Headmistress scuppered by red tape as she tried to use mobile phone jamming tech | Hacker News Reader

Headmistress scuppered by red tape as she tried to use mobile phone jamming tech

telegraph.co.uk

14 pointsatomical71 comments

Why all this tech effort when simple authority and transparency will do? Build a multi-compartment lucite / acrylic (clear) box, where each slot can hold 1 phone. Students enter and turn off phone notifications, put in a cubby, then take their seat. Retrieve phone at end of class.

In certain circumstances - pending family news perhaps - a student might ask and be permitted to keep their phone on their person. If there's other unexpected family emergencies, contact the school, not the student directly. The expectation of being able to bypass the school isn't a fair one to me.

As an occasional educator, I'm quite fond of the "beacuse I said so and I'm paid to tell you what to do" philosophy of having a little leeway with maintaining authority for a group of 10-30 pupils. Behavior doesn't always improve with age. Certain strategies exist for a reason.

Most of the teachers at my daughters' school do this, or at least they use a cardboard box on the desk at the front. All phones in there at the start, pick them up on the way out. Anyone caught taking a sneaky peak at a phone in class gets detention.

My wife is a teacher, and they are not allowed to take students' phones during class, as the school then would be responsible for the phones; "where is my iPhone, I put it in the box?", "my phone is scratched, it was fine when I gave it to you", the list goes on...

Wife is also a teacher. In addition to the issues with liability, there is also the exhaustion aspect. With 7 classes a day of 37 students on average, trying to take away the phones becomes more effort than it is worth. It takes, say, 2 minutes per person to take away the phone and give it back at the end of class. Say we have 10 students, about 1 out of 3 students, that have this issue with attention (likely a low estimate). That's 20 minutes out of the 50 she has per class. There is a 5 minute passing period. You also have to attend to the other 36 students while the phone surrendering process takes place. You can change those number how you'd like, but trying to do this everyday, 7 times a day becomes, 5 days a week ... it becomes pointless. They talk back, as teenagers do, they start fights with teachers, they refuse to admit they have a phone, etc. The hassle of trying to get the phone out of their hands is useless. Effectively, you are forced to triage those individuals and focus on the students that want to learn.

And yes, the school is supposed to take the phones from the students that have proven themselves to be untrustworthy at the beginning of the day. This rarely occurs as 2000 students stream into their classrooms (you hope) about 5 minutes before the bell. You can call the front office to come in and take the phones away during first period, but they are usually busy with other aspects of running the school (truancy, regular discipline issues, legal drug administration, illegal drug confiscation, planning meetings, grading, etc). If the kind is on a phone, that is less of a priority than fights and other regular school discipline issues, so it gets left behind.

Yeah, the liability there seems too much. It seems like this would be pretty easy to enforce other ways, though. Use your phone in class? Immediate detention. Suspension if it's happening repeatedly. Alternatively, immediate confiscation. Goes into a padded envelope and waits for a parent to claim it.

I have seen hanging behind-the-closet-door shoe organizers used for this purpose. You don't have to build anything. You can get 24 clear plastic pockets for $12.

Seems like a good way to get your phone stolen. I wouldn't be comfortable leaving my cell phone like that.

The head teacher is talking about bullying happening on social media which is interfering with student's school life.

> Ms Poley said: “Ultimately, all students need to be able to come into school feeling supported and safe and be able to concentrate on the next 13 weeks of study and revision.

> “I will take much stronger exclusion action on any further unnecessary ‘social’ fall-outs which impact on school life and ask you to support us by monitoring mobile phone usage at home.

(Edit: I didn't downvote you.)

Why shouldn't students be allowed to use their phones during class? In college we all had laptops in front of us in every lecture and it didn't stop us from learning.

Because younger children are less disciplined and perhaps not as aware of the harm they are causing themselves by playing candy crush in their maths lesson.

In college you are 18+, mature enough to make your own decisions, at 11 - 17 most (not all) are unable to do this. Why do you need a phone in school anyway? Why do you need twitter or facebook or candycrush so immediately?

Yes in an emergency they would be useful, but lets be honest many people survived their schooldays with a mobile phone so I am not sure why you feel that a 12year old must have a mobile phone with them at all times.

In UK, "6th form college" = 16-18 year olds

Yes, with most being under 18 and those who are 18 are almost finished in college and will leave for employment or university.

The article mentions this is a college

In the UK college is for 16-18 year olds, university in the UK is the equivalent of a IS college.

There's no such thing as 'multitasking'. Its just 'not paying attention'. I'd bet dollars to donuts it did stop/impair learning, drastically. To claim otherwise will require some citation?

College is fundamentally different. First of all you're a lot older and more mature and secondly you're there (both in that class and in school in general) because you want to be. Also in many cases you're actually paying to be there (if nothing else with opportunity cost). That gives you entirely different incentives to learn.

Finally there is no consensus about whether or not laptops in lectures help or hinder learning.

Part-time university lecturer here. If I could ban phones from my classes, I would. They are distracting, rude and affect concentration like you would expect. I introduced my students to pomodoros for practical work (phones upside-down, on silent, and only music without singing allowed on headphones) and the results were fabulous. This was not a scientific study, but results are result.

Personally I'm really glad we didn't have phones or laptops at university, or else I'd probably never have learned anything in lectures.

She should make use of the draconian UK laws under the Education Act 2010 around mobile phones in schools and just start seizing the phones.

https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Education_Act_2011

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/21/section/2/enacte...

(We haven't heard much about these laws. I don't think most people on HN, even the privacy conscious people in UK have heard much about them.)

What teacher would want to use those powers?

If, as suggested, they're intended for looking at 'sexting' images, then the teacher would be looking at child pornography.

If they delete an image, the evidence is destroyed¹.

"Mr Brown took my phone to look at the pictures I'd sent to <boyfriend>. He's creepy, he stares at me in class" — no thanks!

¹ Ignoring recovery methods

This is just nuts.

Looking for a tech solution to a human problem. If a kid in my class was misusing their phone or laptop, I'd just take it away for a period of time. Simple. If they are repeat offenders, I'd throw their screen on the projector. Or read out their chat log :-)

But I'd rather they have internet access than not. Even if it means they use social media.

Yup. It's as if they used technological solution to keep children in class - a door lock. Or to keep them seated and looking at the blackboard - restraints.

> red tape

...

> Such technology is illegal because jammers are likely to affect wider areas and other frequencies than those they are intended for. They can also result in the disruption of emergency and rescue radio services in the public area.

Oh fuck off. This isn't red tape, this is the law doing exactly what it's supposed to: protecting public safety and people's access to an essential service.

I'd love to see this principal bleating about "red tape" to the coroner after one of her students is hit by a car out the front of the school, and dies because nobody can call an ambulance.

(Well, no, I'm glad that this nonsense is being nipped in the bud before something awful like that happens, but that's exactly the scenario this idiot is setting herself up for.)

Even if they did manage to block 3G, 4G, and WiFi - it's almost impossible to block Bluetooth. Hey-presto, P2P communication which is impossible to effectively monitor.

Oh, and trust the The Telegraph go with the archaic term "headmistress" - the term preferred by most people in education is "headteacher". Take a look at the school's own website - http://www.wensleydale.n-yorks.sch.uk/Our-School/The-Governi...

Well, now she will have to use alternatives like .. more interesting lessons. Or taking smartphones at the start of class, that could work too.

I often day-dream of making a faraday-cage bar, or restaurant. I'd put a ton of signs up making it clear that phones won't work inside, and people enter know that , etc. etc.

I think it would be nice to go out and actually talk to people, rather than just sit at a table of people playing with their phones.

App idea for anyone w/ mobile dev: Required to bring into school, it gives each student 45 minutes of internet per day while in the school and between the hours of open/close set by the school. Presumably those will be used during lunch/recess/switching classes/emergencies - school can see a list of all students w/ the app installed who checked into the school, could even be used to take attendance... though I guess someone could take a friend's phone to school and fake their attendance... so maybe not..

For sixth-form in my school they have a very relaxed approach to mobile phones. Don't blatantly be ignoring what the teacher is saying and just using your phone, and also don't disrupt other people in the class with your phone.

It works very well. I can't remember the last time someone was abusing the privilege. I mean we all usually have our phones out in class anyways to open formulas, research quick things, make notes or check work. It's never been a problem.

"scuppered"

New word I learned today.

You never hear that word in the US, its very British. I wonder if it is even rare there today.

Jamming radio is frowned upon. She could create Faraday-cage classrooms though. Maybe start with a study room in the library? :)

I imagine that would even be cheaper.

I think aluminum foil wallpaper might be enough. You could probably force the kids to help you line the walls. Anti-static bags could fill the gaps where the windows are.

Many modern 3 pane windows are already blocking cell phone radio.

This is not a case of red tape. Preventing emergancy signals or signals from other users is illegal, get over it and recoup some of the money wasted on a jammer.

Exactly. Something like this is so blatantly and obviously illegal that it's frankly surprising that anyone even proposed this plan.

Also it's shocking that the article's headline seems to imply that the head is in the right here.

I agree. You try to stop my kid from being able to contact me or the emergency services and my kid won't be in your school.

I went through 10+ years of schooling where I could not immediately contact my parents and I and many others survived just fine. I think that school aged children having mobile devices probably does more harm than good when you factor in cyber bullying. Has there been an occasion where your child has had to contact you in an emergency?

For everyone who is misinterpreting this statement. I am not suggesting that jamming phone signals is acceptable. It isn't for the very reasons provided to the headteacher in the article. What I am suggesting is that children do not need access to their devices during lesson time, at which point the children are being supervised by a responsible adult (the teacher) who is able to contact emergency services or parents in the event of an emergency. Requiring students to hand in and retrieve their mobile phones from teachers at the start and end of a lesson is an entirely reasonable solution to the problem being faced by this (and probably many others) school.

I often had to call my parents to pick me up, both because of snow days and after school activities. Depending on pay phones for this was a giant hassle.

It's also ridiculous that someone who has a life threatening accident near this school might not be able to call emergency services from their cellphone.

Your appeal to cyber bullying is also baseless unless you can provide some evidence that blocking cell phones at school will accomplish this. This kind of hollow emotional appeal is how we end up with draconian laws that don't actually accomplish anything except massive inconvenience.

You are conflating two issues here. I am against the use of jammers, the UK govt has strict laws against this for the very reasons provided to this headteacher and which you refer to when you mention accident reporting to emergency services. We have no disagreement on that issue.

I had those issues to, but the school notified parents if the school was closing early due to adverse weather and I made arrangements in advance for after school activities, same way I made arrangements to meet friends before we had mobile phones.

re: cyber bullying I never supported the blocking of cell phone access. My point was that we can survive without having them available to us 24/7. In a school setting having children hand them in and collect them from the teacher at the start/end of every lesson is a reasonable solution. Should some catastrophe befall the the student the teacher is there to call emergency services or contact the parents, if the catastrophe occurs on the way home or the way to school or at break time then the student has their phone.

Your previous comment, made in this thread, makes it sound like you supported the jamming. I completely agree that students don't need their phones with the 24/7.

I don't agree with having the teacher collect them and give them back out because that sounds like a massive waste of time, but students could keep them in their locker, or in their backpacks (with the understanding that use during class would result in immediate confiscation for the day/until a parent collected it), or whatever. They don't need them in hand during class, clearly.

Apologies if my first comment was unclear. seems like we agree.

Me too! Now that you mention it, I've never even had to call 911 once in my life.

I guess we can just start putting cell phone jammers up everywhere and it'll be fine.

Perhaps you misunderstood me, at no point did i say jamming phone signals was acceptable. 24/7 access to a mobile device is what i was suggesting was unnecssary.

That's anecdotal evidence. What's to say your experience reflects the experience of all children in school today?

please see my edit.

There are other means for a child to make contact aside from personal mobile devices. Conventional phones, for example. At our local school, all mobile devices are put in lockers and are not allowed in class.

And in an emergency you can walk to the locker, retrieve the phone, and make a call. It makes no sense to require landline use in an emergency when mobile phones provide a valuable backup.

What makes no sense is y'all allowing your children to be spied on by Google/Apple/Microsoft/Facebook/Snapchat/NSA/GCHQ 24/7 on an age when they don't know better.

I'm sure the NSA and GCHQ are super-interested in spying on the inane texts that kids send each other while sitting in high school math class.

Had an email to all parents today, saying that if your child is unwell.. they are still not allowed to call their parents to let them know. I'm contemplating a strongly worded response..

You know the school is responsible for them while their in the premises, right?

Yes.. but if my child is unwell and feels like they want to talk to a parent.. and they have the means to do so.. I do not feel the school has the right to stop them.. especially if it might comfort the child.

The right to stop them? Of course not. They have the obligation of providing a telephone for it to happen. You're only making up excuses.

The schools have no landlines and/or public phones, is that what you're saying?

How do I bring up my contact list on this thing? Where's the screen? These are some funny little buttons. What's this slot for? Wait. You mean I'd have to carry quarters around? All the time, just in case I might want to make a phone call? Can't I use Rixty or Bitcoin or Paypal or something instead? What if I just need to send a text?

It would be a lot like asking the kids who attended school before mobile phone ubiquity to use morse code over telegraph lines instead of touch-tone dialing on the public phones or the phone in the office.

If you want to force kids to live in the past, do it in history class. Otherwise, adapt your policies and curriculum for the times in which we all live.

I think expecting kids to remember one emergency contact phone number in case they're not able to use their mobile for whatever reason is entirely reasonable, and not remotely comparable to expecting them to be able to use morse code.

No, it would be more like expecting me, when I was a child, to know how to send a morse coded telegram, when I had my parents' phone numbers memorized, and the touch-tone land-line telephone is right there.

Or it would be like expecting a kid able to send a morse code telegram to write a letter and have it delivered by the postal system, when the morse key and telegraph line is right there.

Or it would be like expecting a kid who knows how to write a letter and use the postal addressing system to inscribe and fire a cuneiform tablet then pay a random itinerant to carry it to the next town, when there's a post office right there.

It's unnecessarily forcing someone to use the previous generation of communications technology.

And if mobile phones were 100% guaranteed to be charged when you need them, that would be fine, but since they're not, asking a child to memorise a few digits so they're able to use someone else's phone in an emergency is perfectly reasonable redundancy.

Also, as far as I know, there wasn't ever a time when people knew how to send telegrams, but didn't know how to write letters. Indeed most people didn't know how to send telegrams with a telegraph key at all, they'd just write up their message and take it to an office to be keyed by an operator. A process which is largely identical to posting a letter.

You know you can recharge a cellphone, right? In fact you can make a call while it's still charging! Guaranteed one of your friends has a charger you can use.

Guaranteed? What makes you so sure? And then you need to find a power socket you can use (not difficult in a school, but could be elsewhere), and wait for the minimum charge level, and then wait for it to boot.

But if you know the number, you can use your friend's phone in a few seconds.

Same reason you're sure that one of your friends will have a cellphone. The numbers make it exceedingly likely.

You can't call an "emergency contact phone number" from a payphone without the right change unless that number is 911 (or the local equivalent). My kid[1] can't call me from a payphone in an emergency. Not only does my kid not carry change, but won't know my number. I don't even know my own mom's number.

And yes, the secretary/front desk/whatever can call me on behalf of my child, but that seems pretty ridiculous, too when everyone already owns a cell phone.

[1] My kid is two years old, so this is obviously academic for me at this point.

>You can't call an "emergency contact phone number" from a payphone

Of course, and you probably couldn't even find one in the first place.

But you could borrow a friend's phone, or ask a teacher to use a school phone, or even just ask someone in a random store if you're desperate. Just having access to that number without a charged mobile takes you from helpless to having many options, and it takes minimal effort. (Hell, write it down if you have to.)

Sure, but you could also just call on your cellphone like everyone else does all the time. What is the point of complicating it? It's totally reasonable to ask your kid to memorize your number in case of an emergency (or their cellphone actually breaks). That's entirely different from saying it's reasonable that kids can't use their cellphones and need to rely on pay phones.

Yes? That's exactly what I said.

This whole thread was about banning/blocking cellphones. Your initial reply made it sound like you agreed that this was fine because kids should memorize an emergency number anyway. I see now that wasn't your intent.

Man, you live in a padded bubble. When the real world slaps you and your children in the face with a shovel you're all dead.

I haven't used a payphone in at least a decade. I haven't carried a calling card in nearly two decades. I have change in my pocket that could be used for a payphone maybe twice a year.

It makes no sense to expect students to use a payphone in this day and age. How many schools even have working payphones now? I bet most had them removed or disconnected because no one uses payphones anymore.

It also nicely ignores that you're not blocking it at school. You're causing interference for an entire area.

The article is weird though; "think of the children", "red tape", etc. Too much intended to trigger a response.

Would be turning a room into big Faraday's cage with the sole purpose of preventing radio communication also illegal? Let's assume people are free to leave the room if they need.

No, but you'd need a better Faraday cage than a microwave.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com