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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Had a chat with my kid last night about giving her the chance to make her own decisions and live with the consequences, self-policing addictive behaviors, not being stupid and how not to get caught. Have fun with this meaningless debate.

+1 FCPS is not capable of enforcing this. Putting the ban in place isn't going to do much. Either people on this board don't remember being teenagers or they were very boring teenagers.

Boring is good. I think most parents would take boring any day of the week.

Ugh, how sad.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Did an insecure parent or phone dependent-student start this gripe thread? Hard to know the difference really.

No, a parent with common sense. Kids sometimes need to text their parents and vice versa for whatever reason. It’s not a crime.

Somehow in the way back times, people survived high school without the ability to text parents and vice versa. How ever did we all survive????

The world wasn’t digitized then. We have evolved. Sometimes we need to send a quick text about after school plans to our child and it’s super easy and convenient and you know they will get the message. When my child was in middle school I was constantly emailing his last period teacher about changes in dismissal plans and it was nerve wracking not knowing if she would check the message or remember to give it. Now that we have texting we should be able to use it to communicate with our kids. Lunch is the perfect time for them to read it. I really donut see the need to take them away at lunch. The cafeteria is probably quieter too.

That last period teacher probably hated you if you were constantly emailing her about changes in dismissal plans. Are you that disorganized that dismissal plans changed often enough to need to constantly email a teacher about them?

Thank God most parents have much better executive function; can you imagine if that poor teacher had to communicate dismissal plans to 10, 15, 20, 25, or 30 kids in her class?

My child had a private lesson after school that sometimes got cancelled last minute from the instructor. It required a change from kiss n ride to the bus then. It has nothing to do with my executive function you disgusting POS.

Wow, get help.

Get help for what? Someone literally insulted my executive functioning for something beyond my control and for what the school told me to do? Explain how you would have handled it.

DP. Get help for calling people POS and telling them to eff off because they suggest other possible solutions.
Also, your kid can check their phone when they are dismissed at the end of the school day before going to kiss n ride or the bus. Seriously you are freaking out about nothing.

They were called POS because they insulted me by saying I must have poor executive function and the teacher hated me.

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.

It's ok - they will still be able to use them. Teachers won't be able to effectively police it.

They are equally psychotic if they are foaming at the mouth demanding their kid be allowed to use one.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I love this. Time to start making friends, making weekend plans, passing notes, etc. ya know.. what we used to do at lunch at school.

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.

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.