Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Have you met a 16-year old?
In a very real way, adolescents rise to the responsibilities given to them. Usually teenagers that need modulating is a reflection on their upbringing rather than any innate flaw.
Finland Bans Smartphones in Schools
51–60 of 491 posts
Re: Finland Bans Smartphones in Schools
#52[flagged]
Copying my answer from the other message where you state this: Are you implying we should school them the Spartan way rather then? Would that prepare them for life in a better way? Or, what do you think would be valuable then to do (purposely not saying learn) during those twelve years?
I took my kids out of school from when they were about nine until they were 16. They went back into school with a better education and better prepared for life than those who stayed in school, exams (UK GCSEs and IGCSEs) passed with high grades as as evidence, and obviously better than good social and life skills, and excellent study skills and self-discipline.
There are definitely better alternatives to the current school system.
Re: Finland Bans Smartphones in Schools
#53Note that this means "in class" rather than "in school".
Re: Finland Bans Smartphones in Schools
#54If the goal of school is to develop children into young adults with good reasoning and analytical skills, a basic wholesome world and social model and some practical skills and basic physique, smartphones seem to contribute little and distract a lot from those aims.
The thing is: smartphones exist. The young adults these children will become will live in a world where smartphones are an essential part of their life. Using a smartphone is a practical skill. That's why I don't think banning smartphones is the best idea. It is probably better than unrestricted access, but I feel that school should teach how to use them well instead. It is a bit like with calculators, there are clas…
Cars exist and are foundational to modern living yet we do not push kids to learn to drive until their later teenage years. Some countries wait until they are 18 and others choosing a couple years sooner.
Re: Finland Bans Smartphones in Schools
#55[flagged]
> What is the point of school? Why do children have to spend 12 years of their lives learning basically nothing and coming out anything but well formed adults. So that every kid has a uniform and common base of knowledge that helps them understand the world around them, and enables them to go further by learning more or starting to work. With no mandatory schooling, most kids would be illiterate and ignorant. A lot o…
> antivaxers, flat earthers
Generally people who went to school.
> With no mandatory schooling, most kids would be illiterate and ignorant.
School is not mandatory in a lot of countries. In the UK education is mandatory but school is not and educating kids out of school leads to much better results in my experience.
Re: Finland Bans Smartphones in Schools
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're right in a way because if school wants to prepare kids for work, then they'll have to get competent with tech. But at the same time, I think banning smartphones is perfectly fine because you can still use computers and stuff. It's not like they're going back to quills and ink. Smartphones fry your attention span and enable bullying. And if parents want to have emergency contact, you can always have a s…
> I think you're right in a way because if school wants to prepare kids for work, then they'll have to get competent with tech. 1. Educational is not vocational training. Schools should give kids skills and a foundation, not teach them how to use particular technology. 2. Not all jobs require much knowledge of how to use technology.
1. Correct, I think you've changed my mind on this and I'll investigate further. Though they should probably get foundational knowledge on tech literacy.
2. True, though less true over time. Even in the non-tech jobs you're now constantly using technology. In the trades, you need to know how to operate a CNC machine. As a nurse, you're operating medical devices that are getting more and more powered by technology.
Re: Finland Bans Smartphones in Schools
#57Note that this means "in class" rather than "in school".
”in school” is left for the school to decide. The can ban in breaks too.
Re: Finland Bans Smartphones in Schools
#58If the goal of school is to develop children into young adults with good reasoning and analytical skills, a basic wholesome world and social model and some practical skills and basic physique, smartphones seem to contribute little and distract a lot from those aims.
The thing is: smartphones exist. The young adults these children will become will live in a world where smartphones are an essential part of their life. Using a smartphone is a practical skill. That's why I don't think banning smartphones is the best idea. It is probably better than unrestricted access, but I feel that school should teach how to use them well instead. It is a bit like with calculators, there are clas…
The problem is they do damage, at home and as a teacher, you get to compete against the dopamine kick for attention - the whole day, even if the device is not around
Re: Finland Bans Smartphones in Schools
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely reading/writing are useful skills that most people did not have before school was mandatory.
I did not take me twelve years to learn to read and write. What an awful excuse. What made me good at reading was reading books outside of school . In a single semester of university I learned more than in 12 years of school.
> In a single semester of university I learned more than in 12 years of school.
I learned more in a single year on the job than I did in 3 years of university. That doesn’t make university useless
Re: Finland Bans Smartphones in Schools
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have put your finger on something - the actual purpose of school is to socialise children (it isn't very efficient as a teaching system - tutoring is better and what the people who really care about educational attainment use). But a side effect is teaching them a lot of useful things. And telling if time spent learning is wasted is actually quite hard - if you know something and everyone else knows something it…
>the actual purpose of school is to socialise children I agree that this is probably the most important thing for children to learn. My point is that sitting in a room for 8 hours does very little to accomplish that. >And telling if time spent learning is wasted is actually quite hard - if you know something and everyone else knows something it often fades into the background and nobody notices. But it still makes a…
> I had the direct comparison when I went to university. It became very clear that I was learning much more and faster.
Sure, but this should be expected. If you filtered out all children with low interest/performance/support in preschool and just threw them onto a playground, learning rate could also be much faster in school for the rest.
But if you want a solid baseline of reading/writing/math/general education for everyone in society, those twelve years are already barely enough.
I'm very confident that early discrimination/segregation ("gifted" and "idiot" tracks in school) is a net negative for society and encourages unethical outcomes on top.
Optional programs for faster/more targetted learning are much better and can be very positive IMO, but even there you need to be careful with how you set things up to avoid problems.