Comment

Comment on France to ban students from keeping smartphones in schools

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?

source

Sort:hotnew top

Miaou@jlai.lu ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
Lol yeah criminals are going to raid schools to grab a couple of phones, sure buddy, take your meds now

source
- atrielienz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  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.
  
  source
blind3rdeye@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
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.

source
- atrielienz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  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?
  
  source
  - blind3rdeye@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    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.
    
    source
    atrielienz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    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?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments