• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    18 hours 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
      17 hours 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
        2 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
          ·
          55 minutes ago

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

        • Nate Cox@programming.dev
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          12 hours 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
            ·
            2 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
        ·
        16 hours 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
          ·
          12 hours 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.