6 ms·

I'm not sure why all students should be punished just because because some cannot use a new tool well. Socialism at its worst, in my opinion. The irresponsibl

I'm not sure why all students should be punished just because because some cannot use a new tool well. Socialism at its worst, in my opinion. The irresponsible drag down those with more potential.

tabeth 9y ago
I'm curious to why you think not having a smartphone constitutes a punishment.
- cryptoz 9y ago
  Not OP here, but there are literally thousands of ways that not having a smartphone could be a punishment. The first thing to realize is that times change. People didn't used to have clean shirts either, but they do now. Making someone wear a dirty shirt might not have been a punishment in the past (what else did they know of?) but it could certainly be seen that way now. Give a child access to a smartphone for years. It will change their brain, it will become a part of them (as far as they are concerned) as it will be predictable, reactive, entertaining, etc. Then take it away. That is clearly a punishment: you have adjusted the mind of a child to become accustomed to something and then ripped it away. It would be literally insane to not see how this could be a punishing experience for a child (or even, an adult). Again, I'm not OP and not going to argue the point of phones in schools. But I will say, do not assume that young people today are the same as young people in history. Our society has given smartphones to children at large. We should not be surprised if taking them away has unknown and potentially negative repercussions. Perhaps access to this kind of technology should be done in moderation (but how to do that? I don't know) so as not to shock anyone's system (or our society's system).
  - BeetleB 9y ago
    >Give a child access to a smartphone for years. It will change their brain, it will become a part of them (as far as they are concerned) as it will be predictable, reactive, entertaining, etc. You are describing a drug. Besides, we're not talking about taking them away for good. Just while they are in school. When I was a kid, people were into Gameboys. Yet no one took it as a punishment when schools did not allow them.
    - cryptoz 9y ago
      > You are describing a drug. Yeah, so is the article. > Chris Marcellino, who helped develop the iPhone's push notifications at Apple, told The Guardian last fall that smartphones hook people using the same neural pathways as gambling and drugs. > Besides, we're not talking about taking them away for good. Just while they are in school. I didn't say for good. Even during that length of time, it could be seen as a punishment. I'm not arguing that it's good to take them away or good to keep them - I'm not sure. I'm just saying it's important to recognize that taking away something like a smartphone could be a punishing experience for a person. > When I was a kid, people were into Gameboys. Yet no one took it as a punishment when schools did not allow them. Gameboys have only one purpose: games. Games and games alone are clearly not useful in the school environment. Smartphones have a billion purposes and have limitless potential for learning - not to mention, various other things that are important, like peace of mind in communication, etc. Again, I'm not saying these kids shouldn't be able to do without. I'm just saying it is a thing: people are attached to their smartphones in a new way, as described in the article, and taking it away can cause harm just as keeping it could.
      - BeetleB 9y ago
        >I'm just saying it's important to recognize that taking away something like a smartphone could be a punishing experience for a person. So, if my kid is addicted to drugs and I restrict him from having them for a few hours to wean him off, I am punishing him? I don't know what a "punishing experience" means. If it is a punishment, the actor (parent, school, etc) has to have the intent of punishing. Just because the recipient believes something is punishment does not make it so.
- Danihan 9y ago
  Because you could have the answer to nearly any question at your fingertips, and yet it's arbitrarily taken away? How is it not a punishment?
  - tabeth 9y ago
    Do you think kids should have access to anything they desire while in school if they're capable of bringing it into the school?
    - Danihan 9y ago
      Do you think instead of teaching English we should be banning books, because some students read trashy novellas in class and distract themselves?
      - rosser 9y ago
        Straw-man.
      - anigbrowl 9y ago
        Irrational analogy. The problem is not the answers but the having of thema t fingertips. There is value in the slow process of looking things up in dictionaries or stepping through exercises. The downside of instant fulfillment of curiosity is arguably a shallow approach to knowledge; as soon as something become difficult or obscure, there's the urge to summon the answer from the internet, and if it's not immediately forthcoming either lose interest or expend energy rationalizing the default answer.
  - rosser 9y ago
    By analogy: I used to have incredible direction sense. On one of my cross-country drives, a couple decades ago, I made it to my friend's place, having only vaguely consulted at an atlas a couple of times. I lived in New York; she lived in San Diego. (Edit: And I'm specifically including having navigated the local highways and surface streets in that anecdote, not just which Interstates I used.) Now, I get lost in my own city without using my phone's mapping app. When we outsource our cognitive capabilities to the exocortex, we lose those capabilities. When we give our children a tool that obviates their need ever to develop those capabilities, we rob them of something essential.
- criddell 9y ago
  I wouldn't consider it to be a punishment, but I do think they are missing a big opportunity here. A blanket ban suggests that maybe the kids can't be taught appropriate use of the technology in a school setting even though other schools do just that.
- always_good 9y ago
  When I was in school, all I wanted to do was read the Sitepoint forums and learn more about HTML / CSS / PHP. I had one teacher that took me up on my offer to let me use the one class computer when my work was done and that's exactly what I did with it. Then other kids opted into my sweet deal and ended up ruining it by causing too much disturbance around it. Back then, I always resented the fact that it was more acceptable for me to sleep during class than to read material on the computer. So I ended up sneaking on my home computer after my parents slept and getting 4 hours of sleep each night so that I would then sleep during school. I would've KILLED to have a smartphone in my pocket. Now, I'm not sure what the best policy is going to be, here. But I can certainly relate to the injustice of feeling punished for something that doesn't apply to me. I can certainly understand that a smartphone in the hands of a student will only make distraction more likely. But to take it away completely seems to overestimate the value of being attentive 100% of the time in school. For example, imagine if you can take out your smartphone when you're done with your work AND you are averaging above a 85% in the class. Maybe something like that would offer best of both worlds.
  - jclardy 9y ago
    I think the problem isn't so much the technology, maybe it is just our general teaching methodology. I feel like in US schools we don't allow much room for self-learning inside the school itself, every class has a teacher and lesson plans, and not a lot of self-guidance. Personally I learned a lot on my own through high school that never would have been taught (z80 assembly to build games for the Ti-83.) I did most of that on my own, at home, rather than during class time for other essentially "irrelevant" courses. I think the main issue is what may seem unimportant to a child when they are a child, might end up being an important part of their life in the future. But they just don't know what they like or what they want to do when they are young, which is why we have general education courses. Maybe if there were more opportunities for that it would be useful. But given the infinite amount of distractions a personal smartphone can provide I don't see how you can have 30 kids just doing whatever simultaneously and have a positive outcome for the majority.
  - craigsmansion 9y ago
    > For example, imagine if you can take out your smartphone when you're done with your work AND you are averaging above a 85% in the class. Imagine taking out a book on a different subject when you're done and are keeping up, and no teacher complaining about that, ever. Then imagine being the teacher not having to deal with the other kids protesting because a single one of them is allowed to use his phone in class including all the teenage drama that you're definitely not getting paid enough for.
jclardy 9y ago
But would these supposed kids with "more potential" realize that potential given access to a smartphone during the time when they are being educated? I fail to see the use of a communications/entertainment device in a classroom unless it is part of the instruction. EDIT: Genuinely curious of your opinion, I grew up right before smartphones exploded when I was in college, so for me I see them more as a distraction from what is going on around you. Yes, they can be a tool, but I feel like they typically are not that in a group learning setting.
- Danihan 9y ago
  > I fail to see the use of a communications/entertainment device in a classroom Then you aren't very creative. They could be searching for more context on the lesson, as an easy example. You wouldn't want to read more about the War of 1812 online if you were in the middle of a fairly tedious and plodding lecture about it?
  - jclardy 9y ago
    Thanks for your generalization, but I'm actually here for constructive discussion and not personal attacks. My question is how many kids are actually going to do that? And what justifies them to be the judge of whether what the teacher is discussing is relevant to them or not, given they are 10 years old.
    - Danihan 9y ago
      Welp, you asked for my opinion. My opinion is that if you literally can't think of a valid use for the entire internet in a classroom setting, then you aren't trying very hard. It's tantamount to having a library at your fingertips. * How about using an app to record the lecture, so a student can verify their notes later? * How about taking a picture of the notes on the board, when they can't copy things down quickly enough? * How about checking up on a sick relative using SMS, so they aren't feeling anxious about it all class? I'm not even trying really -- there are dozens of valid use-cases that respect the preset curriculum. Let alone all of the uses that fall outside of respecting it, if and when the curriculum is too facile for the student. Couldn't I have been learning programming during the time my high school English class was tackling "A Catcher in the Rye" one chapter per week, after I read the entire book within the first few hours we had it? Apparently not, because cell phones aren't allowed, and they can only used for Candy Crush. >My question is how many kids are actually going to do that? Not very many, and that's why most people will justify smartphones being taken away from all students. Which will primarily hurt the ones who were using them for more interesting purposes. Typical crab bucket mentality. >And what justifies them to be the judge of whether what the teacher is discussing is relevant to them or not, given they are 10 years old. I never said anything about whether the lessons were relevant, nor were ages brought up.
vorotato 9y ago
This has nothing at all to do with socialism.
- Danihan 9y ago
  These are government schools, are they not? Paid for by tax dollars?
  - vorotato 9y ago
    Public Schooling is a socialist policy, taking smartphones isn't. Giving every student a smartphone would be socialism in this context. However nobody is talking about that.
    - Danihan 9y ago
      And the curriculum is determined by the government, correct? And the intent of banning smartphones is to force all students to pay more attention to that curriculum, correct?
      - vorotato 9y ago
        Government is not socialism. Indoctrination is also not socialism. You seem to be conflating the authoritarian/libertarian axis with socialism/capitalism axis. It is authoritarian, it isn't socialist because there's nothing about it inherent to socialism even though yes it is happening within a socialist structure. I think the more accurate sentence is "This is an obnoxious kind of authoritarianism". For example you can have a very socialist, very libertarian governmental structure. Some individuals view libertarian and socialist as opposites but actually they can completely coexist. It just takes viewing both corporations and governments as structures limiting your individual liberty. This kind of authoritarian policy can happen in either a capitalist or socialist environment.
  - mifoew3 9y ago
    So schools cant set rules? Because of socialism? My nephew can't bring his cat to math class, or play nintendo switch during english. Does that mean he's being oppressed by socialist policies? Because I call it common sense.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dang 9y ago
This sort of generic ideological flamewar is exactly what we don't want on HN, even in an abysmally politicized thread like the current one. Since you've repeatedly abused HN this way and ignored our requests to stop, we've banned this account. (No, that's not because we're $ideology ourselves, it's because the spirit of this site is intellectual curiosity, it needs protecting, and ideological flamewars destroy it.) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll use HN as intended in the future.

I'm not sure why all students should be punished just because because some cannot use a new tool well. Socialism at its worst, in my opinion. The irresponsible drag down those with more potential.

tabeth 9y ago

I'm curious to why you think not having a smartphone constitutes a punishment.

cryptoz 9y ago
Not OP here, but there are literally thousands of ways that not having a smartphone could be a punishment. The first thing to realize is that times change. People didn't used to have clean shirts either, but they do now. Making someone wear a dirty shirt might not have been a punishment in the past (what else did they know of?) but it could certainly be seen that way now. Give a child access to a smartphone for years. It will change their brain, it will become a part of them (as far as they are concerned) as it will be predictable, reactive, entertaining, etc. Then take it away. That is clearly a punishment: you have adjusted the mind of a child to become accustomed to something and then ripped it away. It would be literally insane to not see how this could be a punishing experience for a child (or even, an adult). Again, I'm not OP and not going to argue the point of phones in schools. But I will say, do not assume that young people today are the same as young people in history. Our society has given smartphones to children at large. We should not be surprised if taking them away has unknown and potentially negative repercussions. Perhaps access to this kind of technology should be done in moderation (but how to do that? I don't know) so as not to shock anyone's system (or our society's system).
- BeetleB 9y ago
  >Give a child access to a smartphone for years. It will change their brain, it will become a part of them (as far as they are concerned) as it will be predictable, reactive, entertaining, etc. You are describing a drug. Besides, we're not talking about taking them away for good. Just while they are in school. When I was a kid, people were into Gameboys. Yet no one took it as a punishment when schools did not allow them.
  - cryptoz 9y ago
    > You are describing a drug. Yeah, so is the article. > Chris Marcellino, who helped develop the iPhone's push notifications at Apple, told The Guardian last fall that smartphones hook people using the same neural pathways as gambling and drugs. > Besides, we're not talking about taking them away for good. Just while they are in school. I didn't say for good. Even during that length of time, it could be seen as a punishment. I'm not arguing that it's good to take them away or good to keep them - I'm not sure. I'm just saying it's important to recognize that taking away something like a smartphone could be a punishing experience for a person. > When I was a kid, people were into Gameboys. Yet no one took it as a punishment when schools did not allow them. Gameboys have only one purpose: games. Games and games alone are clearly not useful in the school environment. Smartphones have a billion purposes and have limitless potential for learning - not to mention, various other things that are important, like peace of mind in communication, etc. Again, I'm not saying these kids shouldn't be able to do without. I'm just saying it is a thing: people are attached to their smartphones in a new way, as described in the article, and taking it away can cause harm just as keeping it could.
    - BeetleB 9y ago
      >I'm just saying it's important to recognize that taking away something like a smartphone could be a punishing experience for a person. So, if my kid is addicted to drugs and I restrict him from having them for a few hours to wean him off, I am punishing him? I don't know what a "punishing experience" means. If it is a punishment, the actor (parent, school, etc) has to have the intent of punishing. Just because the recipient believes something is punishment does not make it so.
Danihan 9y ago
Because you could have the answer to nearly any question at your fingertips, and yet it's arbitrarily taken away? How is it not a punishment?
- tabeth 9y ago
  Do you think kids should have access to anything they desire while in school if they're capable of bringing it into the school?
  - Danihan 9y ago
    Do you think instead of teaching English we should be banning books, because some students read trashy novellas in class and distract themselves?
    - rosser 9y ago
      Straw-man.
    - anigbrowl 9y ago
      Irrational analogy. The problem is not the answers but the having of thema t fingertips. There is value in the slow process of looking things up in dictionaries or stepping through exercises. The downside of instant fulfillment of curiosity is arguably a shallow approach to knowledge; as soon as something become difficult or obscure, there's the urge to summon the answer from the internet, and if it's not immediately forthcoming either lose interest or expend energy rationalizing the default answer.
- rosser 9y ago
  By analogy: I used to have incredible direction sense. On one of my cross-country drives, a couple decades ago, I made it to my friend's place, having only vaguely consulted at an atlas a couple of times. I lived in New York; she lived in San Diego. (Edit: And I'm specifically including having navigated the local highways and surface streets in that anecdote, not just which Interstates I used.) Now, I get lost in my own city without using my phone's mapping app. When we outsource our cognitive capabilities to the exocortex, we lose those capabilities. When we give our children a tool that obviates their need ever to develop those capabilities, we rob them of something essential.
criddell 9y ago
I wouldn't consider it to be a punishment, but I do think they are missing a big opportunity here. A blanket ban suggests that maybe the kids can't be taught appropriate use of the technology in a school setting even though other schools do just that.
always_good 9y ago
When I was in school, all I wanted to do was read the Sitepoint forums and learn more about HTML / CSS / PHP. I had one teacher that took me up on my offer to let me use the one class computer when my work was done and that's exactly what I did with it. Then other kids opted into my sweet deal and ended up ruining it by causing too much disturbance around it. Back then, I always resented the fact that it was more acceptable for me to sleep during class than to read material on the computer. So I ended up sneaking on my home computer after my parents slept and getting 4 hours of sleep each night so that I would then sleep during school. I would've KILLED to have a smartphone in my pocket. Now, I'm not sure what the best policy is going to be, here. But I can certainly relate to the injustice of feeling punished for something that doesn't apply to me. I can certainly understand that a smartphone in the hands of a student will only make distraction more likely. But to take it away completely seems to overestimate the value of being attentive 100% of the time in school. For example, imagine if you can take out your smartphone when you're done with your work AND you are averaging above a 85% in the class. Maybe something like that would offer best of both worlds.
- jclardy 9y ago
  I think the problem isn't so much the technology, maybe it is just our general teaching methodology. I feel like in US schools we don't allow much room for self-learning inside the school itself, every class has a teacher and lesson plans, and not a lot of self-guidance. Personally I learned a lot on my own through high school that never would have been taught (z80 assembly to build games for the Ti-83.) I did most of that on my own, at home, rather than during class time for other essentially "irrelevant" courses. I think the main issue is what may seem unimportant to a child when they are a child, might end up being an important part of their life in the future. But they just don't know what they like or what they want to do when they are young, which is why we have general education courses. Maybe if there were more opportunities for that it would be useful. But given the infinite amount of distractions a personal smartphone can provide I don't see how you can have 30 kids just doing whatever simultaneously and have a positive outcome for the majority.
- craigsmansion 9y ago
  > For example, imagine if you can take out your smartphone when you're done with your work AND you are averaging above a 85% in the class. Imagine taking out a book on a different subject when you're done and are keeping up, and no teacher complaining about that, ever. Then imagine being the teacher not having to deal with the other kids protesting because a single one of them is allowed to use his phone in class including all the teenage drama that you're definitely not getting paid enough for.

jclardy 9y ago

But would these supposed kids with "more potential" realize that potential given access to a smartphone during the time when they are being educated? I fail to see the use of a communications/entertainment device in a classroom unless it is part of the instruction. EDIT: Genuinely curious of your opinion, I grew up right before smartphones exploded when I was in college, so for me I see them more as a distraction from what is going on around you. Yes, they can be a tool, but I feel like they typically are not that in a group learning setting.

Danihan 9y ago
> I fail to see the use of a communications/entertainment device in a classroom Then you aren't very creative. They could be searching for more context on the lesson, as an easy example. You wouldn't want to read more about the War of 1812 online if you were in the middle of a fairly tedious and plodding lecture about it?
- jclardy 9y ago
  Thanks for your generalization, but I'm actually here for constructive discussion and not personal attacks. My question is how many kids are actually going to do that? And what justifies them to be the judge of whether what the teacher is discussing is relevant to them or not, given they are 10 years old.
  - Danihan 9y ago
    Welp, you asked for my opinion. My opinion is that if you literally can't think of a valid use for the entire internet in a classroom setting, then you aren't trying very hard. It's tantamount to having a library at your fingertips. * How about using an app to record the lecture, so a student can verify their notes later? * How about taking a picture of the notes on the board, when they can't copy things down quickly enough? * How about checking up on a sick relative using SMS, so they aren't feeling anxious about it all class? I'm not even trying really -- there are dozens of valid use-cases that respect the preset curriculum. Let alone all of the uses that fall outside of respecting it, if and when the curriculum is too facile for the student. Couldn't I have been learning programming during the time my high school English class was tackling "A Catcher in the Rye" one chapter per week, after I read the entire book within the first few hours we had it? Apparently not, because cell phones aren't allowed, and they can only used for Candy Crush. >My question is how many kids are actually going to do that? Not very many, and that's why most people will justify smartphones being taken away from all students. Which will primarily hurt the ones who were using them for more interesting purposes. Typical crab bucket mentality. >And what justifies them to be the judge of whether what the teacher is discussing is relevant to them or not, given they are 10 years old. I never said anything about whether the lessons were relevant, nor were ages brought up.

vorotato 9y ago

This has nothing at all to do with socialism.

Danihan 9y ago
These are government schools, are they not? Paid for by tax dollars?
- vorotato 9y ago
  Public Schooling is a socialist policy, taking smartphones isn't. Giving every student a smartphone would be socialism in this context. However nobody is talking about that.
  - Danihan 9y ago
    And the curriculum is determined by the government, correct? And the intent of banning smartphones is to force all students to pay more attention to that curriculum, correct?
    - vorotato 9y ago
      Government is not socialism. Indoctrination is also not socialism. You seem to be conflating the authoritarian/libertarian axis with socialism/capitalism axis. It is authoritarian, it isn't socialist because there's nothing about it inherent to socialism even though yes it is happening within a socialist structure. I think the more accurate sentence is "This is an obnoxious kind of authoritarianism". For example you can have a very socialist, very libertarian governmental structure. Some individuals view libertarian and socialist as opposites but actually they can completely coexist. It just takes viewing both corporations and governments as structures limiting your individual liberty. This kind of authoritarian policy can happen in either a capitalist or socialist environment.
- mifoew3 9y ago
  So schools cant set rules? Because of socialism? My nephew can't bring his cat to math class, or play nintendo switch during english. Does that mean he's being oppressed by socialist policies? Because I call it common sense.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

dang 9y ago

This sort of generic ideological flamewar is exactly what we don't want on HN, even in an abysmally politicized thread like the current one. Since you've repeatedly abused HN this way and ignored our requests to stop, we've banned this account. (No, that's not because we're $ideology ourselves, it's because the spirit of this site is intellectual curiosity, it needs protecting, and ideological flamewars destroy it.) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll use HN as intended in the future.