Yes, there are few, if any circumstances where a student having a cell phone during the school day would make a difference. Students did call 911 in Uvalde, but the police had already been inside the building for about half an hour before the first call by a student. Having a phone is more likely to be helpful when students are traveling on their own before or after school.
On the topic of students needing to be contacted by parents in an emergency during school: the times in my career in a school office when there was an actual emergency in a student’s family during school, it was always better for the family to call the school office, where a responsible adult (me!) could help formulate a plan and pre-arrange how the student could be told. The children whose father died in a car accident at 2 pm did not get that message by text in class; because their aunt called the school office, we were able to call them into a private space with a counselor before the aunt came to tell them in person. A child doesn’t need to be on the front line of an emergency.
Excellent point. I hadn’t thought of that kind of emergency.
I have been an emergency physician for about two decades. Resuscitations are not always pretty things to watch, and there remains a great deal of controversy among my colleagues on whether family members should be permitted to witness resuscitations as they occur. This sometimes has considerable legal, medical, social and psychological ramifications even when the friend(s) or family member(s) stay calm, do not ask too many questions and do not attempt to interfere, or get violent, or use video, or require assistance themselves at a time when this itself can be problematic (all of which are fairly rare, somewhat unpredictable, and all of which I have seen many times).
These things are situation dependent. I lean towards allowing friends and family in early, but only in appropriate circumstances and in limited numbers. Involving families in a wide spectrum of emergencies, though obviously important to families and with some benefits supported by research on this topic, just is not always that helpful a thing even respecting the highest ethical standards and the absolute right to supply the most complete information available, and the highest level of concern and compassion for their well-being.
I believe everything you’ve said, but… er… how does it relate to the immediate discussion about phones in schools? Sorry, I can sometimes be dense and fail to see the obvious.
It is an area where research has been done on the effects of involving families of all types in a wide variety of severe emergencies. It is, as you say, tangential to the discussion (which I started), so I will not be stating it further. I am prepared to believe teachers on the scene of whatever can often do a better job when not related to specific individual concerns, in which case they can contact the parent.
I didn’t mean to sound reproachful, nor that your comment was necessarily tangential – just that I didn’t see the connection. I often don’t understand stuff that’s going on around me. Ask anyone who knows me. I miss stuff. Seriously.
I didn’t see how the potential traumatic effect of watching a loved one get CPR exactly fit into the discussion about a kid using their phone to call out of school (or a parent to call in) if there’s an emergency.
I wouldn’t expect a parent to call (or God forbid) text their kid at school to say, “Dad has just dropped dead of a heart attack.” Most parents would call the school and say, “I need to come and pick up Johnny. There’s been a terrible accident at home,” or something like that, knowing that a teacher or school secretary needs to be the intermediary.
So please do explain if you’re so inclined.
Because this is being used as the justification for requiring phones at all times and every place.
I am Canadian. You will forgive Canada for having certain stereotypes about the United States, no doubt many of which are inaccurate.
One of these stereotypes involves the frequency of events like school shootings. No doubt these are much rarer than the impression one might glean from the media. Yet people tend to overestimate small risks. No doubt some American parents have worried about this issue on occasion. It must be included in the discussion of emergencies despite its infrequency and the fact most incidents are far more mundane. Naturally, my comparison is not meant to apply to all of these.
You are correct that my experiences only weakly correlate with the issue. Yet that is not reason to dismiss them. In the posts directly before mine, a serious event you did not consider had occurred. It was argued that involving experienced people was better. Why?
Because information revealed in a private setting can be done in a sensitive way and ensure the proper accurate information is both given and, very importantly, understood. Since it allows an opportunity to ask questions and research shows it leads to both a better understanding of events but also better adaption and functioning after they occur, and the people involved feel much better about things later if questions they have are addressed in the moment. Technology is rarely the ideal way to accomplish this - some things still require a personal touch. In addition, experienced people can better anticipate future needs and access the local services that can provide these. Next steps. Psychological support. Legal advice. Social and community groups. Incorporating religious and social values, and taking these into account. Do these apply to every emergency? Of course not.
No doubt most emergencies are more mundane. But, forgive me, I would guess parents often worry about unlikely and serious ones as well. You hadn’t thought of this type of emergency. But emergencies by definition encompass an enormous variety of situations, and happen infrequently. It would be unfair to reduce the enormous experience hospitals and their staff have to mere CPR, because ultimately they are involved in almost every type of emergency, and are even often involved in planning responses. ERs know how to, and often have, address trauma, floods, blackouts, contagion, every variety of accident and disorder, sequelae of warfare, chemical and industrial injury, nuclear injury, manifestation of electric misadventure and so much more.
It is not my wish to go further afield from this thread. No doubt much of the above seems tangential to you. But, in my naïve opinion, some of the same principles apply. The specifics will differ. But handling emergencies is often best done by involving experienced people. Respecting privacy. Being sensitive and compassionate. Giving space to ask questions and time to process difficulties. Anticipating future needs and involving supports and services that can help access and provide them.
In my day, no one had a smartphone. Teachers were capable of dealing with things as needed when needed. They still are. If phones disrupt education, this does not seem to me reason enough for allowing all uses of them at all times. My knowledge of actual use is scant and I will defer to those more affected by the problem and personally involved. But it is hard for me, on a personal level, to accept phones must be accessible at all times in case of any hypothetical incident. I know nothing about teaching in today’s environment. But I know a lot about the research of dealing with emergencies, and its practical application. I think it has some degree of relevance. I might be wrong. Perhaps principles differ too much. My opinion is that they might not, in more serious things and that some of the research applies. And that teachers can deal with most of it and ask for help when they cannot.
-
Thanks for connecting the dots.
-
In spite of my effort to be circumspect, I seem to have inadvertently insulted you. Very sorry.
-
There were no smart phones in school in my day either – through graduate school. I didn’t get my first smart phone until I was 50.
I’m not insulted, and forgive me if you think I was or if I mistakenly gave that impression.
As a very easy going dude, who nonetheless takes emergencies seriously due to professional reasons, sometimes discussing heavy things might lead to melodramatic phrasing. Apologies if this is so.
No prob. I’m an easygoing dudette, though not Canadian.
Went to 8-9-10th grades close to Canada in Niagara Falls, NY, where there were nuns instead of smart phones.
You could get internet on a nun?
In the mid 00s, when I lived in my old town, at least one school did indeed ban phones, and if a child had one in the classroom, it was confiscated and a parent had to sign out for them to get it back. This was before you could get full Wifi and Internet access on them.
They did make exceptions for things like a student who had a parent on an organ transplant list, but there were also strict rules about when and how they could use it.
When you had Sisters of Mercy, you didn’t need internet.
I’m sure the sister system had low baud but transformative transmission, maybe redemptive reception.
Good one!
Since you’re all mentioning nuns, while I’m not Catholic, more than once I’ve seen teenagers texting each other during the sermon. The first time I saw that, I thought, “How rude!” and then remembered that we used the bulletin for that purpose when I was that age.
The magazine has printed a number of responses to their original article.
The timing makes me wonder if it’s a pandemic shutdown effect?