And that is the fault of the parents who chose to hand phones to these kids. It is not the fault of the school, nor is it something the school should have to do anything about
Okay so, because some parents are bad and fail at educating their kids properly, society shouldn’t take a role in correcting that behaviour and instead should just let kids be damaged for life, did I understand you correctly?
I don’t know where you’re from (although I can guess), but here in Europe, and this is an article about France, we recognise the state has a role to fulfill in society, we all pay taxes and expect them to be used for the benefit of all. I don’t see any problems with schools being the enforcers of government legislation in this instance.
Also, everything else you wrote… I mean, it is obvious that your school system is very different from what I’m familiar with. Because yes, it IS the school’s responsibility to make sure that rules are applied properly in their premises, the money/resources necessary to do so are a secondary thought. This shouldn’t be something that needs to be explained, but well, here we are.
So, what (in France I know!) are you getting for said taxes that you were not getting before?
Because that’s exactly what I’m getting at. It is the schools responsibility to enforce the rules. The point is, it’s not the schools responsibility to take on the liability of what comes with that (ie. Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech with the ability to keep that tech in the same condition it was in when it was confiscated for an untold amount of time), it is the parents responsibility to make sure their children aren’t ringing such distracting material to school. And this means there are already likely protocols in place for distracting material. So what are you getting out of this ban?
it’s not the schools responsibility to take on the liability of what comes with that (ie. Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech with the ability to keep that tech in the same condition it was in when it was confiscated for an untold amount of time),
But it is, actually. Lol. It’s always been. I’ve had my phone taken in class a few times, and it was always returned at the end. It’s really not a big deal.
I don’t know what you mean by “Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech”. Its up to the teachers to keep it for the duration of the classes, and to return them at the end. They don’t need a safe to keep them in. It really isn’t that big a deal.
it is the parents responsibility to make sure their children aren’t ringing such distracting material to school.
It should be, but again, they aren’t. Which is why the schools must intervene. And it’s not really something they want to do, it is something they have to do, by government mandate.
So when one of these phones start a fire because it’s been improperly kept and the battery has a thermal runaway event?
If the phone is always returned then literally the law does nothing. The phone is being given back to the student? That’s a failure in the implementation of protocol or policy. You can’t use that to claim my argument is invalid because it literally does not make sense in this context.
You still haven’t answered what you are getting at here. These rules have to be enforced either way, so I don’t know why you think complaining your way out of it should even be a factor. It isn’t. Schools need to deal with it, simple as.
Or are you just saying “well, I don’t see how this can be enforced so they might as well not do anything!”?
This is wasteful. It is short sighted. It does not fix or mitigate the problem and makes the problem worse for a lot of reasons that I can detail if you would like (but I doubt that will matter to you at all because you seem to be misunderstanding everything I’ve said).
This can be enforced. It will be detrimental to the school system as a whole. It is not a fix for any of the problems detailed. It doesn’t change anything as far as I can tell and literally nobody has been able to come up with anything to validate what it would change, how it would change it for the better, or why the current rule structure and protocols in schools would benefit from it in any way.
So I’m saying it’s shortsighted and either needs to be reworked, or criminalizing parents allowing their children to bring such materials into schools should be implemented instead.
They trialed 180 schools, forcing the student to hand over or otherwise stow these devices in a place they couldn’t access for the duration of the school day. And they have “evidence” that it helps with the “child well-being, and focus”.
So now they are making it mandatory for all schools? How? What protocols are they putting in place? I’m really curious. The article says nothing. It’s basically a really poorly worded press release.
Are the schools providing a place to house these devices? That would be a liability.
Are the schools banning the devices in the premises? If so, what are they doing with the ones that are going to be confiscated?
Is this law going to hold the parents accountable in any meaningful way (besides the potential inconvenience of having to pick up the phone at the school in person)? If so, that would be the only potentially beneficial part of a law like this.
What does the school do with such contraband? Can they turn it over to an authority like the police? This could also potentially be a beneficial part of making such policy into law. Depends entirely on how it’s implemented.
Why do people always assume criticism is " we should just do nothing? " What is wrong with looking at something and seeing that it might be flawed and speaking up?
What are you even talking about at this point? The article is very clear.
There was a trial where schools were asked to get students to leave their phones in their lockers or in a pouch. The results were positive, so now they are expanding it nationwide. I don’t know what is complicated about this.
Is it gonna be flawless? No, and there probably is room for improvements. But it isn’t wasteful or short-sighted as you claim.
You’d do well to know that most schools in France are public and equipped with lockers, so this isn’t that big of an added expense. Sure, it could be bothersome if teachers have to tell students to leave their phones on their lockers, I guess. But that’s about it. Worst case it will be as it was back in my days, where the teacher kept the phones of the rogue students on his table until the end of classes.
They’ll probably never gonna get everyone. But if they can get even 60% of students to leave their phones in their lockers all day, that’s already a net positive for very little added costs, most of which won’t be monetary unless it’s a school with particularly degraded lockers that must be replaced.
I don’t find it necessary to answer the rest of the rambling. Contraband? Criminalising parents? Lol. Kids lie to their parents all the time, they buy phones behind their backs. Holding parents criminally accountable would be insane.
The article gives little to no detail about the law or what’s changed. It makes claims that this was a pilot program implemented in 180 schools whereby students were required to place cell phones in a pouch or locker they couldn’t access during school hours. It makes claims that this was successful, and therefore a ban will be implemented. It doesn’t say if this ban will use the same protocol (having students place phones in a locked pouch or locker they don’t have access to for the school day). It doesn’t state how this differs at all from previous laws that prohibit students from using mobile phones on school premises which were implemented in 2018.
It doesn’t explain what the “separation of student from phone” looks like, or what the repercussions will be for students found with a phone. It says nothing about protocols to properly store the devices (and what will happen in the event of an emergency where the device is a danger to students or property).
It gives literally no details, and doesn’t even link to the law in question.
A further guardian article I found says it is receiving criticism for some of the problems I have previously detailed (though not all of them). That same article strongly advances the idea that cell phone use is a detriment to children’s health and inference can be made that this is the main reason for such a ban, but this ban does not fundamentally solve this problem in any way.
It doesn’t say they are expanding the implementation used in the trial nation wide. That is an assumption you made that the writer likely also made and didn’t follow-up. This is just a poorly written article full stop.
Your argument is terrible, and poorly defended. You only went and read the article after you started making arguments to me. I read the article before I made my first comment because I had a lot of questions that were not answered and still haven’t been answered. That’s literally because the media is doing a poor job of explaining this situation and the law in question.
Okay, to be quite honest, you’re reading way too deep into a matter that doesn’t even concern you considering you’re not a resident of France, and I’m probably wasting too much of my own time even entertaining your rambling.
So we’ll stop here. I’ll just close with what I know from experience with these kinds of policies, they always come out rough and broad but the details can (and will) be refined as its implementation spreads nationwide and they start covering the pot holes.
And it will spread nationwide, because it wouldn’t make sense in the context of France to have a government-funded program only apply to a small region of France. It’s not a municipal policy and France isn’t composed of individual, sovereign states either.
Again, none of these things should need to be said since that’s pretty much how all new policy launches work. And as usual, the person I’m debating doesn’t even know the basics of how X country operates and apparently don’t know how policy works in general, yet still they believe they can educate me on this matter. So I’m forced to conclude this indeed must be a day ending in -y.
Okay so, because some parents are bad and fail at educating their kids properly, society shouldn’t take a role in correcting that behaviour and instead should just let kids be damaged for life, did I understand you correctly?
I don’t know where you’re from (although I can guess), but here in Europe, and this is an article about France, we recognise the state has a role to fulfill in society, we all pay taxes and expect them to be used for the benefit of all. I don’t see any problems with schools being the enforcers of government legislation in this instance.
Also, everything else you wrote… I mean, it is obvious that your school system is very different from what I’m familiar with. Because yes, it IS the school’s responsibility to make sure that rules are applied properly in their premises, the money/resources necessary to do so are a secondary thought. This shouldn’t be something that needs to be explained, but well, here we are.
So, what (in France I know!) are you getting for said taxes that you were not getting before?
Because that’s exactly what I’m getting at. It is the schools responsibility to enforce the rules. The point is, it’s not the schools responsibility to take on the liability of what comes with that (ie. Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech with the ability to keep that tech in the same condition it was in when it was confiscated for an untold amount of time), it is the parents responsibility to make sure their children aren’t ringing such distracting material to school. And this means there are already likely protocols in place for distracting material. So what are you getting out of this ban?
But it is, actually. Lol. It’s always been. I’ve had my phone taken in class a few times, and it was always returned at the end. It’s really not a big deal.
I don’t know what you mean by “Holding onto thousands of dollars worth of tech”. Its up to the teachers to keep it for the duration of the classes, and to return them at the end. They don’t need a safe to keep them in. It really isn’t that big a deal.
It should be, but again, they aren’t. Which is why the schools must intervene. And it’s not really something they want to do, it is something they have to do, by government mandate.
So when one of these phones start a fire because it’s been improperly kept and the battery has a thermal runaway event?
If the phone is always returned then literally the law does nothing. The phone is being given back to the student? That’s a failure in the implementation of protocol or policy. You can’t use that to claim my argument is invalid because it literally does not make sense in this context.
You still haven’t answered what you are getting at here. These rules have to be enforced either way, so I don’t know why you think complaining your way out of it should even be a factor. It isn’t. Schools need to deal with it, simple as.
Or are you just saying “well, I don’t see how this can be enforced so they might as well not do anything!”?
This is wasteful. It is short sighted. It does not fix or mitigate the problem and makes the problem worse for a lot of reasons that I can detail if you would like (but I doubt that will matter to you at all because you seem to be misunderstanding everything I’ve said).
This can be enforced. It will be detrimental to the school system as a whole. It is not a fix for any of the problems detailed. It doesn’t change anything as far as I can tell and literally nobody has been able to come up with anything to validate what it would change, how it would change it for the better, or why the current rule structure and protocols in schools would benefit from it in any way.
So I’m saying it’s shortsighted and either needs to be reworked, or criminalizing parents allowing their children to bring such materials into schools should be implemented instead.
They trialed 180 schools, forcing the student to hand over or otherwise stow these devices in a place they couldn’t access for the duration of the school day. And they have “evidence” that it helps with the “child well-being, and focus”.
So now they are making it mandatory for all schools? How? What protocols are they putting in place? I’m really curious. The article says nothing. It’s basically a really poorly worded press release.
Are the schools providing a place to house these devices? That would be a liability.
Are the schools banning the devices in the premises? If so, what are they doing with the ones that are going to be confiscated?
Is this law going to hold the parents accountable in any meaningful way (besides the potential inconvenience of having to pick up the phone at the school in person)? If so, that would be the only potentially beneficial part of a law like this.
What does the school do with such contraband? Can they turn it over to an authority like the police? This could also potentially be a beneficial part of making such policy into law. Depends entirely on how it’s implemented.
Why do people always assume criticism is " we should just do nothing? " What is wrong with looking at something and seeing that it might be flawed and speaking up?
What are you even talking about at this point? The article is very clear.
There was a trial where schools were asked to get students to leave their phones in their lockers or in a pouch. The results were positive, so now they are expanding it nationwide. I don’t know what is complicated about this.
Is it gonna be flawless? No, and there probably is room for improvements. But it isn’t wasteful or short-sighted as you claim.
You’d do well to know that most schools in France are public and equipped with lockers, so this isn’t that big of an added expense. Sure, it could be bothersome if teachers have to tell students to leave their phones on their lockers, I guess. But that’s about it. Worst case it will be as it was back in my days, where the teacher kept the phones of the rogue students on his table until the end of classes.
They’ll probably never gonna get everyone. But if they can get even 60% of students to leave their phones in their lockers all day, that’s already a net positive for very little added costs, most of which won’t be monetary unless it’s a school with particularly degraded lockers that must be replaced.
I don’t find it necessary to answer the rest of the rambling. Contraband? Criminalising parents? Lol. Kids lie to their parents all the time, they buy phones behind their backs. Holding parents criminally accountable would be insane.
The article gives little to no detail about the law or what’s changed. It makes claims that this was a pilot program implemented in 180 schools whereby students were required to place cell phones in a pouch or locker they couldn’t access during school hours. It makes claims that this was successful, and therefore a ban will be implemented. It doesn’t say if this ban will use the same protocol (having students place phones in a locked pouch or locker they don’t have access to for the school day). It doesn’t state how this differs at all from previous laws that prohibit students from using mobile phones on school premises which were implemented in 2018.
It doesn’t explain what the “separation of student from phone” looks like, or what the repercussions will be for students found with a phone. It says nothing about protocols to properly store the devices (and what will happen in the event of an emergency where the device is a danger to students or property).
It gives literally no details, and doesn’t even link to the law in question.
A further guardian article I found says it is receiving criticism for some of the problems I have previously detailed (though not all of them). That same article strongly advances the idea that cell phone use is a detriment to children’s health and inference can be made that this is the main reason for such a ban, but this ban does not fundamentally solve this problem in any way.
It doesn’t say they are expanding the implementation used in the trial nation wide. That is an assumption you made that the writer likely also made and didn’t follow-up. This is just a poorly written article full stop.
Your argument is terrible, and poorly defended. You only went and read the article after you started making arguments to me. I read the article before I made my first comment because I had a lot of questions that were not answered and still haven’t been answered. That’s literally because the media is doing a poor job of explaining this situation and the law in question.
Okay, to be quite honest, you’re reading way too deep into a matter that doesn’t even concern you considering you’re not a resident of France, and I’m probably wasting too much of my own time even entertaining your rambling.
So we’ll stop here. I’ll just close with what I know from experience with these kinds of policies, they always come out rough and broad but the details can (and will) be refined as its implementation spreads nationwide and they start covering the pot holes.
And it will spread nationwide, because it wouldn’t make sense in the context of France to have a government-funded program only apply to a small region of France. It’s not a municipal policy and France isn’t composed of individual, sovereign states either.
Again, none of these things should need to be said since that’s pretty much how all new policy launches work. And as usual, the person I’m debating doesn’t even know the basics of how X country operates and apparently don’t know how policy works in general, yet still they believe they can educate me on this matter. So I’m forced to conclude this indeed must be a day ending in -y.
Speaking of day, have a good one!