New cell phone policy for 2026-2027

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a state law so that has to be the FCPS rule. It's probably good for teens to be on their phones less in general. But you can't make it the school's job or high priority if the parents are giving kids phones and not teaching them appropriate usage or setting boundaries and limits.
People here like to say teachers aren't babysitting. What on earth is roaming the cafeteria looking for someone texting their friends to scold them if not babysitting?
They will have the rule and write up kids with really obvious and consistent violations. Otherwise not much will change.

I think teachers will be forced to write up students because if you don't and it gets out that students were seen using the phone during a class, it will for sure get back to the teacher and most school administrations will have no choice but to crack down. A few letters from parents to the state legislators who crafted SB108 is all it will take and FCPS was already on the known-violators list for not having implemented the Executive Order strictly enough.

I thought the whole discussion here was about lunch and in passing times?

Also, I would be shocked if Richmond could make FCPS do anything. Did anything happen because they were on a list for not implementing the EO? I'm pretty sure most of Fairfax was thrilled because it was originally a Younkin order.

Yeah, the unions would never let schools crack down on a teacher who missed a student on their phone at lunch. They probably are covering hundreds of students and it's already work out of scope of their contract. It would actually be entertaining to see the schools try.

Better to try than not try, and keep working around the edges to iron out the kinks.
It does raise the question though since FCPS seems pretty inconsistent about rule enforcement in general. That is a much larger problem, but one that MUST be addressed.

It's very doable - it just requires redoing the collective bargaining contract and adding a lot more money FCPS doesn't have. I'd rather fund education than technology monitors.

The whole point of this is that phones and technology have been massively destructive to education, and if additional funds are needed to monitor and enforce, then that is the price that must be paid.
But I have faith that reasonable solutions will be found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a state law so that has to be the FCPS rule. It's probably good for teens to be on their phones less in general. But you can't make it the school's job or high priority if the parents are giving kids phones and not teaching them appropriate usage or setting boundaries and limits.
People here like to say teachers aren't babysitting. What on earth is roaming the cafeteria looking for someone texting their friends to scold them if not babysitting?
They will have the rule and write up kids with really obvious and consistent violations. Otherwise not much will change.

I think teachers will be forced to write up students because if you don't and it gets out that students were seen using the phone during a class, it will for sure get back to the teacher and most school administrations will have no choice but to crack down. A few letters from parents to the state legislators who crafted SB108 is all it will take and FCPS was already on the known-violators list for not having implemented the Executive Order strictly enough.

I thought the whole discussion here was about lunch and in passing times?

Also, I would be shocked if Richmond could make FCPS do anything. Did anything happen because they were on a list for not implementing the EO? I'm pretty sure most of Fairfax was thrilled because it was originally a Younkin order.

If parents have a problem with kids using phones during lunch…that is simply psychotic.

And if they do you have to wonder why they got them a phone. We are thinking 11th grade as the year where they will get phones (instead of a watch). I don't want them on a phone so I didn't give them one. It's so easy!

DP. Easy?
I’m excited about the school phone ban. But not giving your kid a phone sounds simple, but not easy. Not when all their friends have phones and they miss out on all the chats and FaceTimes.

So you want the schools to own and enforce your parenting decisions?

That’s an odd take.
If I buy my kid a tube top, and she wears it to school without my knowledge, where it is not allowed, then if she gets sent home it is not the school “owning and enforcing parenting decisions to buy banned clothing.” That is the school enforcing their rules.

Right, the debate here is over what the rule should be. You want it to be the rule that makes you feel better about not making the hard call to not get your kid a phone because you don't want them using it but think it's hard to set unpopular rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a state law so that has to be the FCPS rule. It's probably good for teens to be on their phones less in general. But you can't make it the school's job or high priority if the parents are giving kids phones and not teaching them appropriate usage or setting boundaries and limits.
People here like to say teachers aren't babysitting. What on earth is roaming the cafeteria looking for someone texting their friends to scold them if not babysitting?
They will have the rule and write up kids with really obvious and consistent violations. Otherwise not much will change.

I think teachers will be forced to write up students because if you don't and it gets out that students were seen using the phone during a class, it will for sure get back to the teacher and most school administrations will have no choice but to crack down. A few letters from parents to the state legislators who crafted SB108 is all it will take and FCPS was already on the known-violators list for not having implemented the Executive Order strictly enough.

I thought the whole discussion here was about lunch and in passing times?

Also, I would be shocked if Richmond could make FCPS do anything. Did anything happen because they were on a list for not implementing the EO? I'm pretty sure most of Fairfax was thrilled because it was originally a Younkin order.

Yeah, the unions would never let schools crack down on a teacher who missed a student on their phone at lunch. They probably are covering hundreds of students and it's already work out of scope of their contract. It would actually be entertaining to see the schools try.

Better to try than not try, and keep working around the edges to iron out the kinks.
It does raise the question though since FCPS seems pretty inconsistent about rule enforcement in general. That is a much larger problem, but one that MUST be addressed.

It's very doable - it just requires redoing the collective bargaining contract and adding a lot more money FCPS doesn't have. I'd rather fund education than technology monitors.

They can pay for it with all of the money they will save by eliminating 1:1 laptops and these ridiculous tech and consulting contracts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a state law so that has to be the FCPS rule. It's probably good for teens to be on their phones less in general. But you can't make it the school's job or high priority if the parents are giving kids phones and not teaching them appropriate usage or setting boundaries and limits.
People here like to say teachers aren't babysitting. What on earth is roaming the cafeteria looking for someone texting their friends to scold them if not babysitting?
They will have the rule and write up kids with really obvious and consistent violations. Otherwise not much will change.

I think teachers will be forced to write up students because if you don't and it gets out that students were seen using the phone during a class, it will for sure get back to the teacher and most school administrations will have no choice but to crack down. A few letters from parents to the state legislators who crafted SB108 is all it will take and FCPS was already on the known-violators list for not having implemented the Executive Order strictly enough.

I thought the whole discussion here was about lunch and in passing times?

Also, I would be shocked if Richmond could make FCPS do anything. Did anything happen because they were on a list for not implementing the EO? I'm pretty sure most of Fairfax was thrilled because it was originally a Younkin order.

If parents have a problem with kids using phones during lunch…that is simply psychotic.

And if they do you have to wonder why they got them a phone. We are thinking 11th grade as the year where they will get phones (instead of a watch). I don't want them on a phone so I didn't give them one. It's so easy!

DP. Easy?
I’m excited about the school phone ban. But not giving your kid a phone sounds simple, but not easy. Not when all their friends have phones and they miss out on all the chats and FaceTimes.

So you want the schools to own and enforce your parenting decisions?

That’s an odd take.
If I buy my kid a tube top, and she wears it to school without my knowledge, where it is not allowed, then if she gets sent home it is not the school “owning and enforcing parenting decisions to buy banned clothing.” That is the school enforcing their rules.

Right, the debate here is over what the rule should be. You want it to be the rule that makes you feel better about not making the hard call to not get your kid a phone because you don't want them using it but think it's hard to set unpopular rules.

That’s a different poster. My kids have phones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a state law so that has to be the FCPS rule. It's probably good for teens to be on their phones less in general. But you can't make it the school's job or high priority if the parents are giving kids phones and not teaching them appropriate usage or setting boundaries and limits.
People here like to say teachers aren't babysitting. What on earth is roaming the cafeteria looking for someone texting their friends to scold them if not babysitting?
They will have the rule and write up kids with really obvious and consistent violations. Otherwise not much will change.

I think teachers will be forced to write up students because if you don't and it gets out that students were seen using the phone during a class, it will for sure get back to the teacher and most school administrations will have no choice but to crack down. A few letters from parents to the state legislators who crafted SB108 is all it will take and FCPS was already on the known-violators list for not having implemented the Executive Order strictly enough.

I thought the whole discussion here was about lunch and in passing times?

Also, I would be shocked if Richmond could make FCPS do anything. Did anything happen because they were on a list for not implementing the EO? I'm pretty sure most of Fairfax was thrilled because it was originally a Younkin order.

If parents have a problem with kids using phones during lunch…that is simply psychotic.

And if they do you have to wonder why they got them a phone. We are thinking 11th grade as the year where they will get phones (instead of a watch). I don't want them on a phone so I didn't give them one. It's so easy!

DP. Easy?
I’m excited about the school phone ban. But not giving your kid a phone sounds simple, but not easy. Not when all their friends have phones and they miss out on all the chats and FaceTimes.

So you want the schools to own and enforce your parenting decisions?

That’s an odd take.
If I buy my kid a tube top, and she wears it to school without my knowledge, where it is not allowed, then if she gets sent home it is not the school “owning and enforcing parenting decisions to buy banned clothing.” That is the school enforcing their rules.

Right, the debate here is over what the rule should be. You want it to be the rule that makes you feel better about not making the hard call to not get your kid a phone because you don't want them using it but think it's hard to set unpopular rules.

That’s a different poster. My kids have phones.

Never mind, I misread.
I don’t need a rule to make me feel better about giving my kids phones.
I want rules for the greater good because I have seen the amount of destruction and distraction caused by kids having phones at school. Schools don’t have control over what kids do outside of school but while they are at school, no phones is best for the greater good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a state law so that has to be the FCPS rule. It's probably good for teens to be on their phones less in general. But you can't make it the school's job or high priority if the parents are giving kids phones and not teaching them appropriate usage or setting boundaries and limits.
People here like to say teachers aren't babysitting. What on earth is roaming the cafeteria looking for someone texting their friends to scold them if not babysitting?
They will have the rule and write up kids with really obvious and consistent violations. Otherwise not much will change.

I think teachers will be forced to write up students because if you don't and it gets out that students were seen using the phone during a class, it will for sure get back to the teacher and most school administrations will have no choice but to crack down. A few letters from parents to the state legislators who crafted SB108 is all it will take and FCPS was already on the known-violators list for not having implemented the Executive Order strictly enough.

I thought the whole discussion here was about lunch and in passing times?

Also, I would be shocked if Richmond could make FCPS do anything. Did anything happen because they were on a list for not implementing the EO? I'm pretty sure most of Fairfax was thrilled because it was originally a Younkin order.

If parents have a problem with kids using phones during lunch…that is simply psychotic.

And if they do you have to wonder why they got them a phone. We are thinking 11th grade as the year where they will get phones (instead of a watch). I don't want them on a phone so I didn't give them one. It's so easy!

DP. Easy?
I’m excited about the school phone ban. But not giving your kid a phone sounds simple, but not easy. Not when all their friends have phones and they miss out on all the chats and FaceTimes.

So you want the schools to own and enforce your parenting decisions?

That’s an odd take.
If I buy my kid a tube top, and she wears it to school without my knowledge, where it is not allowed, then if she gets sent home it is not the school “owning and enforcing parenting decisions to buy banned clothing.” That is the school enforcing their rules.

Right, the debate here is over what the rule should be. You want it to be the rule that makes you feel better about not making the hard call to not get your kid a phone because you don't want them using it but think it's hard to set unpopular rules.

I don’t even know what point is you are trying to make. You talk about the school having to “own and enforce” parenting decisions. So you believe all of this should fall on the parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a state law so that has to be the FCPS rule. It's probably good for teens to be on their phones less in general. But you can't make it the school's job or high priority if the parents are giving kids phones and not teaching them appropriate usage or setting boundaries and limits.
People here like to say teachers aren't babysitting. What on earth is roaming the cafeteria looking for someone texting their friends to scold them if not babysitting?
They will have the rule and write up kids with really obvious and consistent violations. Otherwise not much will change.

I think teachers will be forced to write up students because if you don't and it gets out that students were seen using the phone during a class, it will for sure get back to the teacher and most school administrations will have no choice but to crack down. A few letters from parents to the state legislators who crafted SB108 is all it will take and FCPS was already on the known-violators list for not having implemented the Executive Order strictly enough.

I thought the whole discussion here was about lunch and in passing times?

Also, I would be shocked if Richmond could make FCPS do anything. Did anything happen because they were on a list for not implementing the EO? I'm pretty sure most of Fairfax was thrilled because it was originally a Younkin order.

If parents have a problem with kids using phones during lunch…that is simply psychotic.

And if they do you have to wonder why they got them a phone. We are thinking 11th grade as the year where they will get phones (instead of a watch). I don't want them on a phone so I didn't give them one. It's so easy!

DP. Easy?
I’m excited about the school phone ban. But not giving your kid a phone sounds simple, but not easy. Not when all their friends have phones and they miss out on all the chats and FaceTimes.

So you want the schools to own and enforce your parenting decisions?

That’s an odd take.
If I buy my kid a tube top, and she wears it to school without my knowledge, where it is not allowed, then if she gets sent home it is not the school “owning and enforcing parenting decisions to buy banned clothing.” That is the school enforcing their rules.

Right, the debate here is over what the rule should be. You want it to be the rule that makes you feel better about not making the hard call to not get your kid a phone because you don't want them using it but think it's hard to set unpopular rules.

That’s a different poster. My kids have phones.

Never mind, I misread.
I don’t need a rule to make me feel better about giving my kids phones.
I want rules for the greater good because I have seen the amount of destruction and distraction caused by kids having phones at school. Schools don’t have control over what kids do outside of school but while they are at school, no phones is best for the greater good.

Thanks for your concern and paternalistic decision about what is best but my kids are fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a state law so that has to be the FCPS rule. It's probably good for teens to be on their phones less in general. But you can't make it the school's job or high priority if the parents are giving kids phones and not teaching them appropriate usage or setting boundaries and limits.
People here like to say teachers aren't babysitting. What on earth is roaming the cafeteria looking for someone texting their friends to scold them if not babysitting?
They will have the rule and write up kids with really obvious and consistent violations. Otherwise not much will change.

I think teachers will be forced to write up students because if you don't and it gets out that students were seen using the phone during a class, it will for sure get back to the teacher and most school administrations will have no choice but to crack down. A few letters from parents to the state legislators who crafted SB108 is all it will take and FCPS was already on the known-violators list for not having implemented the Executive Order strictly enough.

I thought the whole discussion here was about lunch and in passing times?

Also, I would be shocked if Richmond could make FCPS do anything. Did anything happen because they were on a list for not implementing the EO? I'm pretty sure most of Fairfax was thrilled because it was originally a Younkin order.

If parents have a problem with kids using phones during lunch…that is simply psychotic.

And if they do you have to wonder why they got them a phone. We are thinking 11th grade as the year where they will get phones (instead of a watch). I don't want them on a phone so I didn't give them one. It's so easy!

DP. Easy?
I’m excited about the school phone ban. But not giving your kid a phone sounds simple, but not easy. Not when all their friends have phones and they miss out on all the chats and FaceTimes.

So you want the schools to own and enforce your parenting decisions?

That’s an odd take.
If I buy my kid a tube top, and she wears it to school without my knowledge, where it is not allowed, then if she gets sent home it is not the school “owning and enforcing parenting decisions to buy banned clothing.” That is the school enforcing their rules.

Right, the debate here is over what the rule should be. You want it to be the rule that makes you feel better about not making the hard call to not get your kid a phone because you don't want them using it but think it's hard to set unpopular rules.

That’s a different poster. My kids have phones.

Never mind, I misread.
I don’t need a rule to make me feel better about giving my kids phones.
I want rules for the greater good because I have seen the amount of destruction and distraction caused by kids having phones at school. Schools don’t have control over what kids do outside of school but while they are at school, no phones is best for the greater good.

Thanks for your concern and paternalistic decision about what is best but my kids are fine.

This isn’t about your personal parenting decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now high school kids can’t even use their phone at lunch. Are you kidding me?? How ridiculous.

This is fantastic!!!! I’m so glad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a state law so that has to be the FCPS rule. It's probably good for teens to be on their phones less in general. But you can't make it the school's job or high priority if the parents are giving kids phones and not teaching them appropriate usage or setting boundaries and limits.
People here like to say teachers aren't babysitting. What on earth is roaming the cafeteria looking for someone texting their friends to scold them if not babysitting?
They will have the rule and write up kids with really obvious and consistent violations. Otherwise not much will change.

I think teachers will be forced to write up students because if you don't and it gets out that students were seen using the phone during a class, it will for sure get back to the teacher and most school administrations will have no choice but to crack down. A few letters from parents to the state legislators who crafted SB108 is all it will take and FCPS was already on the known-violators list for not having implemented the Executive Order strictly enough.

I thought the whole discussion here was about lunch and in passing times?

Also, I would be shocked if Richmond could make FCPS do anything. Did anything happen because they were on a list for not implementing the EO? I'm pretty sure most of Fairfax was thrilled because it was originally a Younkin order.

If parents have a problem with kids using phones during lunch…that is simply psychotic.

And if they do you have to wonder why they got them a phone. We are thinking 11th grade as the year where they will get phones (instead of a watch). I don't want them on a phone so I didn't give them one. It's so easy!

DP. Easy?
I’m excited about the school phone ban. But not giving your kid a phone sounds simple, but not easy. Not when all their friends have phones and they miss out on all the chats and FaceTimes.

So you want the schools to own and enforce your parenting decisions?

That’s an odd take.
If I buy my kid a tube top, and she wears it to school without my knowledge, where it is not allowed, then if she gets sent home it is not the school “owning and enforcing parenting decisions to buy banned clothing.” That is the school enforcing their rules.

Right, the debate here is over what the rule should be. You want it to be the rule that makes you feel better about not making the hard call to not get your kid a phone because you don't want them using it but think it's hard to set unpopular rules.

That’s a different poster. My kids have phones.

Never mind, I misread.
I don’t need a rule to make me feel better about giving my kids phones.
I want rules for the greater good because I have seen the amount of destruction and distraction caused by kids having phones at school. Schools don’t have control over what kids do outside of school but while they are at school, no phones is best for the greater good.

Thanks for your concern and paternalistic decision about what is best but my kids are fine.

My kids are fine too but that is immaterial to this discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a state law so that has to be the FCPS rule. It's probably good for teens to be on their phones less in general. But you can't make it the school's job or high priority if the parents are giving kids phones and not teaching them appropriate usage or setting boundaries and limits.
People here like to say teachers aren't babysitting. What on earth is roaming the cafeteria looking for someone texting their friends to scold them if not babysitting?
They will have the rule and write up kids with really obvious and consistent violations. Otherwise not much will change.

I think teachers will be forced to write up students because if you don't and it gets out that students were seen using the phone during a class, it will for sure get back to the teacher and most school administrations will have no choice but to crack down. A few letters from parents to the state legislators who crafted SB108 is all it will take and FCPS was already on the known-violators list for not having implemented the Executive Order strictly enough.

I thought the whole discussion here was about lunch and in passing times?

Also, I would be shocked if Richmond could make FCPS do anything. Did anything happen because they were on a list for not implementing the EO? I'm pretty sure most of Fairfax was thrilled because it was originally a Younkin order.

If parents have a problem with kids using phones during lunch…that is simply psychotic.

And if they do you have to wonder why they got them a phone. We are thinking 11th grade as the year where they will get phones (instead of a watch). I don't want them on a phone so I didn't give them one. It's so easy!

DP. Easy?
I’m excited about the school phone ban. But not giving your kid a phone sounds simple, but not easy. Not when all their friends have phones and they miss out on all the chats and FaceTimes.

So you want the schools to own and enforce your parenting decisions?

That’s an odd take.
If I buy my kid a tube top, and she wears it to school without my knowledge, where it is not allowed, then if she gets sent home it is not the school “owning and enforcing parenting decisions to buy banned clothing.” That is the school enforcing their rules.

Right, the debate here is over what the rule should be. You want it to be the rule that makes you feel better about not making the hard call to not get your kid a phone because you don't want them using it but think it's hard to set unpopular rules.

That’s a different poster. My kids have phones.

Never mind, I misread.
I don’t need a rule to make me feel better about giving my kids phones.
I want rules for the greater good because I have seen the amount of destruction and distraction caused by kids having phones at school. Schools don’t have control over what kids do outside of school but while they are at school, no phones is best for the greater good.

Thanks for your concern and paternalistic decision about what is best but my kids are fine.

This isn’t about your personal parenting decisions.

I know that. You don't though.
My kids will have a phone and use it when they want, knowing the rules, the consequences and the realities of enforcement. You can't do anything about that choice I am making.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a state law so that has to be the FCPS rule. It's probably good for teens to be on their phones less in general. But you can't make it the school's job or high priority if the parents are giving kids phones and not teaching them appropriate usage or setting boundaries and limits.
People here like to say teachers aren't babysitting. What on earth is roaming the cafeteria looking for someone texting their friends to scold them if not babysitting?
They will have the rule and write up kids with really obvious and consistent violations. Otherwise not much will change.

I think teachers will be forced to write up students because if you don't and it gets out that students were seen using the phone during a class, it will for sure get back to the teacher and most school administrations will have no choice but to crack down. A few letters from parents to the state legislators who crafted SB108 is all it will take and FCPS was already on the known-violators list for not having implemented the Executive Order strictly enough.

I thought the whole discussion here was about lunch and in passing times?

Also, I would be shocked if Richmond could make FCPS do anything. Did anything happen because they were on a list for not implementing the EO? I'm pretty sure most of Fairfax was thrilled because it was originally a Younkin order.

If parents have a problem with kids using phones during lunch…that is simply psychotic.

And if they do you have to wonder why they got them a phone. We are thinking 11th grade as the year where they will get phones (instead of a watch). I don't want them on a phone so I didn't give them one. It's so easy!

DP. Easy?
I’m excited about the school phone ban. But not giving your kid a phone sounds simple, but not easy. Not when all their friends have phones and they miss out on all the chats and FaceTimes.

So you want the schools to own and enforce your parenting decisions?

That’s an odd take.
If I buy my kid a tube top, and she wears it to school without my knowledge, where it is not allowed, then if she gets sent home it is not the school “owning and enforcing parenting decisions to buy banned clothing.” That is the school enforcing their rules.

Right, the debate here is over what the rule should be. You want it to be the rule that makes you feel better about not making the hard call to not get your kid a phone because you don't want them using it but think it's hard to set unpopular rules.

That’s a different poster. My kids have phones.

Never mind, I misread.
I don’t need a rule to make me feel better about giving my kids phones.
I want rules for the greater good because I have seen the amount of destruction and distraction caused by kids having phones at school. Schools don’t have control over what kids do outside of school but while they are at school, no phones is best for the greater good.

Thanks for your concern and paternalistic decision about what is best but my kids are fine.

This isn’t about your personal parenting decisions.

I know that. You don't though.
My kids will have a phone and use it when they want, knowing the rules, the consequences and the realities of enforcement. You can't do anything about that choice I am making.

What choice that you are making?

[Anonymous]

I told my kid about the new rule for next year and he laughed and was like “how are they going to enforce that?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a state law so that has to be the FCPS rule. It's probably good for teens to be on their phones less in general. But you can't make it the school's job or high priority if the parents are giving kids phones and not teaching them appropriate usage or setting boundaries and limits.
People here like to say teachers aren't babysitting. What on earth is roaming the cafeteria looking for someone texting their friends to scold them if not babysitting?
They will have the rule and write up kids with really obvious and consistent violations. Otherwise not much will change.

I think teachers will be forced to write up students because if you don't and it gets out that students were seen using the phone during a class, it will for sure get back to the teacher and most school administrations will have no choice but to crack down. A few letters from parents to the state legislators who crafted SB108 is all it will take and FCPS was already on the known-violators list for not having implemented the Executive Order strictly enough.

I thought the whole discussion here was about lunch and in passing times?

Also, I would be shocked if Richmond could make FCPS do anything. Did anything happen because they were on a list for not implementing the EO? I'm pretty sure most of Fairfax was thrilled because it was originally a Younkin order.

If parents have a problem with kids using phones during lunch…that is simply psychotic.

And if they do you have to wonder why they got them a phone. We are thinking 11th grade as the year where they will get phones (instead of a watch). I don't want them on a phone so I didn't give them one. It's so easy!

DP. Easy?
I’m excited about the school phone ban. But not giving your kid a phone sounds simple, but not easy. Not when all their friends have phones and they miss out on all the chats and FaceTimes.

So you want the schools to own and enforce your parenting decisions?

That’s an odd take.
If I buy my kid a tube top, and she wears it to school without my knowledge, where it is not allowed, then if she gets sent home it is not the school “owning and enforcing parenting decisions to buy banned clothing.” That is the school enforcing their rules.

Right, the debate here is over what the rule should be. You want it to be the rule that makes you feel better about not making the hard call to not get your kid a phone because you don't want them using it but think it's hard to set unpopular rules.

That’s a different poster. My kids have phones.

Never mind, I misread.
I don’t need a rule to make me feel better about giving my kids phones.
I want rules for the greater good because I have seen the amount of destruction and distraction caused by kids having phones at school. Schools don’t have control over what kids do outside of school but while they are at school, no phones is best for the greater good.

Thanks for your concern and paternalistic decision about what is best but my kids are fine.

This isn’t about your personal parenting decisions.

I know that. You don't though.
My kids will have a phone and use it when they want, knowing the rules, the consequences and the realities of enforcement. You can't do anything about that choice I am making.

“You don’t have to follow rules if you think the rules are stupid” is a horrible message. You’re right, I can’t do anything about other people’s crappy parenting, but I can at least support the schools’ efforts by making it known to my kids that I expect they follow the school’s rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I told my kid about the new rule for next year and he laughed and was like “how are they going to enforce that?”

Yondr pouches?