Mobile phone ban in school

[Scalagala]

Post inspired by comments on other thread. Would you support a blanket ban on mobile phones in your school? This means no mobile phones - including brick phones - to be allowed in school at all, so hence no access on the way home / on to other activities.
YABU - support a blanket ban.
YANBU - schools could adopt other methods such as pouches or phones off during school day.

How do schools enforce any rules? With consequences for non compliance. Why do some parents have the attitude that their kids can’t be told what to do?

Bicycle?

I mean, if a dc is determined to break school rules, won't they just bring in a phone when there aren't meant to be any onsite? It isn't like dc will break the rules with a pouch but completely abide by a ban, is it?

I think parents have a role in getting dc to abide by school rules. And for dc who stick to the rules, the pouch works fine. Why restrict those dc further because of the minority who break the rules?

As said above, in DD's school most of the kids have a dummy phone they keep in pouch, with phone kept in bag. Or they've figured out that a swift bang on a desk opens the lock. However, the do use phones much much less.

Well parents are obviously buying them these dummy phones, or at least condoning it. So we’re on to a loser really. Parents can’t control their kids’ behaviour, and it seems like in a lot of cases they don’t even try.

@BravasPatatas that’s the thing that gets me, some posters on here don’t seem bothered that their DC are flouting the rules. And in schools the main issue with mobiles isn’t screen time and doom scrolling during break time, its behaviour. Bullying and being filmed, mobiles and toilets are not a good mix, upskirting, not concentrating in lessons etc So I don’t understand why some parents even seem proud that their DC have found a way round the pouches etc

I would imagine most people that study Chemistry become Doctors or Engineers not bomb making

When I was a kid in the 70s we had one bin don’t know why we have four now and have to pay £50 a year for the green one

Agreed. They seem to think their kid is some sort of uncontrollable renegade, who should be applauded for sticking it to the establishment. In reality they’re just badly behaved and poorly disciplined. And it’s other people’s kids who suffer the consequences.

We should stop everyone wearing school uniform as some flout the rules.

I thought it was clear from what I posted that I think money management lessons in school are a very good thing, as it's one more way in which children can be prepared for the wider adult world... unless anybody actually believes that what you learn at school is only for when you're a child and not intended to be of any use in later life?!

Money is an essential part of adult life, but failing to use it responsibly CAN be fraught with danger.
Smartphones are an essential part of adult life, but failing to use them responsibly CAN be fraught with danger.
This is why it's utter madness to deny their essential nature in life - and to infantilise teenagers by telling them "It's something for grown-ups" like you would say to a 4yo.

Drinking tequila and boxing are adult choices that people are free to make (or not to make) in due course. I have never taken part in boxing or drunk tequila, and this hasn't adversely affected my life at all. The same absolutely cannot be said for money and smartphones.

It seems like a group punishment tbh. Some dc break the rules, so the rule abiding dc have to have the same penalty.

I think the issue should be addressed with the rule breakers.

I realise that there are a lot of potential dangers with smartphones, but also that they are an essential of life that we can't just pretend to teenagers don't exist. The answer is for schools and parents to acknowledge this and guide wise use, whilst stepping in and - maybe - taking a phone away from a teenager for whom it is causing serious problems; in the same way as we would tell an alcoholic not to touch a single drop without telling people who have a glass or two of wine or a pint or two of beer a week that they are in great danger and must stop forthwith.

Sex is also something that many people consider an essential part of life, but that too is fraught with a lot of dangers. This is why we educate children and teens all about it in advance of when they will need that knowledge; we don't just tell them that it's dirty and shameful and to put any thoughts out of their minds until they're adults.

Smartphones and social media go hand in hand

They do for many people; but it's not a given. Even so, surely this is why the SM ban is being brought in for U16s as distinct from 'no phones at all'?

You could just as well say that the internet and porn go hand in hand - which for very many people is true - so every single person on this thread and anybody else you know who ever goes online must be constantly dashing off for their fix and utterly addicted to it. Or, like with phones, we can be sensible and acknowledge and promote the wise uses, whilst warning against (or blocking if necessary) the harmful ones.

We have to stay rational: we don't ban people from drinking water on the grounds that you can drown in the stuff, so it's a clear danger and that's that.

Believe it or not, some of us DO guide and know our DC very, very well. We've brought them up to tell the truth, obey rules, be respectful and to know that they can talk to us if they have any concerns about anything.

We know that they aren't perfect and the areas in which they do need more guidance, supervision, help and discipline; but children and teenagers are all individuals - just like the rest of us - and it's generally a very bad idea in life to assume that everybody who shares one basic human characteristic is exactly the same.

Of course addictions exist, but that doesn't automatically mean that everybody - or indeed most people - suffers from that addiction, or indeed acts in any way that could make it any kind of likelihood. Have you ever had a couple of paracetamol for a headache? If so, you should speak to your GP about your problem with overdosing on legal drugs - because 'it's an addiction'. Have you ever drunk a glass of wine? I urge you to look online for Alcoholics Anonymous' contact details and get the help you need.

I think the blanket ban means no exceptions. There is always someone who will say yes but my child needs (insert your own excuse)

So a child with type 1 diabetes who needs to be able to regularly monitor their blood glucose level, as if they don't, their life and long-term health could be at serious risk, should be denied basic access to healthcare (you did say "no exceptions" and dismiss people's 'excuses') - rather than appropriately discipline or sanction some other child who refuses to get off TikTok during their maths lesson?

Type one diabetics can keep their phones on them. We apply their WIFI, so they can’t share the password!

Childhood - and school - is a long, drawn-out process, involving many stages. How do you define a 'schoolkid'? Is it a child in reception who still has occasional accidents and wets their pants; or is it a sixth-former who still goes to school each day but drives there themselves? Or might it be a very big range?

Most of us want to guide our children and teens through it towards more and more independence, appropriate to their age. It absolutely is crazy to make a teenager have to ask an adult to make a phone call for them. It does them absolutely no favours to keep making them 'ask a grown-up' and then suddenly expecting them to be independent once they leave the school gate for the very last time.

I didn't liken a phone to a lawn mower; I was saying that both are useful tools, without which we'd struggle - but they have a time and a place when they are needed, and most of the time they sit idle - like a toaster, kettle, car and many other things. Why is that contradictory or silly? Do people think that a phone can only either be a toy to which people are hopelessly addicted, or something terrible and dangerous which must be banned and never used, with no conceivable in-between?

I'm very glad to hear that... but PP was declaring 'no exceptions' and slapping down any 'excuses' - logically including 'wanting to stay out of hospital' as one of them.

It will be stipulated in their Health Care Plan, which is a legal document.
Can you imagine if a pupil was unable to read their glucose levels?

Type 1 diabetic children (of which there are about 30,000 in the UK) typically have a CGM and / or closed loop system requiring a phone to manage their condition.

“Mobile phones are not just a form of communication for children living with type 1. Their phones are a lifesaving treatment device, recommended by the NHS and regulators to reduce potentially fatal high and low blood glucose spikes. They need their phones in exams, in the playground, in lessons, at lunch and during PE.”

https://breakthrought1d.org.uk/news/letter-to-gillian-keegan-about-the-use-of-mobile-phones-in-schools/

In reality, it makes the punishment worse for the rule-keepers than the rule-breakers.

My DS is one of the former - along with many of his friends - who now know that they cannot have a phone to let us know at lunch-time (or even after school has finished, as they've extended the 'no phones at all on the premises' rule to include 45 minutes before and after the school day) that a club has been cancelled, or to check if we have ingredients in for cooking the next day, or to raise any other urgent concerns.

My same-aged DN, on the other hand, IS exactly one of the kinds of kids whose poor discipline and unwillingness to abide by rules has caused all of them to be tarred with the same brush and receive a blanket ban. She told me that she and her friends will now just learn how to be coy and go unseen, to avoid the teachers spotting them with their phones out - apparently, it's easy to get away with it... and in the unlikely event that they are caught, well, a few more detentions or bad behaviour points to add to all the rest won't make much difference to them anyway. Either way, the rule is 'not for them' and will be ignored.

By way of analogy, I liken it to the self-service checkouts at Morrisons, where if I'm buying stuff for work and need two different transactions, or even if I've picked up a free local paper near the door, I have to wait for an available assistant to come over, watch a half-minute video and then press the button to say that I'm not a thief. Meanwhile, the actual thieves just fill up their holdalls and calmly leave the store, going nowhere near the checkouts, completely unchallenged.

https://breakthrought1d.org.uk/news/letter-to-gillian-keegan-about-the-use-of-mobile-phones-in-schools/ tell that to a type 1 diabetic child whose using a closed loop system to manage their condition.

Indeed, it would be horrendous - and pure disability discrimination... but according to some people, their lifeline is just an 'excuse', because 'phones must be banned with no exceptions or excuses because messing around in class'.

So you’re saying that if a child needs a smart phone for medical reasons, you would exclude them from school?

Some people are idiots.