CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Phones can help u in School because most phones u can download A calculater and It. Gives u a oppertunity tofind out more info on a topic u don't get <3 hair fluff "toss˝ ˝toss"
and they could get not get broken and they should be able to get them out of the bag so i mean um i don't know why they should be able not to get them out that is dumb
I would say generally against it. Previously, I was for it, but... there are numerous accessories for phones that one can get now, ranging from watches, to jewelry, and other things both mundane and magnificent, that will connect to the phone via bluetooth or nfc. A student in possession of one of such accessories could easily leave his phone in his bag and still maintain the bluetooth link, and have access to text messaging, notes, and in some cases even audio (using bone conduction). The potential for cheating is such that leaving the phone in the bag is no longer sufficient.
If phones are allowed in school, then testing environments will now need to necessitate removal of jewelry, watches, belt buckles, and any number of other things for the sake of ensuring honest performance.
It was one thing when taking a call or replying to a text message required visibly manipulating ones phone; it's another entirely when these functions can be performed by innocuously tapping on a watch or fiddling with a ring.
There should, however, be landline phones available in schools for students to place calls from if needed- free ones, not payphones.
Presuming your argumentation is valid, there are some underlying assumptions that have to be addressed. Namely:
(1) How much do we actually care about standardized examinations? They are already expressly unfair, yielding clear benefit to students along lines of class, culture, and race. They are poor predictors of later success in college and career.
(2) Do we care if the students are cheating themselves out of an education? Arguably, students using tech in class or cheating on examinations are depriving themselves of some learning opportunities. The value we ascribe to those particular opportunities and that mode of learning is somewhat arbitrary however. (e.g., A student capable of navigating complex hi-tech to cheat or not pay attention in class already displays an advantage in today's hi-tech market and society. In some ways, tech is more applicable than some of what traditional classes are teaching.)
Edited because upon a re-read I came across as condescending, and that wasn't my intent.
I did not intend to make assumptions; I felt I was speaking about the way things currently are, not as I think they should be. There are strict requirements for standardized examinations, regardless of any inherent value they hold- and many institutions place notable value on them. Allowing phones in the students possession at all in a testing environment in light of this technology becoming available is counter to all of the other regulations on it. A debate regarding eliminating them entirely could be interesting, though.
Test taking itself is a skill, and in many careers a useful one at that. Very many careers require some form of certification, a number of which require regular re-certification. Progression in many of these careers can be contingent on certification. Most certification involves some form of testing. The test center that I go to for my certifications require that we empty the contents of all of our pockets into a locker before entering the test room, which is monitored with cameras from multiple directions. Scratch paper, pencils, erasers, and calculator are provided. This may be an extreme example, but it's not the most extreme by a long shot!
As to whether we care if students are cheating themselves out of an education, same thing; if we didn't care, basic education wouldn't be mandatory. Real world, as it is now- not necessarily as you or I think it should be, or how society should be. Whether basic education should be mandatory would make for another interesting debate, but it's not a hypothetical I was attempting to explore.
There are strict requirements for standardized examinations, regardless of any inherent value they hold- and many institutions place notable value on them. [...]
My arguments had nothing to do with any ideal world, and everything to do with present reality. You argued that we should preserve the legitimacy of the exams; I argued that they are not legitimate to begin with.
I do not understand why we care about delegitimizing an illegitimate form of assessment, was more my point. Regardless of whether institutions hold it in esteem, research shows it does not merit it. Why should our values be in line with institutions that have misplaced their values?
Test taking itself is a skill, and in many careers a useful one at that. [...]
Test taking is a skill, but one that really only translates to taking more tests. What is true of lower and higher education examinations is also likely true of most if not all certification examinations: the test is not an accurate representation of knowledge or capability, nor a predictor for aptitude in most fields (to my knowledge). The argument that illegitimate examinations in schools is that they might prepare students for equitably illegitimate career certification examinations is hardly a compelling reason to prohibit cell phones from schools (which is also far more general than simply prohibiting them during examinations).
As to whether we care if students are cheating themselves out of an education, same thing; if we didn't care, basic education wouldn't be mandatory. [...]
Actually, no, that is not why basic education was made mandatory. If you look at the historical origins, compulsory primary education was a consequence of economic and family realities. Children from poor families were made to work instead of attending school to support their families. Parents could also refuse to let their children learn for any other number of reasons, many of them less legitimate. Compulsory education was introduced to ensure that no one else was preventing children from having the opportunity to learn. Whether children take advantage of that is another matter.
Besides which, if a student is truly uninterested in learning then taking their cell phones away is not going to make them learn. Children avoided taking their studies seriously centuries before the cell phone was even invented.
My arguments had nothing to do with any ideal world, and everything to do with present reality. You argued that we should preserve the legitimacy of the exams; I argued that they are not legitimate to begin with.
I do not understand why we care about delegitimizing an illegitimate form of assessment, was more my point. Regardless of whether institutions hold it in esteem, research shows it does not merit it. Why should our values be in line with institutions that have misplaced their values?
No, it did have something to do with an ideal world. Our present reality is one where numerous attempts have been made to garner support for nixing the standardized testing altogether, unsuccessfully. I'd love to get rid of them, but as long as we have them...
I argue that we should preserve the legitimacy of the exams as long as we're going to have them anyway. I'm not particularly pleased with them, and I agree that they should go, but as long as they're here and held in the regard that they are, they at least need to be done legitimately. There have been numerous attempts over the years to garner support for doing away with them altogether; I'm not confident that a new initiative will demonstrate any measure of success here. As long as we have the stupid tests, they should be done legitimately. Make the best with what we have until we can improve things, right?
Test taking is a skill, but one that really only translates to taking more tests. What is true of lower and higher education examinations is also likely true of most if not all certification examinations: the test is not an accurate representation of knowledge or capability, nor a predictor for aptitude in most fields (to my knowledge). The argument that illegitimate examinations in schools is that they might prepare students for equitably illegitimate career certification examinations is hardly a compelling reason to prohibit cell phones from schools (which is also far more general than simply prohibiting them during examinations).
I agree with you there. The certification exams are pretty ridiculous. When I was in school, one of my professors made a point with each lesson to teach us both the proper way and the way that is "right" on exams, and cautioned us to know the difference. But unfortunately business culture is such that these are unlikely to go away anytime soon, however undesirable they are- the same situation that standardized testing is in.
The problem is, with the peripherals that can now be used with phones, a student does not actually need to have the phone in his or possession to take advantage of it. Depending on the technology involved, the student could access the phone using an innocuous peripheral (such as a watch or rinng) with the phone sitting in a bag outside the testing room, or in some cases even several rooms over. Keeping them out of school is about keeping them out of the tests, as long as we're going to have them. If they're in the school at all, they can be used- and these devices are only going to become more available.
Actually, no, that is not why basic education was made mandatory. If you look at the historical origins, compulsory primary education was a consequence of economic and family realities. Children from poor families were made to work instead of attending school to support their families. Parents could also refuse to let their children learn for any other number of reasons, many of them less legitimate. Compulsory education was introduced to ensure that no one else was preventing children from having the opportunity to learn. Whether children take advantage of that is another matter.
Ok, fair enough- my statement as I worded it was refuted by this. But I don't believe that my position is refuted by this; the legislation still implies that we, as a nation, care about ensuring our children get an education. And I stand by that; children are minors, and aren't considered legally competent to make such suggestions as cheating themselves out of an education. We have a responsibility as long as those laws stand to keep them from doing so, as far as I'm concerned.
Besides which, if a student is truly uninterested in learning then taking their cell phones away is not going to make them learn. Children avoided taking their studies seriously centuries before the cell phone was even invented.
Children also did not have the option to use an innocuous looking piece of jewelry to access their cell phone and cheat on exams centuries before the cell phone was even invented. We still cracked down on methods of cheating that existed then, such as crib notes.
No, it did have something to do with an ideal world. [...] I argue that we should preserve the legitimacy of the exams as long as we're going to have them anyway. [...] As long as we have the stupid tests, they should be done legitimately. Make the best with what we have until we can improve things, right?
No, it absolutely did not. My express argument was that there is no reason to care about legitimating something which is already illegitimate regardless of it being already in practice. That we do a stupid thing is not actually any reason to do it well on its own. You need more than just "well, why not?"
I agree with you there. The certification exams are pretty ridiculous. [...] But unfortunately business culture is such that these are unlikely to go away anytime soon, however undesirable they are- the same situation that standardized testing is in. [...] The problem is, with the peripherals that can now be used with phones, a student does not actually need to have the phone in his or possession to take advantage of it. [...] If they're in the school at all, they can be used- and these devices are only going to become more available.
Again, I realize that the certification examinations are a reality and I never claimed that they were not. If a school student can cheat on their examinations without a phone, then so can adults on certification examinations. Maybe we should actually be teaching students how to be better at cheating? The skill would clearly be transferable later on. The reality is that students and adults cheated before the cell phone, and with or without a cell phone they will still cheat.
Furthermore, you failed to address my point that most career tracts do not actually have these certification exams which renders the transferability of testing skills out of primary education argument pretty weak. For the few on those tracts they can learn to take tests once they are actually on them, and learning those skills in primary probably is not necessary.
Ok, fair enough- my statement as I worded it was refuted by this. But I don't believe that my position is refuted by this; the legislation still implies that we, as a nation, care about ensuring our children get an education. And I stand by that; children are minors, and aren't considered legally competent to make such suggestions as cheating themselves out of an education. We have a responsibility as long as those laws stand to keep them from doing so, as far as I'm concerned.
There is not nearly as much national consensus as you claim. While some would agree with you, many would counter that our responsibility ends at creating an equal opportunity for education (and some would argue that we lack even that responsibility). It may very well be that it is not the actual obligation of the school or society at large to prevent children from slacking off, but rather that of the parents/guardians. Even if we do have an actual obligation to prevent children from slacking off, however, I would argue that by the point you are talking about prohibiting cell phones in school you have already lost. You are treating a symptom and not the actual causes of disinvestment from learning.
Extending legal precedence to a non-legal situation is a tenuous argument at best. Just because children cannot are legally considered to lack competence to sign a legally binding contract with financial and potentially criminal repercussions attached does not mean they are not competent enough to choose not to learn. To prove that point you would need to actually reference psychological research.
Children also did not have the option to use an innocuous looking piece of jewelry to access their cell phone and cheat on exams centuries before the cell phone was even invented. We still cracked down on methods of cheating that existed then, such as crib notes.
Good point. I rescind my counter on that particular point, and direct you to my response regarding treating symptoms rather than causes.
No, it absolutely did not. My express argument was that there is no reason to care about legitimating something which is already illegitimate regardless of it being already in practice. That we do a stupid thing is not actually any reason to do it well on its own. You need more than just "well, why not?"
Yes, it most certainly did. Your opinion, and one that I share, is that the tests are illegitimate. However, insofar as our government, legislation, and numerous other parties are concerned, the tests are legitimate. The reason isn't "well, why not?" but rather that technology has progressed into an area that wasn't accounted for in the beginning. Removing the examinations entirely is an acceptable solution, albeit an unrealistic one. Tightening up the security considerations in light of technology is an acceptable solution, though less preferable than nixing them entirely. I can't see a valid reasoning for just maintaining the status quo in light of all this- I'm all for nixing the tests entirely, but if we're going to keep a broken system going, we need it to work as best as possible despite its flaws. Your stance is to do nothing, and that is almost always the wrong decision.
Again, I realize that the certification examinations are a reality and I never claimed that they were not. If a school student can cheat on their examinations without a phone, then so can adults on certification examinations. Maybe we should actually be teaching students how to be better at cheating? The skill would clearly be transferable later on. The reality is that students and adults cheated before the cell phone, and with or without a cell phone they will still cheat.
Furthermore, you failed to address my point that most career tracts do not actually have these certification exams which renders the transferability of testing skills out of primary education argument pretty weak. For the few on those tracts they can learn to take tests once they are actually on them, and learning those skills in primary probably is not necessary.
If the majority of individuals considered cheating legitimate, you might have a case there- but they don't, so you really don't, regardless of whether the skill is transferable. Yes, some students will find a way to cheat- but we still do our best to prevent it. The idea that we shouldn't do our best to prevent cheating is ridiculous; you may as well say we shouldn't bother having a criminal justice system, since crimes are going to be committed regardless. I know it's not a perfect metaphor by a long shot, but come on.
Most career tracts may not have certification exams in terms of looking at each career tract as an individual data point- but most careers (taking the number of people involved in them) do, in fact, require certification- and many re-certification. I didn't address the point because the data point you noted was largely irrelevant. When I say "most careers" I don't mean lawyer, nurse, engineer, I mean X lawyers, X nurses, X engineers. I figured this would be self-evident given the subject matter. All that said though- how many career tracts can you think of that don't require any form of certification at any point in the careers progression?
There is not nearly as much national consensus as you claim. While some would agree with you, many would counter that our responsibility ends at creating an equal opportunity for education (and some would argue that we lack even that responsibility). It may very well be that it is not the actual obligation of the school or society at large to prevent children from slacking off, but rather that of the parents/guardians. Even if we do have an actual obligation to prevent children from slacking off, however, I would argue that by the point you are talking about prohibiting cell phones in school you have already lost. You are treating a symptom and not the actual causes of disinvestment from learning.
I dont believe that there is nearly as much dissent as you claim, but I don't believe there are readily accessible statistics on the level needed to debate that back and forth. As I've already stated, the idea is not to 'fix' the problem of disinvestment of learning, it's to close a security hole in testing environments. Standardized tests, whether warranted or not, whether we like it or not, have actual value in the real world. Remove that and you've got a case, but as long as the (broken) system is used in this manner, we need to do as much as we can to make the most of it until we can shoot it down. As such, whatever battle is 'lost' by talking about prohibiting cell phones in school is not one I'm even taking part in.
Extending legal precedence to a non-legal situation is a tenuous argument at best. Just because children cannot are legally considered to lack competence to sign a legally binding contract with financial and potentially criminal repercussions attached does not mean they are not competent enough to choose not to learn. To prove that point you would need to actually reference psychological research.
Subjectively speaking, many students may well be competent to make that choice. But we can't legislate on subjectives. This IS a legal situation, as school attendance is compelled by law. You noted that this was intended to prevent parents from barring their child from an education in favor of having them work- if that was the only consideration, the decision would be left to the children rather than legal compulsion.
Good point. I rescind my counter on that particular point, and direct you to my response regarding treating symptoms rather than causes.
I'll reiterate that I'm not attempting to address the causes of student indifference towards education- I'm advocating making the best out of a system we can't seem to get rid of. I would also note that in pretty much every case where the cause cannot be addressed, the symptoms are instead treated. If a solution for the underlying causes of disinterest in education can be found, great! But without that, even if a given behaviour is just a symptom, it's still something we have to treat.
Yes, it most certainly did. [...] but if we're going to keep a broken system going, we need it to work as best as possible despite its flaws. Your stance is to do nothing, and that is almost always the wrong decision.
Right, my distinction is still being missed; let me try again. My stance has nothing to do with getting rid of the examinations, and operates within the reality that they do exist and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. You keep claiming that because the testing system exists we have to make it work as well as possible. My response has been that you cannot make the system work well (and it is questionable whether you can even make it work less poorly), and that there is no real point in trying. When pressed to identify such a reason, you replied with a vague and wholly unsubstantiated claim that doing otherwise is "almost always the wrong decision". Why is it wrong in this particular situation?
If the majority of individuals considered cheating legitimate, you might have a case there- but they don't, so you really don't, regardless of whether the skill is transferable. & Most career tracts may not have certification exams [...] but most careers[...] do, in fact, require certification [...].
I was referring to absolute majority as well (source). So... if the majority of individuals needed examination taking skills, you might have a case there - but they don't, so you really don't, regardless of whether the skill is transferable.
The idea that we shouldn't do our best to prevent cheating is ridiculous; you may as well say we shouldn't bother having a criminal justice system, since crimes are going to be committed regardless. I know it's not a perfect metaphor by a long shot, but come on.
Not especially, once you consider that the tests are meaningless anyways. What reason is there - what specific, actual, tangible reason - to care that they are a little less meaningless when they are already so innately meaningless that you would support their abolition? You are arguing that we should enforce respect for an utterly non-respectable institution simply because it exists (and your primary rationale is an admittedly bad metaphor). Now that is ridiculous.
I dont believe that there is nearly as much dissent as you claim, but I don't believe there are readily accessible statistics on the level needed to debate that back and forth.
I agree that the data is limited; that was rather my point actually. I was not arguing that the dissent was widespread, but that you were making a blanket statement claim without the authority to do it or the evidence to substantiate it.
As I've already stated, the idea is not to 'fix' the problem of disinvestment of learning [...]
You did not already say that. In fact, you expressly argued that we have an obligation to prevent children from cheating themselves out of an education; if you retract that now that I have refuted it, fine.
[...] it's to close a security hole in testing environments. Standardized tests [...] have actual value in the real world. Remove that and you've got a case, but as long as the (broken) system is used in this manner, we need to do as much as we can to make the most of it until we can shoot it down.
The only value of standardized examination is that it is needed under the current system for accessing certain career tracts. It lacks its own intrinsic value and is not an end to itself. Consequentially, it may justifiably be subverted towards the end goal of career success and there is no real moral high ground in trying to curtail cheating. The testing system already fails to promote the smartest, most promising, most qualified individuals; the only difference between this and cheating is that an individual is deliberately taking advantage of a broken and corrupted system rather than incidentally being (dis)advantaged by it.
Right, my distinction is still being missed; let me try again. My stance has nothing to do with getting rid of the examinations, and operates within the reality that they do exist and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. You keep claiming that because the testing system exists we have to make it work as well as possible. My response has been that you cannot make the system work well (and it is questionable whether you can even make it work less poorly), and that there is no real point in trying. When pressed to identify such a reason, you replied with a vague and wholly unsubstantiated claim that doing otherwise is "almost always the wrong decision". Why is it wrong in this particular situation?
I guess where we disagree here is whether it's worth trying to improve something when it can never be truly made good; maybe I'm just ok with taking 'less bad' when I don't believe 'good' is accessible, or as a temporary measure in pursuit of 'good.' I see any improvement worth going for in the current state of things. We word it differently, but this is chiefly where we disagree here; I don't think it's something we're going to sway one another on, so we may as well agree to disagree on it.
I was referring to absolute majority as well (source). So... if the majority of individuals needed examination taking skills, you might have a case there - but they don't, so you really don't, regardless of whether the skill is transferable.
Your source is from 2006- regulations have increased in several fields since. It is also reflective of the entire workforce, and not just 'careers.' Many are working under circumstances that I wouldn't call a career (eg a teenagers part-time job). Still others are currently in positions within their career that may not currently require any kind of certification, but will require certification to proceed further. Others may not currently require certification, but will have progressed through lower positions that did require certification. Industry and government certification programs are a huge business, issuing hundreds of thousands of certifications every year, which is very significant compared to the rate of workforce growth. I admit that I don't have a hard figure on what the overall adjusted percentage would be, but I'd stake good money that it was well over 50%.
Not especially, once you consider that the tests are meaningless anyways. What reason is there - what specific, actual, tangible reason - to care that they are a little less meaningless when they are already so innately meaningless that you would support their abolition? You are arguing that we should enforce respect for an utterly non-respectable institution simply because it exists (and your primary rationale is an admittedly bad metaphor). Now that is ridiculous.
No, I'm arguing that we should try to make the best of a bad situation. Getting rid of it has never been a success thus far; if it can be improved at all, it should be. Really, I should be the one asking you to rationalize allowing an already bad situation to get even worse.
I agree that the data is limited; that was rather my point actually. I was not arguing that the dissent was widespread, but that you were making a blanket statement claim without the authority to do it or the evidence to substantiate it.
Well, if dissent was a majority, it would have to be a majority within a number of specific jurisdictions, wouldn't it? Were that the case, I'd expect to have seen legislation to that effect pushed through. Lacking statistical data, what we can observe seems to supports my stance on it more.
You did not already say that. In fact, you expressly argued that we have an obligation to prevent children from cheating themselves out of an education; if you retract that now that I have refuted it, fine.
This is my fault, and I'm sorry for that. I have a bad habit of referring to america as a whole as 'we' even when neither myself nor the person I'm talking to would necessarily hold the view. If you reread that statement in context, I was referring to a perceived general consensus as implied by the law and anecdotal evidence of its widespread approval. Recall that actually making changes to something like this is going to require voter support, and voter support is going to dictate how some of this plays out. I did not mean to cause you to conflate that with my own position. The reason I support keeping the phones out is to curtail cheating; not an attempt to fix one of several possible underlying causes of cheating. I know I type a lot, but if you reread with all that in mind you'll likely find it makes more sense and is more consistent.
The only value of standardized examination is that it is needed under the current system for accessing certain career tracts. It lacks its own intrinsic value and is not an end to itself. Consequentially, it may justifiably be subverted towards the end goal of career success and there is no real moral high ground in trying to curtail cheating. The testing system already fails to promote the smartest, most promising, most qualified individuals; the only difference between this and cheating is that an individual is deliberately taking advantage of a broken and corrupted system rather than incidentally being (dis)advantaged by it.
I know another thing that lacks its own intrinsic value and is not an end to itself- money. Which ties in pretty nicely with climbing the career ladder, after all. I would agree with you regarding the moral high ground and cheating deal, but remember that 'we' (sorry) don't like that. If cheating becomes perceived as easy, it gets attention, and its ultimately bad for everyone involved. When dealing with the masses, perceived moral high ground is enough, unfortunately.
I am hesitant to implement restrictions upon individuals when the benefits of doing so are not significant; in this particular instance, I do not think the benefits are. The only thing accomplished through prohibiting cell phones is that the exams are less illegitimate (and given your own caveat about high-tech, even this benefit is dubious). Because the beneficial effects are primarily contained within the exam system itself, I fail to see the merit to banning cell phones. I think it is worth considering, too, that providing a semblance of legitimacy to the exam system has the unfortunate side-effect of protracting its continued use under an illusion of exaggerated legitimacy.
All that being said, I think you are probably right in that we are not going to agree and are beginning to repeat ourselves. The only thing I could elaborate more on is the morality surrounding cheating, and the influence of popular conception upon that; I suspect you may not be interested in pursuing that further though (please do correct me if I am mistaken). I mostly wanted to concisely summarize my stance as you have done (thank you, by the way, for your clarifications throughout; they were quite helpful in understanding your point).
Making calls is one function a "smart" phone can perform. The point of school is in part to socialize the child and to contextualize information. A phone may give access, but usually it is a teacher how interprets and breaks down information for the student. School and learning often times requires long spans of undivided attention. Do you really think a child has the wisdom needed to use a phone properly? More often, they use it to play around, for mere entertainment. Though entertainment is important, school is primarily meant to educate. A phone often times just causes an unnecessary distraction. I work with children on a daily basis and many of them use phones for mere social purposes, such as to perpetuate gossip amongst themselves, to take pictures with friends and to make videos of themselves dancing. I'm not opposed to these uses, but during school hours they should be focused on learning. So many of them can't read and those who can have a hard time sifting through information. No one's life is dependent on a student having a phone, except perhaps in very few cases, and not enough to justify having them a cell phone during school hours.
Making calls is one function a "smart" phone can perform. The point of school is in part to socialize the child and to contextualize information. A phone may give access, but usually it is a teacher how interprets and breaks down information for the student. School and learning often times requires long spans of undivided attention. Do you really think a child has the wisdom needed to use a phone properly? More often, they use it to play around, for mere entertainment. Though entertainment is important, school is primarily meant to educate. A phone often times just causes an unnecessary distraction. I work with children on a daily basis and many of them use phones for mere social purposes, such as to perpetuate gossip amongst themselves, to take pictures with friends and to make videos of themselves dancing. I'm not opposed to these uses, but during school hours they should be focused on learning. So many of them can't read and those who can have a hard time sifting through information. No one's life is dependent on a student having a phone, except perhaps in very few cases, and not enough to justify having them a cell phone during school hours.
No because if a child is in trouble outside of school how would a parent know if he/sh is okay. it is wrong for the school to stop this because by not allowing the children to bring a phone it tempts them to hide it and bring. so instead of teachers complaining to children how they bring there phones is really no escuse. the whole fault is practically the school.
