Yondr pouch pilot program at some MS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So grateful our HS is not a pilot HS. Business as usual and my kids are doing just fine.

+1 I hope the few anecdotes we have so far won’t influence them to all get pouches next year.

Why not? If you want to talk to your kids call the office

I'm confused as to why I should have to call the office to talk to my kid. He is in middle school, not prison. If you prefer to communicate with your kid through the office, you do you.

If you can’t go 7 hours without a line of direct communication to your child I think maybe homeschooling is more up your lane.

There is a not-so-subtle difference between "can't" and "on principle, disagree with being required to." You've insisted on painting those who disagree with you as incapable of going without constant communication rather than engaging on the question of what is a reasonably tailored policy to address the problem at issue. It would be more constructive if you gave up on the baseless villainizing and articulated clearly what you view as the target problem and why the Yondr pouch is the best of the possible solutions.

The target problem is that there’s zero way to tell if kids are utilizing their phones to text parents or engage in inappropriate activity, therefore eliminate the issue to begin with because as you’ve stated it’s not actually a need but a want for parents to have a line of communication with their kids.


The target problem is that there is no guarantee that every parent will a) demonstrate good judgment and not text kids in class and b)kids will silence there phones. So eliminate the issue.


The target issue is that there’s a mountain of studies and empirical data that links extended student phone usage with negative social/emotional scenarios and decreasing learning engagement.


I mean there’s literally studies, data, articles with skeptics who are converts, anecdotal evidence provided by users, etc. you name it and you’ve got it that supports this endeavor and all you’ve managed to muster as a counter is it doesn’t really work for you or your principles? Yeah, that’s not a good faith argument nor is it one that’s worth anyone’s time. That’s the voice of someone who should find alternative learning that does actually jive with their principles.



Words of wisdom, cut the umbilical cord, your kid might not resent you yet but that time will come. I’ve watched dozens of kids realize as they matured that the issues they experienced their entire life with school, teachers, friends, bullies, etc. wasn’t actually any of that it was really their over bearing and meddling parents. It’s sad to watch kids realize their parents suck and won’t let them live their lives.

Your kid gets 7 hours of the day 5 days of the week to find themselves. The cruelest thing you can do is routinely intrude on that time.

According to Youngkin's Executive Order 33, the target issue is use of social media:

https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/governor-of-virginia/pdf/eo/EO-33---Cell-Phones-7.9.24.pdf

Curiously, his executive order is remarkably similar to what Yondr cites in their FCPS Powerpoint. This is the same Yondr that retains McGuire Woods in Richmond to lobby on "matters of importance":

https://www.vpap.org/lobbying/client/491238-yondr-inc/

This is the same Yondr that has made large capital investments in Northern Virginia -- 270 acres in Northern Virginia as part of its Americas Expansion Plan.

Yondr has quite successfully convinced parents like you to unquestionably parrot their talking points while never actually clicking on the links to understand what the data actually shows, and what it doesn't. The data does not show that cell phone use equals suicide but rather that extensive social media use is statistically correlated with increased mental health issues, particularly in girls.

Correlation is not causation (if it were, we should all be a little incensed at the temporal correlation between Yondr's lobbying activity and the Youngkin executive order) but is rather a reason for further study to understand the problem. Instead, you've jumped on the nearest soapbox to make wild claims that go well beyond what even Yondr would suggest. Nowhere does Yondr or Youngkin or the VDOE go so far as to claim that keeping in touch with parents is even a factor, let alone something that needs to be stopped. There is nothing about "cutting the umbilical cord" or other such nonsense. Rather, the order specifically acknowledged the need to come up with processes to allow parents to appropriately communicate with kids.

Bottom line: parent-kid communication is not and never was the issue, and there is a reasonable non-Yondr solution that is tailored to the actual problem:

1. Have an away-for-the-day policy with reasonable exceptions and breaks during non-instructional time.

2. Launch a detailed, evidence-based education program to inform parents and kids on what we know (and what we don't) about the risks of extended social media usage, and ways parents can manage a child's usage.

3. Encourage parents who don't want their kids on cell phones to not provide them or have kids leave them at home. Or, if we're dying to hand money over to Yondr, offer a subsidized program allowing parents who love the pouch to obtain one for their kid for free or at a reasonable price.

+1,000 I agree with all 3 solutions. The schools just need to enforce away for the day. The problem is it becomes overwhelming for the teacher to keep policing the cell phones and it takes away instructional time. My guess is it is easier for the teachers if phones are simply just put away in the pouches.

Maybe but at my school the pouches place the burden on first period teachers and my two kids have been placed on the honor system. Seems like the shoe holder up front is easier to eyeball once (instead of kid by kid) and the kids have to do the work of putting them up there. It also leaves it up to the teacher whether an exception is warranted. Either system is gameable, for sure, but if cell phones are a visible problem under either system, it's pretty easy to identify the culprit and impose consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So grateful our HS is not a pilot HS. Business as usual and my kids are doing just fine.

+1 I hope the few anecdotes we have so far won’t influence them to all get pouches next year.

Why not? If you want to talk to your kids call the office

I'm confused as to why I should have to call the office to talk to my kid. He is in middle school, not prison. If you prefer to communicate with your kid through the office, you do you.

If you can’t go 7 hours without a line of direct communication to your child I think maybe homeschooling is more up your lane.

There is a not-so-subtle difference between "can't" and "on principle, disagree with being required to." You've insisted on painting those who disagree with you as incapable of going without constant communication rather than engaging on the question of what is a reasonably tailored policy to address the problem at issue. It would be more constructive if you gave up on the baseless villainizing and articulated clearly what you view as the target problem and why the Yondr pouch is the best of the possible solutions.

The target problem is that there’s zero way to tell if kids are utilizing their phones to text parents or engage in inappropriate activity, therefore eliminate the issue to begin with because as you’ve stated it’s not actually a need but a want for parents to have a line of communication with their kids.


The target problem is that there is no guarantee that every parent will a) demonstrate good judgment and not text kids in class and b)kids will silence there phones. So eliminate the issue.


The target issue is that there’s a mountain of studies and empirical data that links extended student phone usage with negative social/emotional scenarios and decreasing learning engagement.


I mean there’s literally studies, data, articles with skeptics who are converts, anecdotal evidence provided by users, etc. you name it and you’ve got it that supports this endeavor and all you’ve managed to muster as a counter is it doesn’t really work for you or your principles? Yeah, that’s not a good faith argument nor is it one that’s worth anyone’s time. That’s the voice of someone who should find alternative learning that does actually jive with their principles.



Words of wisdom, cut the umbilical cord, your kid might not resent you yet but that time will come. I’ve watched dozens of kids realize as they matured that the issues they experienced their entire life with school, teachers, friends, bullies, etc. wasn’t actually any of that it was really their over bearing and meddling parents. It’s sad to watch kids realize their parents suck and won’t let them live their lives.

Your kid gets 7 hours of the day 5 days of the week to find themselves. The cruelest thing you can do is routinely intrude on that time.

According to Youngkin's Executive Order 33, the target issue is use of social media:

https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/governor-of-virginia/pdf/eo/EO-33---Cell-Phones-7.9.24.pdf

Curiously, his executive order is remarkably similar to what Yondr cites in their FCPS Powerpoint. This is the same Yondr that retains McGuire Woods in Richmond to lobby on "matters of importance":

https://www.vpap.org/lobbying/client/491238-yondr-inc/

This is the same Yondr that has made large capital investments in Northern Virginia -- 270 acres in Northern Virginia as part of its Americas Expansion Plan.

Yondr has quite successfully convinced parents like you to unquestionably parrot their talking points while never actually clicking on the links to understand what the data actually shows, and what it doesn't. The data does not show that cell phone use equals suicide but rather that extensive social media use is statistically correlated with increased mental health issues, particularly in girls.

Correlation is not causation (if it were, we should all be a little incensed at the temporal correlation between Yondr's lobbying activity and the Youngkin executive order) but is rather a reason for further study to understand the problem. Instead, you've jumped on the nearest soapbox to make wild claims that go well beyond what even Yondr would suggest. Nowhere does Yondr or Youngkin or the VDOE go so far as to claim that keeping in touch with parents is even a factor, let alone something that needs to be stopped. There is nothing about "cutting the umbilical cord" or other such nonsense. Rather, the order specifically acknowledged the need to come up with processes to allow parents to appropriately communicate with kids.

Bottom line: parent-kid communication is not and never was the issue, and there is a reasonable non-Yondr solution that is tailored to the actual problem:

1. Have an away-for-the-day policy with reasonable exceptions and breaks during non-instructional time.

2. Launch a detailed, evidence-based education program to inform parents and kids on what we know (and what we don't) about the risks of extended social media usage, and ways parents can manage a child's usage.

3. Encourage parents who don't want their kids on cell phones to not provide them or have kids leave them at home. Or, if we're dying to hand money over to Yondr, offer a subsidized program allowing parents who love the pouch to obtain one for their kid for free or at a reasonable price.

+1,000 I agree with all 3 solutions. The schools just need to enforce away for the day. The problem is it becomes overwhelming for the teacher to keep policing the cell phones and it takes away instructional time. My guess is it is easier for the teachers if phones are simply just put away in the pouches.

Maybe but at my school the pouches place the burden on first period teachers and my two kids have been placed on the honor system. Seems like the shoe holder up front is easier to eyeball once (instead of kid by kid) and the kids have to do the work of putting them up there. It also leaves it up to the teacher whether an exception is warranted. Either system is gameable, for sure, but if cell phones are a visible problem under either system, it's pretty easy to identify the culprit and impose consequences.

The shoe holder is easier to eyeball but again parents have issues with it. A kid could easily steal someone else’s phone from the holder by “mistake” and run out the door. A kid could say they don’t have a phone to put in the shoe holder but be lying and then be using it secretly. At least with the pouches, the phone is kept with each child on their person and it cannot be used secretly in class.

[Anonymous]

DS, who attends Thoreau (one of the pilot schools), said that it is common for kids to have phones out and that teachers are very inconsistent in enforcing the new rules. I’m very supportive of the pilot, but it seems pointless if teachers and administrators don’t stick to the rules and follow through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DS, who attends Thoreau (one of the pilot schools), said that it is common for kids to have phones out and that teachers are very inconsistent in enforcing the new rules. I’m very supportive of the pilot, but it seems pointless if teachers and administrators don’t stick to the rules and follow through.

This! I'm a pp that said I have been confiscating phones. We are a pilot as well. I am one of the few that actually enforces it. Makes it harder when it is not consistent. It's frustrating because our admin made a very big deal about following through but most teachers just don't bother.

[Anonymous]

Ask the teachers what they prefer - pouches or enforcing the cell phone policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ask the teachers what they prefer - pouches or enforcing the cell phone policy.

Both require the same amount of effort. If a kid tells me he doesn't have a phone and shows me an empty pouch, there's nothing I can do about that. When he gets out the phone he actually did have in his bag later in the day, it gets confiscated. In the off and away school, it's the same situation. I don't see the phone in the morning when I put out the reminder to keep it off and away and then when he gets it out later, it gets confiscated. It's the exact same end either with or without the pouch. Which is why I think the pouches are a waste of money.

As a teacher, I am having the exact same number of encounters this year with cell phones with a yondr pouch that I was last year with the off and away policy which is to say...none.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ask the teachers what they prefer - pouches or enforcing the cell phone policy.

Both require the same amount of effort. If a kid tells me he doesn't have a phone and shows me an empty pouch, there's nothing I can do about that. When he gets out the phone he actually did have in his bag later in the day, it gets confiscated. In the off and away school, it's the same situation. I don't see the phone in the morning when I put out the reminder to keep it off and away and then when he gets it out later, it gets confiscated. It's the exact same end either with or without the pouch. Which is why I think the pouches are a waste of money.

As a teacher, I am having the exact same number of encounters this year with cell phones with a yondr pouch that I was last year with the off and away policy which is to say...none.

There is a difference--hallways and cafeteria usage. Pouches restrict that (meaning anything seen in the hallways can still be confiscated).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ask the teachers what they prefer - pouches or enforcing the cell phone policy.

Both require the same amount of effort. If a kid tells me he doesn't have a phone and shows me an empty pouch, there's nothing I can do about that. When he gets out the phone he actually did have in his bag later in the day, it gets confiscated. In the off and away school, it's the same situation. I don't see the phone in the morning when I put out the reminder to keep it off and away and then when he gets it out later, it gets confiscated. It's the exact same end either with or without the pouch. Which is why I think the pouches are a waste of money.

As a teacher, I am having the exact same number of encounters this year with cell phones with a yondr pouch that I was last year with the off and away policy which is to say...none.

There is a difference--hallways and cafeteria usage. Pouches restrict that (meaning anything seen in the hallways can still be confiscated).

How so? Our pilot school was away-for-the-day last year so phones in hallways and cafeterias were just as illegal last year. Kids game either system, and each system requires manual labor from teachers. But one is expensive, lines pockets we don't need to be lining, and creates unnecessary consequences for parent-child communication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ask the teachers what they prefer - pouches or enforcing the cell phone policy.

Both require the same amount of effort. If a kid tells me he doesn't have a phone and shows me an empty pouch, there's nothing I can do about that. When he gets out the phone he actually did have in his bag later in the day, it gets confiscated. In the off and away school, it's the same situation. I don't see the phone in the morning when I put out the reminder to keep it off and away and then when he gets it out later, it gets confiscated. It's the exact same end either with or without the pouch. Which is why I think the pouches are a waste of money.

As a teacher, I am having the exact same number of encounters this year with cell phones with a yondr pouch that I was last year with the off and away policy which is to say...none.

There is a difference--hallways and cafeteria usage. Pouches restrict that (meaning anything seen in the hallways can still be confiscated).

How so? Our pilot school was away-for-the-day last year so phones in hallways and cafeterias were just as illegal last year. Kids game either system, and each system requires manual labor from teachers. But one is expensive, lines pockets we don't need to be lining, and creates unnecessary consequences for parent-child communication.

Does anyone know the all-in price tag for the Yondr program if it were implemented? I know the lost pouch charge is $18 but assume that is not the full cost. I saw another school district that estimated about $30 per student. If that is right, a rough estimate for all MS and HS in FC to participate would be about $425,000, but curious if anyone has more reliable numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ask the teachers what they prefer - pouches or enforcing the cell phone policy.

Both require the same amount of effort. If a kid tells me he doesn't have a phone and shows me an empty pouch, there's nothing I can do about that. When he gets out the phone he actually did have in his bag later in the day, it gets confiscated. In the off and away school, it's the same situation. I don't see the phone in the morning when I put out the reminder to keep it off and away and then when he gets it out later, it gets confiscated. It's the exact same end either with or without the pouch. Which is why I think the pouches are a waste of money.

As a teacher, I am having the exact same number of encounters this year with cell phones with a yondr pouch that I was last year with the off and away policy which is to say...none.

There is a difference--hallways and cafeteria usage. Pouches restrict that (meaning anything seen in the hallways can still be confiscated).

How so? Our pilot school was away-for-the-day last year so phones in hallways and cafeterias were just as illegal last year. Kids game either system, and each system requires manual labor from teachers. But one is expensive, lines pockets we don't need to be lining, and creates unnecessary consequences for parent-child communication.

Could you please explain what you mean by this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ask the teachers what they prefer - pouches or enforcing the cell phone policy.

Both require the same amount of effort. If a kid tells me he doesn't have a phone and shows me an empty pouch, there's nothing I can do about that. When he gets out the phone he actually did have in his bag later in the day, it gets confiscated. In the off and away school, it's the same situation. I don't see the phone in the morning when I put out the reminder to keep it off and away and then when he gets it out later, it gets confiscated. It's the exact same end either with or without the pouch. Which is why I think the pouches are a waste of money.

As a teacher, I am having the exact same number of encounters this year with cell phones with a yondr pouch that I was last year with the off and away policy which is to say...none.

There is a difference--hallways and cafeteria usage. Pouches restrict that (meaning anything seen in the hallways can still be confiscated).

How so? Our pilot school was away-for-the-day last year so phones in hallways and cafeterias were just as illegal last year. Kids game either system, and each system requires manual labor from teachers. But one is expensive, lines pockets we don't need to be lining, and creates unnecessary consequences for parent-child communication.

If they're in the pouches, they can't be used in bathrooms during lunch/passing periods. If they're in the bottom of backpacks, they are being used in the bathroom all the time. I teach at an "away for the day" middle school, and every passing period I have a few minutes free I walk into the girl's bathroom (because I can't walk into the boys!) and confiscate 2-3 cell phones. EVERY period. That's all they do. There are crowds of 10-15 girls standing around staring at phones. Some of them are frequent flyers, some are "good" kids who you wouldn't expect, and some are on phone #3 because multiple have been confiscated already.

I see what you're saying that if a kid lies about putting a phone in the pouch it doesn't make a difference and essentially becomes away for the day, and if 90% of kids are skipping the pouch then you are correct. From colleagues' stories it is more like 5% skipping the pouches though, so the number of kids who could use phones in the bathroom is small.

Regardless, I am glad FCPS is running the experiment this year! They will have tons of data on number of referrals, behavior incidents, etc to compare, and we won't have to wonder anymore--we will know which solution is more effective.

[Anonymous]

my daughter friend was caught using her phone yesterday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:my daughter friend was caught using her phone yesterday.

And what was the consequence? Nothing I am assuming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:my daughter friend was caught using her phone yesterday.

And what was the consequence? Nothing I am assuming.

I think it her 2nd or 3rd warning so nothing.
I believe her parents will need to go to the school if it happens again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So grateful our HS is not a pilot HS. Business as usual and my kids are doing just fine.

+1 I hope the few anecdotes we have so far won’t influence them to all get pouches next year.

Why not? If you want to talk to your kids call the office

I'm confused as to why I should have to call the office to talk to my kid. He is in middle school, not prison. If you prefer to communicate with your kid through the office, you do you.

If you can’t go 7 hours without a line of direct communication to your child I think maybe homeschooling is more up your lane.

There is a not-so-subtle difference between "can't" and "on principle, disagree with being required to." You've insisted on painting those who disagree with you as incapable of going without constant communication rather than engaging on the question of what is a reasonably tailored policy to address the problem at issue. It would be more constructive if you gave up on the baseless villainizing and articulated clearly what you view as the target problem and why the Yondr pouch is the best of the possible solutions.

The target problem is that there’s zero way to tell if kids are utilizing their phones to text parents or engage in inappropriate activity, therefore eliminate the issue to begin with because as you’ve stated it’s not actually a need but a want for parents to have a line of communication with their kids.


The target problem is that there is no guarantee that every parent will a) demonstrate good judgment and not text kids in class and b)kids will silence there phones. So eliminate the issue.


The target issue is that there’s a mountain of studies and empirical data that links extended student phone usage with negative social/emotional scenarios and decreasing learning engagement.


I mean there’s literally studies, data, articles with skeptics who are converts, anecdotal evidence provided by users, etc. you name it and you’ve got it that supports this endeavor and all you’ve managed to muster as a counter is it doesn’t really work for you or your principles? Yeah, that’s not a good faith argument nor is it one that’s worth anyone’s time. That’s the voice of someone who should find alternative learning that does actually jive with their principles.



Words of wisdom, cut the umbilical cord, your kid might not resent you yet but that time will come. I’ve watched dozens of kids realize as they matured that the issues they experienced their entire life with school, teachers, friends, bullies, etc. wasn’t actually any of that it was really their over bearing and meddling parents. It’s sad to watch kids realize their parents suck and won’t let them live their lives.

Your kid gets 7 hours of the day 5 days of the week to find themselves. The cruelest thing you can do is routinely intrude on that time.

According to Youngkin's Executive Order 33, the target issue is use of social media:

https://www.governor.virginia.gov/media/governorvirginiagov/governor-of-virginia/pdf/eo/EO-33---Cell-Phones-7.9.24.pdf

Curiously, his executive order is remarkably similar to what Yondr cites in their FCPS Powerpoint. This is the same Yondr that retains McGuire Woods in Richmond to lobby on "matters of importance":

https://www.vpap.org/lobbying/client/491238-yondr-inc/

This is the same Yondr that has made large capital investments in Northern Virginia -- 270 acres in Northern Virginia as part of its Americas Expansion Plan.

Yondr has quite successfully convinced parents like you to unquestionably parrot their talking points while never actually clicking on the links to understand what the data actually shows, and what it doesn't. The data does not show that cell phone use equals suicide but rather that extensive social media use is statistically correlated with increased mental health issues, particularly in girls.

Correlation is not causation (if it were, we should all be a little incensed at the temporal correlation between Yondr's lobbying activity and the Youngkin executive order) but is rather a reason for further study to understand the problem. Instead, you've jumped on the nearest soapbox to make wild claims that go well beyond what even Yondr would suggest. Nowhere does Yondr or Youngkin or the VDOE go so far as to claim that keeping in touch with parents is even a factor, let alone something that needs to be stopped. There is nothing about "cutting the umbilical cord" or other such nonsense. Rather, the order specifically acknowledged the need to come up with processes to allow parents to appropriately communicate with kids.

Bottom line: parent-kid communication is not and never was the issue, and there is a reasonable non-Yondr solution that is tailored to the actual problem:

1. Have an away-for-the-day policy with reasonable exceptions and breaks during non-instructional time.

2. Launch a detailed, evidence-based education program to inform parents and kids on what we know (and what we don't) about the risks of extended social media usage, and ways parents can manage a child's usage.

3. Encourage parents who don't want their kids on cell phones to not provide them or have kids leave them at home. Or, if we're dying to hand money over to Yondr, offer a subsidized program allowing parents who love the pouch to obtain one for their kid for free or at a reasonable price.

+1,000 I agree with all 3 solutions. The schools just need to enforce away for the day. The problem is it becomes overwhelming for the teacher to keep policing the cell phones and it takes away instructional time. My guess is it is easier for the teachers if phones are simply just put away in the pouches.

Maybe but at my school the pouches place the burden on first period teachers and my two kids have been placed on the honor system. Seems like the shoe holder up front is easier to eyeball once (instead of kid by kid) and the kids have to do the work of putting them up there. It also leaves it up to the teacher whether an exception is warranted. Either system is gameable, for sure, but if cell phones are a visible problem under either system, it's pretty easy to identify the culprit and impose consequences.

The shoe holder is easier to eyeball but again parents have issues with it. A kid could easily steal someone else’s phone from the holder by “mistake” and run out the door. A kid could say they don’t have a phone to put in the shoe holder but be lying and then be using it secretly. At least with the pouches, the phone is kept with each child on their person and it cannot be used secretly in class.

My DD said kids lie and say they don't have a phone with the pouches just like you would with the pocket holders. Also, older DD said nobody has had their phone stolen yet at her HS.