Its simple. If they see a phone AT ALL, not necessarily in use, that student is breaking the rules and they can immediately render it useless with the pouch. Before the phone would be waved off as "putting it on silent" or "putting it away" etc when they were secretly using it, and pull it out again later or at next class. |
I echo this but for different reasons. The school created this problem make them deal with it not you |
My kid had NO PHONE and they are still making her take a pouch. The bounds of stupidity here are limitless. Who is responsible for this insanity??? |
The open schools now APE crowd are the ones lobbying for Away for the Day. You can thank them for these idiotic pouches. These people are still so triggered by virtual learning that they want to put other kids phones in phone jail. |
MS is different than HS |
So many parents like this on the APS forum need to send their kids to private school. This much anxiety about something as simple as a phone pouch and looking for ways to break it open is setting a terrible example for their kids. Wait until you are dealing with high schoolers who have learned your ways of getting around the rules. But I have noticed that parents like these at the high school level just bury their heads in the sand and let their kids downward spiral. |
If the justification for the pouches is that kids aren't paying attention in class, why are we trying to regulate phone use at lunch? Shoe holders are $20/teacher and Yondr is at least $18/kid (they go for more like $200 online so who knows what APS actually paid). The Yondr pouch can be gamed with a decoy phone to exactly the same extent as the shoe holder so it is confusing to me why we are engaging in expensive overkill. If parents want their kids to not have a phone during non-instructional time, deal with that as a parent. The school's jurisdiction is instructional time and that is easily addressed with the shoe holder. |
My kids are also at a Fairfax pilot MS. There is zero difference from last year other than the school system having spent some stupid money to create a nuisance. The school already had an away for the day policy. My one kid doesn't have a phone at all but was given a pouch. He leaves it at home because his first class teacher (the enforcers) told them on day one that he wasn't going to check. My other kid keeps an old phone in his pouch because he wants just-in-case access to his phone. He doesn't actually use his phone during the day. I'm fine with that and to the folks who will say I should not be teaching my kid to work around the rules, I disagree. Questioning rules and authority is a much more important life skill than obedience. I'm fine with him recognizing a ridiculous policy for what it is finding a workaround. |
It’s not just about class it’s about the impact social media and bullying on line has on their mental health and it’s about them staring at their phones instead of interacting with their peers. The phones are obviously also cameras which causes many issues which if you don’t know about that don’t know what to say. Use your imagination. |
Sorry no. The school’s jurisdiction is the time they are in the school. What goes on in the hall and the bathrooms and the lunch room is their responsibility and their issue to deal with. I’m sure they’d rather it wasn’t! |
It’s not against the rules to be able to open it *at home*. |
That is such a weird sincere question. What was the poor behavior that needed a consequence? Locking the phone or choosing not to miss the bus so that her parent needed to leave work to pick her up? Neither is a choice that requires a consequence. I would recheck your idea of “natural consequences”. Natural consequences in our house - not doing homework and failing a test. Not wearing pants and being cold. Not bringing a snack and being hungry (on a short term). But following the rules and being too overladen with sports equipment to manage getting out the pouch and not missing the bus? Not something that requires a consequence. |
Also, I’m replying to myself but - maybe you don’t understand the pouch? It’s that every kid locks up the phone, not just those who are pulling it out and get caught. So if the latter, the pouch is a consequence and not being able to unlock it is a natural consequence of the poor choice to pull it out in class. But if the kid never made that poor choice - the not unlocking it is not a consequence for anything. It’s just stupid. |
Natural consequences is not just for poor behavior. If you forget your shoes for practice you won’t have them. If you leave your water bottle somewhere carelessly you need to buy a new one. If mom always makes sure to fix everything for you, you’ll never figure it out. The too overladen with sports equipment to get out the pouch is also quite the sob story though. |
Seriously. Since when are consequences only for poor behavior? |