I can't give a lot of details without doxing myself, but I went to a school that restricted mobile phone usage a lot after an incident that students recorded and attracted a lot of negative attention from parents. After the crackdown, bad stuff kept happening (girls getting beaten by boyfriends, cruel bullying, kids yelling slurs and whatnot) but it just wasn't recorded and publicized. The school's security personnel would act like cops and confiscate your phone if you tried to record something like that.

On the other hand, you're totally right about capital wanting better access to children's data. And my anecdotal experience from going to university and using my phone during some lectures is that it definitely is an impediment to learning, I shouldn't do that stuff (obviously there is no reasonable argument for regulating this on an organizational basis since university students are adults).

I don't know if I have a firm position, yet, honestly.

all in all, i disagree with nothing you've pointed out here. i think the issue becomes the assertion that varying forms of policing students mind and body is an appropriate and educationally productive way to engage the problem of student phone use. i think we're way too willing to accept what amounts to violence towards children to keep them in line. we must build an education system that helps them put down the phone, makes them want to put down the phone. but as i pointed out, the issue here isn't really the phone at all per se, not on its own. students that find themselves unable to detach from the phone but still desire to be educated are easily accommodated by giving them a place to put their phone during class with the teacher. when a student doesn't want to engage with the class at a given time, this is not alleviated by taking away one object of concentration and substituting another (phone replaced by book/sleep/general dissociation). yet that is the result of the action. instead, we have to change society and education so that students actually desire to be educated, or can be motivated to be educated without explicit threat of force and violence, and can be allowed days off without being left behind.

you are being reactionary. asserting that "people did school just fine before phones. emergency is the only reason i can think of or know about and therefore the only actual reason," does not essentially differ from any other argument of the form "X was fine before the advent of techology Y, therefore technology Y is at best redundant and probably harmful." that's not even an argument, it's just the form of a thought-terminating cliche. there are even kids now running their diabetes pump off their phone. it's also the case that a small minority of young people are legitimately "addicted" to their phones. when a student recedes from the educational setting, it does not differ whether it's into tiktok or a book. and they're doing that for psychological reasons that need to be addressed at the root, not by furthering controlling and mandating the body and mind. you are advocating for a blanket application of discipline and punishment solely on the grounds that you are unimaginative and ignorant.

Would have been interesting to have video evidence of bullying to take to teachers and parents instead of being shut down with "don't be a tattle-tale".

Cellphone bans in school are about one thing and one thing only: eliminating, or at least significantly reducing the number of, recordings of 911 calls made by children during the next school shooting. Look at how hard they are still trying to cover up Uvalde.

if my memory serves, not that long ago she did a piece that in part debunks Jonathan Haidt's panic mongering about kids on phones, and i believe makes several points about why a student might have valid reason to use their phone during school hours, and that it doesn't make sense to just short-circuit your brain and start doing police actions at the kids.

edit: found the video she did about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBLX3fzNIrE