Technology

42989 readers

39 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

gyrfalcon@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

coldredlight@beehaw.org

SemioticStandard@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@kbin.social

remington@beehaw.org

‘Close to zero impact’: US study casts doubt on effect of phone ban in schools (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 weeks ago by Powderhorn@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Strict bans on mobile phones in schools have “close to zero” impact on student learning and show no evidence of improvements in attendance or online bullying, a study has found.

Researchers at US universities including Stanford and Duke looked at nearly 1,800 US schools where students’ phones were kept in locked pouches and found little or no differences in outcomes compared with similar schools without strict bans.

The report concluded that among schools instituting a ban: “For academic achievement, average effects on test scores are consistently close to zero.”

The results will come as a disappointment to teaching unions and campaigners in England who backed the government’s recent move to restrict the use of mobile phones in schools. A ban is likely to come into force next year.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net 52 points 2 weeks ago (22 children)

Keep in mind the paper is a white paper (not peer reviewed) and it is sponsored by the Bezos Family Foundation and Walton Family. Personally taking it with a grain of salt and waiting for some experts to weigh in who are not economists (like most of the authors are) since I don’t feel like combing through this 100 page document.

[–] spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org 28 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (6 children)

it gets even stupider than that:

We acknowledge funding from Arnold Ventures

an American company that is the philanthropic vehicle of billionaires John D. Arnold and Laura Arnold

who is this John Arnold guy anyway...let's see...and....oh

since February 2024, is a member of the board of directors of Meta.

oh, and fun fact, it's not even a real fucking charity:

The Laura and John Arnold Foundation was initially created as a philanthropic organization, but was restructured as a limited liability company and renamed Arnold Ventures in January 2019. The organization's LLC structure is intended to allow it to operate with more flexibility.

so he's on the board of directors for Meta, which among other things owns Instagram...and he has a side business that pretends to be a charity even though it's not, and it funds publication of a "study" saying no, teenagers having cell phones 24/7 is totally fine actually.

the tobacco industry used to pay people to wear white lab coats and say cigarettes didn't cause cancer. it's tempting to think of ourselves as more savvy than they were, and look back in hindsight and say "how could people have fallen for such obvious bullshit?"

well...

[–] Crotaro@beehaw.org 10 points 2 weeks ago

Wow that casts a healthy dose of doubt on the entire study. Thank you for pointing it all out so thoroughly!

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (20 replies)