• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m absolutely in favor of schools disallowing use of phones in class, but I’m against them being banned. If kids want to use them between classes, that’s fine, as long as they don’t use them in class.

    • Nate Cox@programming.dev
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Yeah, my state just enacted a “bell-to-bell” ban on cell phones in schools for my kids. I absolutely support a ban on phones in class (so long as the school is providing necessary tech to educate with) but banning between class just ignores that phones are an important part of how kids socialize and ripping it away cold-turkey can’t be healthy.

      Edit: also, I gave my kids phones primarily so they could contact me in an emergency, and I am very much not ok with the state telling me they can’t have the phone in their backpack.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        Agree with this, but I don’t supply my kids with phones at all, despite their friends having them. If there’s an emergency, they can go to the office or ask their teacher. If that’s not possible, the school will likely call instead (e.g. when there was a bomb threat a couple of years ago).

        I have chosen to not give my kids phones, but I also think other parents should be allowed to choose differently. Everyone’s circumstances are different, and I don’t want the government stepping in to make parenting decisions for me, even if my decisions would be the same. That’s overreach and I will absolutely oppose it.

        • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          And what if they get into trouble on their way home? Or the way to the bus, supermarket or whatnot?

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            What trouble? Adults don’t want to mess with kids (most child abuse happens with close aquaintances, not random crazies on the street), so their biggest threat is going to be bullies around their age, and a parent stepping in will just make that problem worse, so they’ll need to learn to deal with that on their own anyway.

            I personally have never had an issue going to/from school, other than the typical bullying on the bus. The most likely problem they’d run into is getting hit by a car, in which case they need paramedics and police, not me, and those emergency services will call me once they identify them (and I trust random strangers to call emergency services if a kid gets hit).

            The only time I expect my kid to need to call is if they’re at a party or something outside of school and need to be picked up because they don’t feel comfortable. When they get to an age where that’s a thing, we’ll have a loaner phone for them to use.

            • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Falling off your bike and cracking your head open or breaking something or whatever. I used to bike through somewhere where not a lot of people would pass by.

              Or even worse, get hit by a tractor who didn’t see you and not be found until later, which can cause permanent damage. Happened to somebody I know sadly, she is disabled for life now. Yes, the person in the tractor should have been more careful and have seen her, but you can hit somebody with one of those and not notice it.

              I also never said they should use the phone to call the parents, you can also call 112 with those.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 hours ago

                Right, but if you’re in a situation where you need emergency services, chances are you won’t be in a situation to call. For the vanishingly low chance of that being necessary (esp. in my case where I take them to/from school since there’s no bus service), I trust strangers to call since my area is sufficiently densely populated for someone to see what happened.

                If you live in an area where such things are more likely, I absolutely agree that you should be able to make that choice. I firmly oppose any school-wide ban on phones for that reason, I just happen to agree that, generally speaking, kids don’t need and shouldn’t have phones.

                And if you really feel the need for your kid to contact you or emergency services, there are devices like Gabb watches that have only the functions you need. So please, consider those before considering a smartphone.

                • Vinstaal0@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 hours ago

                  Kids shouldn’t have smartphones no, but it can he handy for a group of kinds to have at least some kind of phone. Heck even a phone without a sim can be used to call 112.

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

                    Sure. If you live in an area where kids may need to reach out, sure, give them a loaner phone or something, or one of those watches that can only contact a fixed set of numbers (you and trusted emergency contacts).

        • Nate Cox@programming.dev
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          I don’t think there is a good answer here. I didn’t really want my kids to have phones either but all you’re doing by denying them the primary social tool of their generation is ostracizing them from their peers.

          Being a parent sometimes feels like a series of un-winnable choices.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            What peers? They mostly play with neighborhood kids, and we have contact info for a few that live further away and arrange things that way. Our kids aren’t teenagers yet, but my sister’s are and they seem to do fine without phones as well. My friends growing up mostly had phones, and I worked around that as well.

            I think people are making a much bigger deal about it than it really is. Maybe it’s a larger issue in other areas, but honestly, my kids mostly want one to play games, not contact friends.

            We certainly reevaluate regularly, but I’ll need a pretty good reason to give my kids their own phones. I’m much more likely to have a loaner they can share, and only for a fixed amount of time.

      • blarghly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        The fact that you used the term we usually use to describe quitting alcohol and cigarettes is probably a good sign that they should be banned.

        • Nate Cox@programming.dev
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          Wat? It’s called a colloquialism. It’s a way to describe something I know you know without needing to spell it out.

          You’re basically asserting that anything described using an analogy must inherit all the traits of anything else that analogy is used for, which is just silly. It’s a classic composition/division fallacy.