Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Group of 17 London secondary schools join up to go smartphone-free

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 192 posts

Re: Group of 17 London secondary schools join up to go smartphone-free

#121

Post by willsmith72 »

technothrasher wrote: post #89
rubymamis wrote: post #3

I believe that, in retrospect, these schoolchildren will greatly appreciate this decision.

As reported by my son who is in a 'phone free' high school here in the US, the policy is entirely useless. They make them put their phones in the 'phone hotel' at the beginning of the day, and they can retrieve them at the end. But many kids just put an old decoy phone in the hotel and keep their actual phone with them. Even if they don't do this, they're required to use laptops for class, and even with the school at…

are you sure the damage is the same?

it sounds like because they have access to a school laptop, you're assuming the consequences of smartphone usage will still apply. what are the odds that the impact is actually identical? it's almost certainly not. and if i had to put money on it, i would say the impact is significantly reduced.

still there, sure, but this is a spectrum

Re: Group of 17 London secondary schools join up to go smartphone-free

#122

Post by altacc »

the_snooze wrote: post #99
jasonjei wrote: post #93

I think many of the comments in opposition to this are coming from people that do not have children. Many of those in support do. I speak as a parent of a child, and I think “parent brain” will affect your thoughts on this. Having said that, I grew up on dial up and very low tech HTML. Not social media which is an entirely different beast. There is a book called The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Child…

I think it comes from the "I tinkered with tech as a kid!" mindset. It ignores the fact that smartphones are about as low-friction and consumption-centric as it gets when it comes to distracting material. If you want kids to learn about tech, then do it in a higher-friction deliberate context like a desktop computer.

Totally agree. I regularly hear that students should use tablets at school as it gets them used to technology they will use in the workplace. This is technology designed to be easy enough for an 80 year old to pick up and use, no training is required! Much better to be teaching them real work based activity & creative problem solving.

Re: Group of 17 London secondary schools join up to go smartphone-free

#123

Post by gffrd »

teekert wrote: post #64

We have schools doing this in the Netherlands. Students actually report liking it because they are now more in real physical contact with their fellow students directly instead of immersed in their phone every chance they get. I think that shows that indeed it should be a rule, voluntary will not work because of something akin to the network effect. When we get interns at our company many of them, instead of communic…

> something akin to the network effect

Yes. Kids are tuned in to the negative effect of phones/social media on themselves, don't want them, but feel they can't not have them because … everyone else is on them.

This is more about social media, but a research report [1] quoted by Jonathan Haidt in conversation with Tyler Cowen [2] expresses this:

"Users would need to BE PAID $59 to deactivate TikTok and $47 to deactivate Instagram if others in their network were to continue using their accounts."

BUT

"Users would be willing to PAY $28 and $10 to have others, including themselves, deactivate TikTok and Instagram, respectively."

Emphasis mine on the above two quotes.

[1] https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/when-produ... [2] https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jonathan-haidt-a...

Re: Group of 17 London secondary schools join up to go smartphone-free

#124

Post by whimsicalism »

teekert wrote: post #64

We have schools doing this in the Netherlands. Students actually report liking it because they are now more in real physical contact with their fellow students directly instead of immersed in their phone every chance they get. I think that shows that indeed it should be a rule, voluntary will not work because of something akin to the network effect. When we get interns at our company many of them, instead of communic…

> Students actually report liking it because they are now more in real physical contact with their fellow students directly instead of immersed in their phone every chance they get.

I wonder what a poll of those students would actually show

Re: Group of 17 London secondary schools join up to go smartphone-free

#126

Post by Loic »

jstanley wrote: post #116
jasonjei wrote: post #93

I think many of the comments in opposition to this are coming from people that do not have children. Many of those in support do. I speak as a parent of a child, and I think “parent brain” will affect your thoughts on this. Having said that, I grew up on dial up and very low tech HTML. Not social media which is an entirely different beast. There is a book called The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Child…

Isn't banning smartphones rather an example of overprotective parenting?

No, it is protecting them from 100's of PhDs spending their days optimizing their apps/websites for addiction[0].

This what I explain to our kids and they understand it very well.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39987490

Re: Group of 17 London secondary schools join up to go smartphone-free

#128

Post by gffrd »

jstanley wrote: post #116
jasonjei wrote: post #93

I think many of the comments in opposition to this are coming from people that do not have children. Many of those in support do. I speak as a parent of a child, and I think “parent brain” will affect your thoughts on this. Having said that, I grew up on dial up and very low tech HTML. Not social media which is an entirely different beast. There is a book called The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Child…

Isn't banning smartphones rather an example of overprotective parenting?

Where is the boundary between appropriately protective parenting and overprotective parenting?

Re: Group of 17 London secondary schools join up to go smartphone-free

#129

Post by zarzavat »

hollerith wrote: post #91
zarzavat wrote: post #49

Confiscating phones from children for an entire week is an unhinged idea. Confiscating for the rest of the school day I can understand, but not giving them the phone back when they go home is dangerous. At some point a child will get abducted on their way home from school, or be unable to contact emergency services, because the school confiscated their phone. They seem to want parents to buy dumb phones instead for t…

The damage done to kids by smartphones greatly exceeds the safety benefits you describe IMHO. Your use of hyperbolic language like "unhinged" suggests you're addicted to your smartphone or at least you're in denial about the damage it did to you.

In the winter it’s common for kids to walk home from school after dark, if there are after-school activities. I did that many times as a kid and it was scary. I would have felt a lot better with a smartphone.

I’m a grown adult and I wouldn’t feel comfortable walking around London in the dark without a smartphone.

Taking a phone away from an 11 year old before they walk back home in the dark is unhinged, it’s not hyperbolic to say that or a sign of addiction.

Re: Group of 17 London secondary schools join up to go smartphone-free

#130

Post by chippiewill »

leohonexus wrote: post #17
grecy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as the phone is locked, surely mere teachers can't force a student to unlock it.

That an official government document explicitly mentioning that school staff is allowed to search a device without law enforcement (either being present, or authorized by warrant) is problematic in and of itself.

I disagree. You don't need a warrant to search your child's phone as a parent.

Teachers have many of the same powers over children that their parents do. Power to detain, to punish, and yes to search.

If you're not happy with that as a parent then you can home educate them instead.

Post reply on HN