Well...
This ban was introduced only because deputies are afraid of everything new. There is no other reason. They make decisions linearly: if they don't understand a phenomenon, they forbid it. This is very much in the spirit of the retrograde conservative tradition.
The authors of the law believe that the ban will help create a safe atmosphere in the classroom. The problem is that there are no teachers among them, they do not understand how to teach children. It's like the Sharikovs, who tell people with university degrees how to do their jobs.
The shame is that Parliament gets involved in school affairs. There is autonomy in the school, this is spelled out in the Russian law on education, which, by the way, is still one of the best in the world. It says that the director, the head teacher, and the parents of the school's charter can ban phones (though I don't know why). And, of course, there were such schools before.
But when a certain speaker comes and says that phones should be banned everywhere, the Duma takes on a very small resolution for no clear reason. So soon they will decide which toilet paper to use.
In addition to the fact that such minor issues should not concern politics at all, there are a number of other points that directly affect the children themselves.
Of course, the child's psyche cannot be broken so easily by taking away his gadget. But it's worth considering this.
The gadget is in our hands most of the time, this is the modern reality. What the children do in it is a separate issue that we will discuss later. But the fact remains that phones are a part of our lives.
And when they are selected and once again they tell the children no, without explaining the normal reasons, but just like that, it signals to them that adults, just out of their own whim, can forbid to do what is important. The children understand that once again people who are stronger than them have forbidden them something and taken power over them. This is, of course, an act of suppression.
At the same time, the authors say that it will be better for the students this way. But it's not true, it won't be better. Nothing is better from such prohibitions. And in the Soviet Union, bans did not make anyone feel better. Only then it wasn't about gadgets, but about some books.
This law attempts to "discipline" children. But what is discipline in school? This is a strange concept, because we are not talking about a prison or an army, but about an institution in which a child spends most of his time.
Discipline is a power concept. The school should operate with concepts from the field of art and education.
The bottom line is that the presence and absence of gadgets in no way affects the classroom environment. I studied when there were no gadgets yet, and everyone was going crazy as best they could, pulling girls' pigtails, throwing papers around and writing a three-letter word on the blackboard.
If the lessons are unprofessional, it is impossible to make the child listen and pay attention. Even if you take away his gadget at the same time, he will find a way to distract himself.
The gadget is a tool of the new age. It is clear that when it comes to boring and outdated lessons, children prefer the phone, this is logical. They feel that they don't need what they are teaching at all, they don't need to do it.
But there are several ways to interact with gadgets:
Talented teachers act like this.
Unfortunately, in our profession there are negligent teachers who sign their own helplessness when they ask the Duma to figure it out and make sure that children are not distracted in class. And whose task is it really to captivate a child? Teachers or politics?
So, with proper teaching, the gadget can not interfere, but complement the lesson and perfectly help to assimilate the material.
In general, school is needed to explore the world. And a gadget is one of the tools of cognition of this world and the main companion of today's young man, whether you like it or not.
And where else can you learn to interact with this subject, if not at school? But if they say "You can't" at school, there is immediately a corresponding reaction: "Oh, so the forbidden fruit is sweet."
And then what happens is what many parents and teachers complain about: the child is doing something incomprehensible on the phone. Of course, if he was taught that this is something forbidden and bad and cannot be used for normal purposes, then only porn can be watched there.
Normal productive relationships in the family and at school are not based on prohibitions or discipline. Violence is not a pedagogical tool.
Once again: the school exists in order to explore the world. It should be staffed by professionals. Therefore, instead of prohibitions, I would like these professionals to be able to build a lesson so that pedagogical magic would spin. So that the child does not just sit out the duty for 45 minutes, but understands that he is busy with something important, so that he is interested and cool.
It is very important that the student knows that what he is studying is relevant to him here and now.
Without the bullshit about what you need to learn now, and then in 20 years it will come in handy. It won't come in handy with this approach, you and I know that.
After all, a teacher is a profession. They are trained in it. A teacher can do something that a non-teacher cannot, he must know how to build a relationship with a child. And if a teacher uses prohibitions and punishments, then anyone can be in his place. So my dog can teach a lesson, just forbid everything and yell at the students. And they need to be interested.
Of course, this is not done in one second, it is a long process.
The apologists of the strong hand will answer this: "Now we will allow them everything, they will sit on our heads." They will sit on your head because you have taught them to do it. To the fact that, if not pressed, it is necessary to rebel. That is, the teachers themselves probably need to change their approach in this case.
The same applies to parents who support this ban. Unfortunately, some parents are accustomed to the fact that the state knows better. Some of them do not believe that their children are normal people, that it is possible to interact with them normally.
But the attitude to something starts at home. And instead of discussing with the child his attitude to gadgets, parents rely on politicians for some reason. So that politicians forbid their children to do things that adults don't like. If you don't want your child to be on the phone, set an example for him, hang out with him, let him consciously make this choice.
Children are not idiots.
