• cm0002@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Sounds like it and the other is something that I thought schools have been doing since cell phones have been a thing…

      Edit: >from using cellphones and social media platforms during the school day.

      Oh nope, just in school which is fine ig

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        5 months ago

        The only concern I have is that, unfortunately, we live in a country with a lot of school shootings and phones have given kids a link to the outside when that is happening.

        • Fondots@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          32
          ·
          5 months ago

          It sounds like it’s a ban on using the phone during school, not on simply having a phone with you.

          Which honestly sounds like a rule every school has pretty much had for like 20+ years.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            5 months ago

            LAUSD cited possible tactics like locked pouches, cellphone lockers or technological means and promised the policies would be “informed by best practices and by input from experts in the field, labor partners, staff, students, and parents.”

            Pouches? Maybe if there’s some quick release that teachers are given. Lockers? That does nothing about the school shooter issue. They might as well be at home. The “technological means” sounds a bit Orwellian.

            • cm0002@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              5 months ago

              I lol’d at the “technological means” what are they gonna do, put up jammers? The FCC would be on their ass in no time. Metal detectors? Don’t they already have that? Bluetooth detection? The kids will just turn off Bluetooth widespread.

              • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                5 months ago

                hahah these are already in place and in use. they already have cell blockers in many places. this is not new and the fcc knows all about it.

                the ‘new’ hotness is a pico cell that allows for voice/sms but no data

                • cm0002@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  10
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Yea, no. The FCC is quite explicit on this, read for yourself:

                  The use of a phone jammer, GPS blocker, or other signal jamming device designed to intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications is a violation of federal law. There are no exemptions for use within a business, classroom, residence, or vehicle. Local law enforcement agencies do not have independent authority to use jamming equipment; in certain limited exceptions use by Federal law enforcement agencies is authorized in accordance with applicable statutes.

                  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    cool, every school in my district has zero cell signal the moment you walk in the building. it sure as hell aint the architecture

                    im going to investigate… they are using something

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                I’m worried it will be something like “you must install this app while on campus and you must sign this waiver to allow us to monitor your phone via the app and we will confiscate your phone if you’re caught without the app.”

                • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  parents wont go for that. as you pointed out, parents want to be able to access their kids. they are the biggest roadblocks to ‘no phones in schools’. im one of them.

                  • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Will I sound like an “I grow up without seatbelts …“ guy if I mention we were OK only having our parents able to call the school? I guess school shootings etc. are more prevalent nowadays.

                    Wonder how much bulk dumbphones would cost with a year of service… QVC/HSN sell smart Tracfones for $45 so perhaps that line of thinking is worth including in the debate. Of course any vendor willing to lock down phones to only be able to contact preapproved (parents’) numbers would wet their beak handsomely.

            • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I feel like school shooters are rare enough that a policy about cell phones wouldn’t need to factor them in.

                • OccamsRazer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  There are 115,000 schools in the united states. 107 incidents halfway through the year, so 214 approximately by the end of the year, comes out to .19 percent chance of this happening at your school, but that’s only if you assume that it’s evenly distributed, which it certainly is not. I’d guess that if you are in an inner city school with the associated higher crime rates, then your risk is much higher.

                  But also if you look at numbers of deaths, school shootings isn’t even on the charts. Homicide deaths in general are in second place (but close to suicide deaths) at 10 out of 100,000 kids, and school shootings are a tiny fraction of that. There are 43 million adolescents (10-19) in the united states, so 29 deaths are about .7 percent of the total homicide deaths. Or put another way, your kid is 150 TIMES more likely to die from a regular homicide than from a school shooting.

                  But still, there is some small risk of a shooting happening and you wanting to know if your kid is safe. So I guess the question is if the tradeoff is worth it. Seems to me like that would not be a good reason not to ban cell phones. Like there might be reasons a cell phone ban is a bad idea, but that isn’t really one of them.

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Right, I have mine take them to school just to help quell that ever present voice in the back of my mind

        • cm0002@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not even buckets, when I was in school many years ago, I have very distinct memories of texting through my hoodie on a flip phone T9 to hide it from the teachers because we were under a constant “if I see it I’m taking it” threat lmao

    • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      during school days.

      Literally, the first sentence. So, no. Not even the first school to ban cell phone use during the school day.

    • hopesdead@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      When I was in middle school I remember the campus security (I don’t think we called them “security”) had some sort of lecture on the dangers of social media (this was circa 2004). I don’t recall details but they basically said the person in charge of security was supposedly lurking on MySpace to see what we were doing. Pretty lame and did nothing for seemingly nothing reasons.