Finland Bans Smartphones in Schools

There are many rights that can be taken away, freedom of movement for example in the case of prisoners, but you need laws in order to not make that taking away a crime itself. You can't just apprehend and throw someone in your basement because they stole something from you.

Same thing with children's phones, a teacher can't just take away the phone because they didn't have the authority before.

Different countries fall in different places on the scale between "a child is strictly a property of the parent, with which the parent may do as they wish", and "a child is a human being which the parent has been given an obligation to protect from harm, but not to control." The US is a lot closer to the former, most European countries, and especially the nordics, are much closer to the latter.

The former enables parents to send their kids to a private school with a decent curriculum if the state school forces propaganda on them, but it also enables parents to send their kids to a school where they teach creationism or prohibit being gay. The latter prohibits teachers from taking away children's rights to get a tattoo or use nail polish, but it also doesn't give schools the right to punish children for infractions or take away phones.

Those are extremes of course, and most countries fall somewhere in the middle, but that point is different in different countries.

They cannot simply order children to comply, there has to be same legal basis like there has to be for ordering an adult to comply.

The difference here is that in the US, children don't by default inherit the same legal rights as adults and instead have a different set of rights which often means they never had a legal right to, for example, privacy or ownership, in the first place.

You have free speech... then comes the list of exceptions, incitement of violence, defamation (libel and slander), Child pornography, perjury, speech integral to criminal conduct, copyright infringement, state secrets,

It's worth noting, according to the article, the law gives school officials leeway to allow kids to use their phones in some circumstances. So, the law doesn't stop any of the use cases you've listed.

They are not good reasons to have a phone at school.

In terms of QOL: there is a meaningful body of research about the impact of giving a teenage girl access to a phone on their quality of life.

https://adc.bmj.com/content/109/7/576 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S245195882...

But I'm open to compromise: let's give children bring dumb phones that can only call and text.

so, the finnish don't prohibit that at all.

Per the article this is a ban on using smartphones during class time, not a ban on bringing them to school at all.

That seems pretty reasonable to me. When I was in school if a teacher saw you using phone during class you might get one warning and then it was being confiscated.

even all the above reasons are not actual reasons. None of these are a problem. you job is NOT to bring something to school because she forgot it nor to drive her to school if the bus doesnt show up.

2) The entire list can be equally well solved by dumbphones without TikTok and Snapchat. Which is what such bans as this is about.

3) It is always about pros/cons. In Scandinavia phones have (in my view as a parent and married to a teacher) essentially destroyed education wherever they are allowed in the pocket/backpack of the student during class.

Not to speak about downsides to social life. E.g., people not attempting dancing in high school proms because there are videos taken everywhere. People not showering in gyms due to phones. Just two examples. SO MANY things are killed by the phones.

The benefits have to be weighed against the quite massive downsides.

--

They banned phones on the high school where my wife teaches last year and she is basically a changed person. Instead of spending 50% of class time policing phone use, she can, you know, actually teach.

(She still has to deal with a generation addicted to dopamine, but a habit of phone confiscation during class is at least a massive improvement.)

The thing is: these benefits manifest at different time-scales.

I see no problem here.

When I went to school the bus turned up every single day without fail. We've learnt to accept less because you can just call a taxi.

> - If she wants to go somewhere after school, she can call us and let us know she won't be home at her normal time

We had public payphones that we could use. We've learnt to accept less because everyone has a mobile phone.

> - If she forgot something at home, she can call and ask us to bring it

I remembered to bring what I needed every day or I suffered the consequences. I soon learnt. We've become complacent because you can just get it delivered using your phone.

All in all I don't really see how it's a positive, but it certainly seems to have considerable negatives.

She can call from where she goes after school, no? Or she can go home first, or make plans a day ahead.

She can learn the consequences of not packing her school bags properly and keep a checklist to review each morning. The only time I recall in 12 years of primary schooling, where I had to get something from home after forgetting, was a prop for a demonstration in front of the class. I remember because it was the only time it mattered.

I am not familiar with your specifics, I don't mean to be personal. And I don't have kids. But I am young enough to remember being one - I am also addicted to my phone, and I know how convenient it is to not plan anything and to instantly communicate with everyone. But I am unconvinced that children in a controlled, supervised environment need a phone.

...finally, if I did agree and say "yeah they should at least be allowed to have a phone on their way", it should absolutely be banned in the classroom. But what to do when the children inevitably break that rule? It doesn't sound like you would support them confiscating it, and it's a logistical quagmire to do so anyway.

Curious what this will lead to.

When she'll get a job, if she'll forget her laptop at home, will she call you and ask you to bring it to the workplace?

Well, of course it is. Organized society largely rests upon this principle. In the oppressive ones coercion is exercised arbitrarily or by a select few, and in societies based on rule of law it is exercised, well, using law.

>The ultimate problem with education (at least in the US, can't speak for other countries) is that students are given very little motivation to participate in the educational process. Their participation is demanded and their disengagement is punished. There's little about the system that actually motivates and rewards their participation. If we really want students to spend less time on smartphones at schools, we should be looking at how we can restructure our approach to education so that students would actually feel encouraged to participate and ignore their smartphones.

Maybe. Or maybe the pesky slot machines and gossip aggregators are impossible to compete with, if you leave the adolescent attention economy in the hands of the almighty free market. Either way, banning cell phones certainly won't hurt efforts to engage students, if any.

Also, with regards to the motivational aspect, I would not expect a toddler to be able to make the appropriate choice between a healty meal and candy. I do not expect a teen to be able to restrain themselves from the pubescent games of social media prancing and paying attention to the class teaching.

It is acceptable for public schools, whose mandate is education of the youth, to enaxt restrictions on behavior to that end.

And smartphones are an addictive item. I want school to be fun and engaging. That doesn't mean every kid who's been raised on an iPad since age 0.5 will put down their phones if the teacher has rizz.

The middle and high schools here ban phone use during class, and the high school confiscates phones (and grants detentions) for students who flaunt the ban. In practice, it usually works with teachers using those door mounted phone holders as a way to take attendance. Put your phone in the pouch when you get to class, and grab it when you leave. Occasionally, a teacher will also ban smartwatches if they become too distracting, but this is not common.

That said, many teachers take advantage of their students having phones to augment their methods & curriculum, and afaik this is the teachers' prerogative.

Frankly, smartphones should be discussed in health class, much like drugs and alcohol, and in a similar tone.

I am confused by people who use this as a derogative.

I learned drafting, how to type, welding, library science, color theory, woodworking, BASIC programming, the internal anatomy of a piglet, resume writing, how to play the cello, calculus, and how to sing the names of all 50 US states in alphabetical order in middle school and high school.

That is not childcare.

edit: forgot darkroom photography, yearbook editing, extemporaneous speaking, and Robert's Rules of Order.

So some self proclaimed smart person “learned nothing”, and therefore school is a waste of time. At the same time, ignoring that maybe a school or system is indeed not prepared to handle some individuals (which is not good), or that maybe some teachers are bad, or maybe the system does not support their staff enough. But that can’t be the case because they learned nothing. Whole school system must be a scam.

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 difference.

Really doesn’t help you make a point.

Not necessarily causative, but we'd want to be very sure the educational fence isn't contributory before we tear it down.

Do you think that was because their methods were bad, you didn't bother and they couldn't force you, or that their methods were not adapted to the way you learn?

Also, I'd find it surprising if you really learned nothing. From what I know of German schooling from people who went through it, you certainly learned at least a bit about the depths to which humans can go to and how to prevent them (Holocaust and wider Nazi atrocities). Also, you probably learned social skills, basic project management and collaboration, and some knowledge which is probably useless other than maybe as a basis of understanding the world and various things you might encounter. I don't recall much from my biology or chemistry classes, but I recall vague outlines, which is enough.

I don't remember anyone "misusing" their smartphones when I was in highschool because the fear of getting it taken away was massive.

Americans sure, but not all other countries e.g. in Singapore, many schools make the students put their smartphones in lockers and don't allow access at all during school hours. In case of emergency, they can call from the Main/General office.

If Finnish children have the same rights as adults, does that mean the children are also subject to the same legal punishment as adults? Can a Finnish child be jailed or fined for the likes of theft, assault, or battery?

Why would you be expecting better results for this ?

They are failing spectacularly on that front anyways. You don't learn useful skills by being handed a remotely administered tablet or Chromebook, which is what schools provide.

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.

My classmate brought a super-sized calculator to class for tests, as he had a medical condition which allowed him to bring "a calculator". The buttons made a lot of noise but, again, it was not confiscated.