 months ago

    We did this a while ago in the Netherlands and so far the research results on the effects look promising.

    • jwt@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      Yes even the kids’ reactions generally seemed positive, some mentioned there were more conversations and joking going on in between classes, and cyber bullying was less prevalent (although ‘old school’ bullying seemed to make a comeback somewhat)

  • Melkath@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    6 months ago

    Take away kids ability to communicate with family and law enforcement when they get shot up.

    Genius idea.

    • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I hate school shootings as much as you, but I don’t think cell phones do much help once the shooter is in the building.

      Edit: Uvalde would be a good example where the shooter was identified and authorities were called while the shooter was still outside the building.

      • Melkath@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        If you wanna get all brutal and how it is in America about it, I am thinking more about giving the kids a chance to say good bye than actually getting help.

        We have established that noone who could actually do something about it cares about all of the kids getting murdered in America schools.

        Edit: And remember. While Uvalde cops sat outside and wet their pampers, a mother overpowered them to get children evacuated. A mother who was… notified by their child with a cell phone… and later faced criminal charges for it.

        • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          6 months ago

          I understand and empathize with the point you are trying to make. School shootings are the worst possible tragedies.

          That said, I still do not think we should shape school cell phone policies around the off chance of a school shooting (please do not chastise my use of ‘off chance’. The fact that it happens at all is too much, but I think the chance that it happens to any one school is still pretty low).

            • gerryflap@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              6 months ago

              Maybe you should learn how to hold a normal discussion without attacking the other party. Cursing and telling the other party to fuck off just because they disagree with you will not convinced anyone of anything and will only make you look bad. It’s not like the person you’re responding to is advocating for school shootings or anything else immoral.

                • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  You are treating me as though I don’t care about the victims of school shootings at all and I don’t appreciate that. You couldn’t have a decent conversation with me without putting your own words in my mouth and then blowing up at me for saying them. As I try to exit the conversation you feel the need to cut me down again.

                  So, have a good day.

            • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              I don’t think guns and phones in school are even the same conversation to be honest. I think that’s my trouble with the other commenter’s approach to the conversation.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                Gotcha it is once again not time to talk about gun control.

                We should go back to talking about Tik Tok. The real threat to children.

                • RunningInRVA@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  That’s not what I’m trying to say. The article is about cell phone policy in schools. The discussion got into gun control because Melkath feels like cell phones should be universally allowed in schools because kids should be able to call their parents during school shootings.

                  I’m eager to talk about gun control. I’m also eager to talk about cell phones in school.

                  I fail to see how gun violence in schools is at all related to cell phone policies in school. The attempt to link them together, as if cell phones must exist in schools because we can’t deal with gun violence, is laughable.

                  Edit: also I never mentioned TikTok.

    • Montagge@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 months ago

      The article covers that, simple devices that don’t have Internet are allowed.

      • MindTraveller@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Buying a kid a smartphone for normal life AND a dumbphone for school sounds expensive. A lot of kids in America can’t even afford lunch, how are they supposed to own two phones??

      • Melkath@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        What phone doesn’t have internet anymore?

        Edit: Wait, I get it. So now kids have their at home phone AND their parents also pay for their “you’re at school so this is how you get us your last words in the event of a shooting” phone.

        Again, genius.

        Parents needing to pay MORE money they don’t have and kids have ANOTHER reminder of how their job is basically to obey AND very possibly be killed while obeying.

        So much better of a solution instead of MOTHER FUCKING GUN CONTROL.

  • OpenStars@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    6 months ago

    These seem all over the place - or maybe it is just this article that is not explaining it well?

    For starters, “smartphones” aren’t the only SIM-carrying devices that can access the internet and install apps - dumbphones can do the former and tablets can do both, which you wouldn’t even be able to visibly see someone using, if it is in their bag and they use something like a watch interface to it. Laptops too…

    The Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation (Safe) for Kids act addresses algorithmic feeds. It would require social media platforms to provide minors with a default chronological feed composed of accounts they have chosen to follow rather than algorithmically suggested ones.

    Ngl, that sounds awesome - and not even just for kids! But immediately after that the article continues:

    The bill would also mandate that parents have more wide-reaching controls like the ability to block access to night-time notifications.

    Isn’t this already built-in to various OS’s, so why put the onus onto the app itself?

    Electronic devices like calculators have been a staple inside schools for half a century at least, and poor people who cannot afford one of every type of device will generally opt for one device that can install many different types of apps - so to now ban these apps, b/c they might be used in a certain particular manner… while simultaneously NOT stopping school shootings, it blows my mind.

    “Political theater” is the phrase that comes to mind. Another phrase is “No child left behind”, given how the parents seem to be against these policies, but the State has deemed that it knows better™.

    Then again, perhaps it has a real purpose in mind after all, as a law designed to extract money out of big tech companies as fees pile up?

  • tearsintherain@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Here we are on lemmy knowing the damage that big tech has done and continues to do. Yet some of us think keeping smartphones out of school children’s hands during school hours is controlling their lives?

    We truly don’t value teachers, we don’t understand their contexts or education in general. School, especially public school is where we go to learn just not stuff from a board or a book. It’s where we learn to live in a community. Hopefully a place where we can learn empathy by meeting other humans our age from similar and different walks of life. Where grow and develop, gain and also contribute. Where we have to learn to compromise because we share time and space with many human beings as opposed to say home schooling which is primarily driven by conservative religious folks.

    While police and law enforcement keep getting more and more funding and support. Public education keeps getting defunded. Not enough teachers, books or supplies. Do more with less has been the norm for decades. Mirroring capitalism and paving the way for charter school factories where teachers and administrators are burned out even at higher rates.

    Control over education is control over your future population. The less fully formed, the less humanist, the less critical thinking, the more centered on simply future workers, the more dystopian the future becomes.

    • Hucklebee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      We have tests done in our schools in the Netherlands right now and the early results are that it has a positive effect. Students talk to eachother more, say they have more fun during breaks. Also that they can concentrate better on their schoolwork.

    • SickofReddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      6 months ago

      How? My first thought was this is good. Kids should have to be in the classroom when they’re in the classroom and not on the internet.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        6 months ago

        they said it themselves, parents dont want this. I dont want this for my kids. so they will be fighting both the parents and the students for enforcement. theres going to be a constant tit for tat… administrative churn from enforcement of some stupid state law. what is or isnt a ‘simple device’.

        the reality is, this is a per-classroom thing plenty of teachers currently have a handle on. the teachers that do have a problem with phones just basket them as they walk in. the problem for phone distractions at the classroom level has been solved, per-teacher.

        you dont need special rules laws to send a disruptive internet surfing kid to the office.

        i dont want the state telling me my kid cant carry the device i gave them. they have plenty of real problems to solve.

        • Montagge@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          6 months ago

          The article defines a simple device as a phone that can send texts but has no Internet access

          • DarthYoshiBoy@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            My kids have child phones on Google Fi which allows me to shut down their Internet with a couple of button presses. Are they simple devices if I geofence their internet access off while they’re in school? I somehow doubt it, but it does meet the definition as you’ve stated it, which in turn means it is as @originalucifer said, not exactly cut and dry.

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    6 months ago

    While on the one hand I can agree there’s a place and time to be present and participate appropriately, on the other hand it’s so goddamned tiring to see politics that in situations of nuance zoom in on ‘control them’ as a thing everyone can rally to as if the solution of phone control was really going to be simple and accomplish its objectives.

    I mean, criminalizing drugs seemed on its face to be a simple-enough thing to do, and a good idea- who could object to that, right? Who favors addiction, right? What could go wrong? Fundamentally, the ask for enough power to ban anything isn’t a trivial ask, and it shouldn’t be undertaken lightly.

    • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 months ago

      But even if you decriminalized drugs (good!) you could still ban drugs in schools (also good!). Schools should be allowed to ban smartphones, which is what this bill would do.

  • blunderworld@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    6 months ago

    Dumb ass American politicians don’t know how to govern beyond “ban or blow up something we don’t like”.

  • tearsintherain@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    6 months ago

    Students phone usage in schools are problematic. It’s not just in the classroom, but (raises hand) can i go to the bathroom (to use my phone). You can’t lock down their at&t or t-mobile phones. Don’t know how an outright ban would work but it’s worth a shot. Education like democracy is in decline and in peril. Especially public education with the onslaught of charter schools.

    • Buttons@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      We often make laws without a way to enforce them 100% effectively. For example, my road has a 25 MPH speed limit even though we haven’t yet installed speed limiting chips on every single car in the nation, we still went ahead and put a speed limit on our road though, and it mostly works, but sometimes someone drives 30 MPH.

      • tearsintherain@leminal.space
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        So they listen for phone traffic, then what? Track down every user throughout the school day and intercept them? I would wager people who respond with IT solutions don’t realize they at times sound like a ‘tech bro’ who believes they have s solution for everything even of they have no experience in education, no experience being an educator and understanding their contexts. It’s no wonder why teachers in general in America are treated so poorly. Even folks who say they support teachers don’t understand how much they have to do and with so many students and little time.

    • banana_lama@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Funny-ly enough you can block their signal. Issue is it’s also going to block everyone within range

  • Willy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    6 months ago

    “I have seen these addictive algorithms pull in young people, literally capture them and make them prisoners in a space where they are cut off from human connection, social interaction and normal classroom activity,” she said.

    literally capture them? you should be literally ejected from office.

    • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      6 months ago

      Spend 5 minutes on any HS campus during passing period and you’ll see that it’s correct to say capture.

  • alpacapants@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 months ago

    Only question I have is is there exceptions? I know a few kids with some medical conditions like diabetes that have monitors that synch to their phone to control medication or send alerts… Wonder how they are going to address those situations. Otherwise, I could see the benefits on a smart phone ban during school hours. I just wonder how they are going to administer that.

    • OneWomanCreamTeam@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Schools with good administrations will make accommodations for kids that need it. Schools with bad administrations won’t until somebody sues.