The article gives little to no detail about the law or what’s changed. It makes claims that this was a pilot program implemented in 180 schools whereby students were required to place cell phones in a pouch or locker they couldn’t access during school hours. It makes claims that this was successful, and therefore a ban will be implemented. It doesn’t say if this ban will use the same protocol (having students place phones in a locked pouch or locker they don’t have access to for the school day). It doesn’t state how this differs at all from previous laws that prohibit students from using mobile phones on school premises which were implemented in 2018.
It doesn’t explain what the “separation of student from phone” looks like, or what the repercussions will be for students found with a phone. It says nothing about protocols to properly store the devices (and what will happen in the event of an emergency where the device is a danger to students or property).
It gives literally no details, and doesn’t even link to the law in question.
A further guardian article I found says it is receiving criticism for some of the problems I have previously detailed (though not all of them). That same article strongly advances the idea that cell phone use is a detriment to children’s health and inference can be made that this is the main reason for such a ban, but this ban does not fundamentally solve this problem in any way.
It doesn’t say they are expanding the implementation used in the trial nation wide. That is an assumption you made that the writer likely also made and didn’t follow-up. This is just a poorly written article full stop.
Your argument is terrible, and poorly defended. You only went and read the article after you started making arguments to me. I read the article before I made my first comment because I had a lot of questions that were not answered and still haven’t been answered. That’s literally because the media is doing a poor job of explaining this situation and the law in question.
Okay, to be quite honest, you’re reading way too deep into a matter that doesn’t even concern you considering you’re not a resident of France, and I’m probably wasting too much of my own time even entertaining your rambling.
So we’ll stop here. I’ll just close with what I know from experience with these kinds of policies, they always come out rough and broad but the details can (and will) be refined as its implementation spreads nationwide and they start covering the pot holes.
And it will spread nationwide, because it wouldn’t make sense in the context of France to have a government-funded program only apply to a small region of France. It’s not a municipal policy and France isn’t composed of individual, sovereign states either.
Again, none of these things should need to be said since that’s pretty much how all new policy launches work. And as usual, the person I’m debating doesn’t even know the basics of how X country operates and apparently don’t know how policy works in general, yet still they believe they can educate me on this matter. So I’m forced to conclude this indeed must be a day ending in -y.
The article gives little to no detail about the law or what’s changed. It makes claims that this was a pilot program implemented in 180 schools whereby students were required to place cell phones in a pouch or locker they couldn’t access during school hours. It makes claims that this was successful, and therefore a ban will be implemented. It doesn’t say if this ban will use the same protocol (having students place phones in a locked pouch or locker they don’t have access to for the school day). It doesn’t state how this differs at all from previous laws that prohibit students from using mobile phones on school premises which were implemented in 2018.
It doesn’t explain what the “separation of student from phone” looks like, or what the repercussions will be for students found with a phone. It says nothing about protocols to properly store the devices (and what will happen in the event of an emergency where the device is a danger to students or property).
It gives literally no details, and doesn’t even link to the law in question.
A further guardian article I found says it is receiving criticism for some of the problems I have previously detailed (though not all of them). That same article strongly advances the idea that cell phone use is a detriment to children’s health and inference can be made that this is the main reason for such a ban, but this ban does not fundamentally solve this problem in any way.
It doesn’t say they are expanding the implementation used in the trial nation wide. That is an assumption you made that the writer likely also made and didn’t follow-up. This is just a poorly written article full stop.
Your argument is terrible, and poorly defended. You only went and read the article after you started making arguments to me. I read the article before I made my first comment because I had a lot of questions that were not answered and still haven’t been answered. That’s literally because the media is doing a poor job of explaining this situation and the law in question.
Okay, to be quite honest, you’re reading way too deep into a matter that doesn’t even concern you considering you’re not a resident of France, and I’m probably wasting too much of my own time even entertaining your rambling.
So we’ll stop here. I’ll just close with what I know from experience with these kinds of policies, they always come out rough and broad but the details can (and will) be refined as its implementation spreads nationwide and they start covering the pot holes.
And it will spread nationwide, because it wouldn’t make sense in the context of France to have a government-funded program only apply to a small region of France. It’s not a municipal policy and France isn’t composed of individual, sovereign states either.
Again, none of these things should need to be said since that’s pretty much how all new policy launches work. And as usual, the person I’m debating doesn’t even know the basics of how X country operates and apparently don’t know how policy works in general, yet still they believe they can educate me on this matter. So I’m forced to conclude this indeed must be a day ending in -y.
Speaking of day, have a good one!