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.
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 could of couple 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 could of couple 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.
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.
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.
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.