FINALLY...doing something about #$@! cell phones

[slingblade]

What if the call is from the kids parent saying a family member has been seriously hurt or dead? Surely there are exceptions.

No. If there is an emergency, you call the school office, and they handle it, the same way it was handled before cell phones. What do you think we did in the Dark Ages?

Cell phones are allowed to be carried in the school in which I worked, but they must be shut off during class time. If it rings in class, the teacher may confiscate it. At this school, the policy was the student couldn't have it back--the parent had to come get it. Few cell phones ever rang in class.

 

[toddjh]

What if the call is from the kids parent saying a family member has been seriously hurt or dead? Surely there are exceptions.

Then they'll have to call the school office anyway to make arrangements to pull the kid out of class. Why not cut out the middleman and go straight to that? It worked just fine for decades.

 

[jimlintott]

I agree. But where is the line that we draw? Perhaps cars shouldn't have a side passenger seat and there should be a partition separating the front and the back. If we assume your argument, and I do, then listening to the radio falls somewhere on the continuum from safe to dangerous.

Protocols for testing the influences of various activities on driving are quite well established. Even Mythbusters used this type of protocol to test cell phone use vs. alcohol impairment and found cell phone use more dangerous. Accident reports cite causes and when a specific activity shows up again and again it should be tested with these protocols. I don't believe that in car conversations have shown any statistical impact on driving safety and in fact can improve safety because of the extra set of eyes. I know from personal experience that a passenger has helped me avoid a situation.

Why do we have such a visceral response to cell phones? My guess is that many of us have confronted some driver clearly oblivious to his or her surrounding with a phone to his ear who cut us off.

Anecdotally it seems that every time I see someone doing something stupid while driving they are talking on a cell phone. True, sometimes they are doing something else silly. Cell phone use cited as contirbuting causes of accidents is showing up in accident reports. When tested using established driving safety protocols cells phones repeatedly show up as being problematic.

Don't we want a bit of satisfaction? A bit of retribution? Or are we all really sensitive to our safety? If you chose the latter then I have to ask, what are you willing to ban or change to increase safety?

My only concern is safety. That starts with driver attitude. People who think that they are so good that nothing will happen to them, people who don't care, people who will engage in things that rob their attention from driving have a bad attitude to it. What would I ban? About half the people with licenses. If people had the right attitude towards driving safely we wouldn't need as many laws.

No matter how often I ask or how hard I try I simply can't get more than a handful of people to respond and I've asked a lot of people. So why don't people want to address my questions? I can only speculate but I would say that it really has little to do with any concern for safety. It's much more primordial.

You might be right. While driving many people are selfish. They think the road belongs to them and that there is some conspiracy to keep them from arriving on time. It's all about attitude.

 

[BPSCG]

Just making stuff up I see. Nothing in your post suggested that the research was a representation of all humanity.

So are you claiming that you are representative of all humanity, and that therefore, since you can drive safely with a cell phone, everyone should?

Or are you claiming that you are somehow not representative of all humanity (or, let's say, drivers in general), in which case, prove it.

 

[slingblade]

I have no doubt that, were she still teaching today, she'd announce a policy at the beginning of every term, something like: If your cell phone goes off in my class, you get a zero for the day averaged into your grades. If it goes off again that same week, you'll get a zero averaged in for the entire week.

Not saying your mom is wrong, or anything, but in the school I worked at, that wouldn't fly.

Teachers there are not allowed to punish students by reducing grades, or handing out zeroes. Your grade is your grade, and your behavior will not affect it--not in that way, at least. We had to find other ways to discipline, and for cell phones, taking it away and making your parents come to the school to pick it up worked very well.

The only way one's behavior might affect one's grade is if your behavior got you suspended and you weren't there to do the work.

...and I can't tell you the number of times I had to put together homework packets for suspended kids so they could still do their work in spite of suspension. They were docked a few points for it being late, since they couldn't be there to turn it in on time, but that was about all.

 

[Tony]

So are you claiming that you are representative of all humanity, and that therefore, since you can drive safely with a cell phone, everyone should?

No. Only people who confuse communism and capitalism would make such an absurd claim.

Or are you claiming that you are somehow not representative of all humanity (or, let's say, drivers in general), in which case, prove it.

Notice how BPSCG is asking me to prove a negative.

I'm saying that the research wasn't representative of all of humanity. Hell they didn't even give a sample size.

 

[jimlintott]

What if the call is from the kids parent saying a family member has been seriously hurt or dead? Surely there are exceptions.

You would have to do what the majority of parents of children without cell phones do; call the school office.

My two children represent a combined minimum of twenty-five years of school. I cannot recall ever having to call one of them while at school. Nor would I have ever considered it something difficult to do.

 

[Tony]

No. If there is an emergency, you call the school office, and they handle it, the same way it was handled before cell phones.

But since there are cell phones. Why should parents be compelled to reach their kids via a school administrator when they could just call their kid?

Cell phones are allowed to be carried in the school in which I worked, but they must be shut off during class time. If it rings in class, the teacher may confiscate it.

I don't see how stealing someone's possessions is justifiable. Why not just ask the person to leave class to take the call or ignore the call?

 

[BPSCG]

Actually, this whole argument is pointless, because someday, some senator's daughter is gonna get killed by a guy dialing and driving, and they'll introduce a bill in Congress that will deny federal highway funding to any state that doesn't expressly prohibit dialing and driving, and that'll be the end of it.

 

[RandFan]

Protocols for testing the influences of various activities on driving are quite well established. Even Mythbusters used this type of protocol to test cell phone use vs. alcohol impairment and found cell phone use more dangerous.

I missed the episode. I will try to find it. If you have a link I would appreciate it. Most important though, all cell phone use?

Accident reports cite causes and when a specific activity shows up again and again it should be tested with these protocols. I don't believe that in car conversations have shown any statistical impact on driving safety and in fact can improve safety because of the extra set of eyes. I know from personal experience that a passenger has helped me avoid a situation.

Could be but I'm not personally buying it. I'd happily accept the proof though.

Anecdotally it seems that every time I see someone doing something stupid while driving they are talking on a cell phone. True, sometimes they are doing something else silly. Cell phone use cited as contirbuting causes of accidents is showing up in accident reports. When tested using established driving safety protocols cells phones repeatedly show up as being problematic.

All cell phone usage? Forgive me if I have missed your point but I have agreed over and over as to the dangers of cell phone usage. It's agreed that cell phone usage is dangerous. It's also agreed that any activity other than driving while driving is dangerous.

 

[Tony]

You would have to do what the majority of parents of children without cell phones do; call the school office.

The majority have cell phones. And why should they call the school office when they have more direct means to reach their kid?

 

[jimlintott]

I missed the episode. I will try to find it. If you have a link I would appreciate it. Most important though, all cell phone use?

Could be but I'm not personally buying it. I'd happily accept the proof though.

All cell phone usage? Forgive me if I have missed your point but I have agreed over and over as to the dangers of cell phone usage. It's agreed that cell phone usage is dangerous. It's also agreed that any activity other than driving while driving is dangerous.

The problem I have with your position vs mine is that I believe mine is preventative. Ban all cell phone usage as we have banned all DUI. Your position seems to be to wait until there are body bags on the road.

I'm 46 years old and have 40 years of driving experience. I am probably a safer driver with a BAC of .06, drinking a coffee, eating a sandwich and talking on a hands free cell phone than many people are with all their focus and both hands on the wheel. The laws unfortunately have to be constructed around the lowest common denominator and we all have to live by that.

Go stand on an overpass over a busy freeway and as the cars whizz by try to tell which ones should be allowed to talk on the phone and which ones shouldn't. You can't do it. How can you draw the line anywhere but a total ban?

 

[jimlintott]

The majority have cell phones. And why should they call the school office when they more direct means to reach their kid?

Evidence? (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

It's disruptive in class and a serious emergency is likely better handled with the involvement of the office.

Would you rather have heartbreaking news delivered in the middle of english class or in the privacy of the principal's office? What's a real emergency? Death of a family member. Your dog was just run over. You'll have to cook dinner yourself tonight. If you could guarantee that a student's cell phone would only ring in case of emergency there wouldn't be a problem.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

But since there are cell phones. Why should parents be compelled to reach their kids via a school administrator when they could just call their kid?

Because, legally, the kid is under the guardianship of the school. The school needs to be aware of where the kid is at all times, especially if they have to leave school early. Also, who says it's just parents who have access to the kid's cell phone? Other students who are home sick, etc, could call.

I don't see how stealing someone's possessions is justifiable.

It's not stealing. It's confiscating. They get it back. And it's justifiable because it's against the school rules. They sign a handbook at the beginning of the year. It lists the rules. Their signature shows that they agree to abide by the rules. One of the disciplines for infracture of the rules is confiscation. If they read the contract, they know this.

Kind of like how the police can "steal" (confiscate) your crystal meth lab.

Why not just ask the person to leave class to take the call or ignore the call?

Leave class? Then they miss material. Ignore the call? Then it rings and rings. Anytime you distract the class, no matter how minor the distraction, it detracts from their learning.

30 kids in the class. That means at least 40 different parents who could call (many are divorced and remarried). Between after school sports pick up, bus delays, kids staying at other kids houses, etc, you could have 3-4 phones ringing per period.

Heck, I even keep my landline on "silent" mode during class. If there's a real emergency, someone will knock on the door. (It's never happened.)

 

[slingblade]

But since there are cell phones. Why should parents be compelled to reach their kids via a school administrator when they could just call their kid?

Explain how I'm supposed to know, in advance, that an emergency call will be coming from a parent, so I should allow the student to leave his/her cell phone on all day in order to take the call? Or how I'm supposed to accommodate 30 people with cell phones going off every few minutes during a 50-minute class? Or why I should tolerate more interruptions to learning? You do remember the kids are there to learn, right? You do remember my rant about having no time to teach, right?

I don't see how stealing someone's possessions is justifiable. Why not just ask the person to leave class to take the call or ignore the call?

Give me a break--you're exagerrating. It's not theft. How many thieves ask you for your belongings and then tell you that you can have it back when your parents come get it?

How is it theft when you are warned in advance that you will lose your property temporarily if you violate the rule regarding its use?

Is it theft if you park in front of a tow-away zone sign and the cops tow your car? Weren't you warned?

Ask them to leave class to take the call? Why on earth would I want to show a student that tending to his personal life during class time is more important than tending to his education during class time?

How do I teach a meaningful lesson when half the class is outside, yakking?

Tony, hon, are you a teacher? Do you have any experience of the classroom other than as a student? Because I am here to tell you, it is a lot different from the other side of that desk.

 

[Tony]

Because, legally, the kid is under the guardianship of the school. The school needs to be aware of where the kid is at all times, especially if they have to leave school early. Also, who says it's just parents who have access to the kid's cell phone? Other students who are home sick, etc, could call.

None of this is an argument against cell phones.

And it's justifiable because it's against the school rules.

That's circular reasoning

They sign a handbook at the beginning of the year.

The have no choice but to sign it.

If they read the contract, they know this.

Something signed under duress isn't a binding contract.

Kind of like how the police can "steal" (confiscate) your crystal meth lab.

Got it. Cell phones = crystal meth. You've descended into a new level of lunacy.

Leave class? Then they miss material.

So? It's their choice.

Ignore the call? Then it rings and rings.

You obviously have never used a cell phone. When you press "ignore", the phone goes to silent.

Anytime you distract the class, no matter how minor the distraction, it detracts from their learning.

They don't have that problem in college classes.

 

[Tony]

Explain how I'm supposed to know, in advance, that an emergency call will be coming from a parent, so I should allow the student to leave his/her cell phone on all day in order to take the call? Or how I'm supposed to accommodate 30 people with cell phones going off every few minutes during a 50-minute class? Or why I should tolerate more interruptions to learning? You do remember the kids are there to learn, right?

All of this can be remedied by having the kids put their phones on vibrate. And requesting that they only take the call if it is an emergeny and if they do take the call, to take it out of class.

You do remember my rant about having no time to teach, right?

No.

Give me a break--you're exagerrating. It's not theft. How many thieves ask you for your belongings and then tell you that you can have it back when your parents come get it?

How is it theft when you are warned in advance that you will lose your property temporarily if you violate the rule regarding its use?

Is it theft if you park in front of a tow-away zone sign and the cops tow your car? Weren't you warned?

Arrgghh

Foiled again!!

Ask them to leave class to take the call? Why on earth would I want to show a student that tending to his personal life during class time is more important than tending to his education during class time?

Because it's a choice he's made? Is giving a person a choice in something really that radical of an idea?

How do I teach a meaningful lesson when half the class is outside, yakking?

I doubt it's going to get to that point.

Tony, hon, are you a teacher? Do you have any experience of the classroom other than as a student?

No and no.

 

[egslim]

Nothing in your post suggested that the research was a representation of all humanity.

Not "all humanity", merely a general representation of cardrivers.

Would you care to explain the relevance of including a broader group (thus including non-cardrivers) in a study about the effects of cellphone use on drivingsafety?

All you've given so far is your personal, ego driven belief that a cellphone doesn't impede your ability to drive safely. Supported by the conviction that studies about effects on other people are invalid in your particular case.

 

[toddjh]

All of this can be remedied by having the kids put their phones on vibrate. And requesting that they only take the call if it is an emergeny and if they do take the call, to take it out of class.

"Having the kids" do something sounds a lot like herding cats. Why don't we just "have the kids" behave themselves at all times? Then we'd never have to worry about anything! Heck, if we just "have the kids" learn conscientiously on their own, we wouldn't even need schools at all!

Kids will misbehave. There's already a rule in a lot of schools that cell phones have to be off, but kids disregard it. Why do you think they'd take a rule about setting them on vibrate any more seriously? And a vibrating cell phone is a distraction to the student even if it's not a distraction to the rest of the class. Children are there to learn, not to play around with their electronic toys in class. If there's an emergency, the school office is there to take the call. There's absolutely no reason a kid needs to have an active cell phone in school.

Because it's a choice he's made? Is giving a person a choice in something really that radical of an idea?

They're children. Children are not mature enough to make their own choices. That's why they have legal guardians.

 

[Leif Roar]

The majority have cell phones. And why should they call the school office when they have more direct means to reach their kid?

Because we're talking about what to do when cell phones aren't allowed in the classroom, so that the parents don't have a more direct mean to reach them?

The point is that you don't need cell-phones to get hold of a pupil in case of an emergency, so the argument that "cell phones are necessary in case of emergencies" is inane. They're not necessary. Convenient, yes, but not necessary.