this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
179 points (98.4% liked)

World News

49462 readers
1458 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RedditIsALostCause@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (19 children)

Good, I’d probably have done way better in high school if my phone hadn’t been there (and if I’d gotten my ADHD dX and Adderall rX back then). No reason to have them on you if you’re a student. Parents and family can call the school if there’s an emergency.

[–] dukemirage@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (12 children)

Educational experts, at least here in Germany, advise against a ban. A phone enables participation for a child among children who‘ll just work around the ban. The net effect will be negative.

[–] RedditIsALostCause@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Ah yes, if [unnamed vague concept] of German “educational” “experts” say so then it MUST both be an 1) honest report of findings, and 2) objectively correct facts. Opinion changed. Boom done.

Just kidding.

Thats stupid, and even if they are real and think so, I think they are stupid then lol.

Banning phones means banning phones. It’s hard for kids to sneak a brick of bright light when they’re in a classroom of their peers facing the teacher, so noone will be missing out on anything so long as the teachers properly enforce the new rule.

I think it likely that there will be more positive outcomes by forcing children to socialize face-to-face which is natural and especially important at that age.

Your comment essentially boils down to: Some people think we should just let kids do whatever they want and don’t worry about discipline, rules, or things needing a “right place and the right time.” You reek of “millennial/ipad-kid parent” lol.

[–] dukemirage@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Of course the mentioned experts (Deutsches Kinderhilfswerk, Zentrum für Digitalen Fortschritt, Gesellschaft für Medienpädagogik, Bundeselternrat in an open letter to the government) based that on studies. Here is one of the meta studies: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/20556365241270394

The answer simply is not as simple as you may think. The judgmental nonsense in the last paragraph doesn’t change that of course.

[–] RedditIsALostCause@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago

Reconciliation of results was challenging, and findings should be treated with caution given differences in methods and measures, and discrepancies in operational definitions of the bans themselves. For example, the results of two studies supporting bans for improved academic outcomes were restricted to low-achieving students from low socioeconomic (SES) backgrounds… That is, they found that high-achieving and economically advantaged students were less likely to benefit academically from mobile phones use in class, as compared to their disadvantaged peers

Beland and Murphy (2016) examined exam scores in secondary school students and found that in schools which imposed a mobile phone ban, exam scores improved by an average 0.07 standard deviation, pre- to post-ban. Importantly, this effect was driven by the finding that students in the lowest quintile of prior academic achievement made a gain of approximately 14.23% of a standard deviation in test scores, while for students in the top quintile, test scores were unrelated to the ban.

Despite the variability of findings, it seems that in some circumstances there are some negative, although small, impacts of mobile phone use on academic outcomes. This suggests that restrictions on mobile phones in schools might be beneficial for some students’ academic achievement but make no difference to others.

Considering the ban largely concerns itself with CLASSROOMS in South Korea — a place where students are SUPPOSED TO LEARN, y’know, where the principle concern is academics — I’d say that their findings support the ban more than anything else.

Furthermore, TWO studies showed increases in bullying/cyberbullying while the MAJORITY showed decreases in such harassment — but the study still postures itself in a way that hypothesizes why it increases and further hypothesizes that phones shouldn’t be banned to prevent that POSSIBILITY.

The answer is simple if you read your own linked study and actually use your brain while doing so. It’s clear the authors entered into this metastudy with preconceived biases from their “narrative” and highly suggestive “findings” which you cherry-picked your own conclusions from to support your odd, logically questionable comment. And again, you don’t need a study by some rando people to conclude that phones are just not needed and possibly harmful at school for children.

Again, put your iPad down dude, you probably got a kid to go parent. Otherwise, go touch grass :)

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)