U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-25-2011, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Da Parish
1,127 posts, read 4,448,868 times
Reputation: 985

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal View Post
What is that supposed to mean???

My kids don't have a cell phone for their convenience, they have one for MY convenience. They have one so I don't have to sit in a parking lot waiting for them to come home from a sporting or band activity trying to guess when they will be home. They have one so if I want to get a hold of them, I can. They are properly supervised, thank you. They are great kids.

It meant that a properly supervised kid does not need a cell phone. You yourself said it was a convenience. I think you would agree that ultimately your children do not need a phone; they could get by without one because they are properly supervised.

I also did not imply that kids with cell phones were not great kids. My post was not a personal attack and I am frankly surprised at your somewhat testy response. I certainly could understand if you disagreed with me and felt that despite being properly supervised, it was still a necessity to have a phone, but it seems that you agree; a phone is not needed; it is nothing more than a convenience.

Perhaps this thread is not for me, I thought I added to the discussion by offering up my opinion, instead someone felt attacked. I'll leave this topic alone because that was not my intention. Y'all have a nice day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2011, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Middle America
35,821 posts, read 39,409,007 times
Reputation: 48621
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2 View Post
I find it difficult to believe that a child is unable to communicate with the use of an Apple product. I think it's just a case of the child WANTING to use those devices. Aren't there programs affiliated with schools to provide for special needs to children ot have the devices they need? When my father was superintendent, I know firsthand that the school system found a way for children to get different things that parents couldn't afford out of pocket. So I'm not buying the use of an Apple product. IEP or not.
Actually,regardless of what you believe, the products from Apple that are being increasingly used as adaptive communication devices for nonverbal students with special needs are soaring in prescription, and there's a very good reason. They are MUCH less costly than the previous models available to kids with these disabilities.

We're talking an iPad that does the same thing as the previously used adaptive electronic device for a few hundred bucks instead of several thousand. I'm no huge Apple fan in general, but when it gives a kid who can't speak a voice at a cost that's FAR more affordable to his or her family, I have to applaud. In some cases, families provide adaptive devices. In some cases, districts do. In the cases where districts are footing the bill, it's absolutely in everyone's best interest to get the most bang for the buck, and money that's saved by going the iPad route for communicative devices is money that can be put to other uses to meet kids' needs. Why spend more than you have to when there is now a product that's just as good and cheaper? If it gets damaged, as is often the case, given that many nonverbal students, particularly those with autism, may exhibit behavior that could damage the device, it's also much less costly to replace or repair.

Do you know any kids who are mute? It's not a matter of "Gee, I think this iPad is really cool." It's a matter of, "Wow, I can communicate with others without somebody having to spend thousands upon thousands upon thousands of (often taxpayer) dollars for a machine that will talk for me, and, bonus, it looks socially "normal," so can participate in society without looking completely out of place, like I used to look carrying my PECS book around on a string around my neck and communicating with people in pictures, or relying solely on gestures that may or may not be understood. I just look like any other kid out in public, carrying a tablet."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Middle America
35,821 posts, read 39,409,007 times
Reputation: 48621
Quote:
Originally Posted by StarlaJane View Post
It's one thing when technology makes our lives simpler and easier to manage. It's quite another when we become so dependent on it that we cannot function without it or that it begins to interfere with our lives to the point of becoming the main focal point. If you look at a lot of people who own cell phones, they have the same addiction and dependency on them as those who smoke have on cigarettes, or that drug abusers have on drugs. That is not a healthy relationship.
This, to a tee. ^^

There is plenty of talk on this thread about students who truly ARE dependent on electronics as the most useful and adaptive means of communication available to them. This is an example of technology enhancing one's academic experience, not only making one's life simpler and easier to manage, but actually allowing people greater independence around a disability.

That's in a whole different ballpark than really feeling put out that you can't play Angry Birds when whatever's going on in school has exceeded your short attention span.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 01:45 PM
 
15,302 posts, read 16,858,284 times
Reputation: 15025
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2 View Post
Those are devices specifically designed for people with various impairments. I find it difficult to believe that a child is unable to communicate with the use of an Apple product. I think it's just a case of the child WANTING to use those devices. Aren't there programs affiliated with schools to provide for special needs to children ot have the devices they need? When my father was superintendent, I know firsthand that the school system found a way for children to get different things that parents couldn't afford out of pocket. So I'm not buying the use of an Apple product. IEP or not.
The products that schools use are often way more expensive than an Ipad and the apps that are provided free or very inexpensively are often better now than those on the expensive devices.

My grandson had a dynavox which was too heavy to carry around and which did not have the capabilities his iPad has. The school, however, will not allow him to bring his Ipad and they have had a consult which claims he does not need a technological aide for his communication. Unfortunately, they don't really understand why he needs this. It has to do with speech that is not easily understood and being very frustrated when they don't understand him.

If you actually saw what the Ipad is capable of with specific apps for students with speech problems or autism, you might actually get an eye opener. We started with proloquo2go and it brought him from speech that was like that of a 2 year old to speech that is more like that of a 5 year old. Other things helped him get further along.

10 Revolutionary iPad Apps to Help Autistic Children | Gadgets DNA
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 02:31 PM
 
15,762 posts, read 13,191,044 times
Reputation: 19651
I really do not understand the strawman issues going on in this thread.

Those of us who are advocating for allowing phones and ipods in school are being pegged as wanting to allow students indiscriminate use of them despite stating multiple times the opposite.

I would no more allow a child to play Angry Birds on their phone during class time then I would allow them to play it on a computer. Computers can be either a positive tool in a classroom or a dangerous distraction, no different than a phone can be, but people are not out there talking about people's addiction to computers and checking their email or fb as a distraction during school because the students computer use is monitored. That is the exact same thing we do with phones.

What I want to know how many people with a phone policy allowing students to have their phones on them and only use them when allowed by individual teachers dislike the policy? So far of those of us who have stated we have such a policy at our schools, the opinions are also positive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 02:40 PM
 
11,151 posts, read 13,802,177 times
Reputation: 18791
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
What I want to know how many people with a phone policy allowing students to have their phones on them and only use them when allowed by individual teachers dislike the policy? So far of those of us who have stated we have such a policy at our schools, the opinions are also positive.
My school's policy is that students may use their cellphones/electronics during non-instructional time. That means before/after school, lunch, and during passing time.

I *hate* it.

They walk through the halls texting, arrive to class still texting, tuck their phones in their pockets and (surreptitiously) continue to text through class. When I catch them, I give them one chance to put it away. After that, I confiscate it and -- depending how many times I've had to do that previously -- I'll either give it back at the end of class or turn it in to the main office for pick-up after school.

I'm sorry, but parents do NOT need to be calling/texting their kids during the school day. Period. If it's an emergency, call the main office. If it's NOT an emergency, leave a voice mail and your child can listen to it when the final bell rings.

And note that I'm not referring to phone usage as part of the instructional process. Some of our teachers utilize iPads, and I know that some kids read e-books on their phones during D.E.A.R. It's the texting that's an unnecessary distraction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 02:44 PM
 
15,762 posts, read 13,191,044 times
Reputation: 19651
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark of the Moon View Post
My school's policy is that students may use their cellphones/electronics during non-instructional time. That means before/after school, lunch, and during passing time.

I *hate* it.

They walk through the halls texting, arrive to class still texting, tuck their phones in their pockets and (surreptitiously) continue to text through class. When I catch them, I give them one chance to put it away. After that, I confiscate it and -- depending how many times I've had to do that previously -- I'll either give it back at the end of class or turn it in to the main office for pick-up after school.

I'm sorry, but parents do NOT need to be calling/texting their kids during the school day. Period. If it's an emergency, call the main office. If it's NOT an emergency, leave a voice mail and your child can listen to it when the final bell rings.

And note that I'm not referring to phone usage as part of the instructional process. Some of our teachers utilize iPads, and I know that some kids read e-books on their phones during D.E.A.R. It's the texting that's an unnecessary distraction.
So would you want the school to disallow phones completely?

I understand texting is a problem but do you think that is because of a problem enforcing consequences or do you think it is impossible for phones to be used responsibly in school under any circumstances?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Middle America
35,821 posts, read 39,409,007 times
Reputation: 48621
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkb0714 View Post
I would no more allow a child to play Angry Birds on their phone during class time then I would allow them to play it on a computer.
But that's exactly the point. It's simply not necessary to be put in the position where one is spending an ever-increasing amount of precious instructional time having to monitor and police YET ANOTHER potential distraction, when it really needn't even be an issue, and wouldn't be, if the potential distractor were removed. Phones are truly just NOT NECESSARY at school for the vast majority of people, if not all.

Quote:
Computers can be either a positive tool in a classroom or a dangerous distraction, no different than a phone can be, but people are not out there talking about people's addiction to computers and checking their email or fb as a distraction during school because the students computer use is monitored. That is the exact same thing we do with phones.
It's much harder to be surreptitious with a large computer screen in full view of the teacher and other students than a small, handheld device, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 05:03 PM
 
15,762 posts, read 13,191,044 times
Reputation: 19651
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa View Post
But that's exactly the point. It's simply not necessary to be put in the position where one is spending an ever-increasing amount of precious instructional time having to monitor and police YET ANOTHER potential distraction, when it really needn't even be an issue, and wouldn't be, if the potential distractor were removed. Phones are truly just NOT NECESSARY at school for the vast majority of people, if not all.
You keep ignoring the FACT that children are completely IGNORING the rules about having no phones at school. Last year, when we had a no phone policy at my school, I had to spend inordinate amounts of time telling children to give me their phones. Now with the new policy, I have had to tell ONE child to give me their phone the entire first month of school.

I like this policy ONLY because I spend significantly LESS time dealing with phones than I did before.

The difference isn't to have NO rules but to have realistic rules. Instead of NO PHONES we now have a phones at lunch policy. When you have a rule as ridiculous as no cell phones in a school ever, you are conditioning children (and their parents) to ignore rules entirely, whereas when you have a reasonable rule, in which they got to have input, they are much more likely to not only obey that rule but are no longer being conditioned to ignore rules.


Quote:
It's much harder to be surreptitious with a large computer screen in full view of the teacher and other students than a small, handheld device, though.
Not really sure why you think it is easier to monitor children using computers. The nature of the typical laptop cart found in most schools, is that you cannot see what the kids are doing at all unless you move to the back of the classroom, as opposed to the obvious sign of a child picking up the phone that is supposed to be untouched on the corner of their desk. But its a moot point.

You keep ignoring the fact that phones are not being used in class. At the beginning of class when they are doing bellwork they open their notebooks, take out a pen and put their phones on the corner of their desk. At which point it is untouched until the end of the period.

Really, which is easier to surreptitiously use, a phone hidden in a pocket or purse or one on the corner of the desk?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2011, 05:12 PM
 
Location: Ohio
3,441 posts, read 4,989,368 times
Reputation: 2656
The electronic toys stay in your pocket or purse, it comes out during class time you lose it until the end of the day, not the end of class.

It seems we all survived when we went to school without cellphones. you needed to call home there were pay phones or you could use the one in the front office.

A lot of the texting going on is between two students in the same class, like their conversation is THAT important.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Education
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top