Anecdote: I have spoken to primary school teachers on the east coast of the United States who report that in recent years, there were not supported by parents and administrators when trying to separate kids from their phones ins school.

Yes it's true but it's not limited to or even primarily phones. It's disruptive students who cannot sit still or listen to lessons regardless of whether they have a phone or not. Phones are an easy scapegoat for shit parents who won't do anything to set their kids on the right path. Anything wrong their kids do must be because of someone else. Ban the phones all you want. These parents will still be shit parents and their kids will still be disruptive in classes. We cannot tackle anti-social behaviors because it's largely a protected political and religious class.

Cellphones is true, but it's mostly just another symptom of the disruptive kids.

The ones trying to do their best, who are not rude and inconsiderate of others, are usually quietly paying attention regardless of whether or not they have a phone with them. The disruptive ones are going to cause other ways to play up even if they could not have their phones with them.

Taking them implies they have respect to give them to you or you are willing to use force to get them. Neither exist.

Sending them home implies there is a parent who cares and will come.

Yes. It is an issue because 1. Phones are incredibly expensive now so if something happens to it parents are pissed. 2. The high prevalence of school shootings creates a feasible reason why students and their parents want their phones on their person.

Some school districts are starting to create firmer rules around this.

This was the case in schools 15+ years ago, but recently a lot have had more problems with parents complaining about teachers taking away their child's phone.

Part of it is that phones are more expensive, a $900 iPhone vs a $100 Nokia.

Another is (perhaps founded) anxiety about their child needing to have a way to communicate to the outside world in an emergency situation like a school shooting.

Also people get used to things, and modern parents have grown used to being able to text and check on their child any time of day at any location versus sending them off on their bike with no phone and telling them to be back by the time the street lights come on.

It's definitely a problem that needs to be addressed and it needs strong backing from higher levels of administration so it doesn't become an argument of each teacher versus angry parents.

> Another is (perhaps founded) anxiety about their child needing to have a way to communicate to the outside world in an emergency situation like a school shooting.

Yes, a situation less likely to happen than being struck by lightning. Very founded!

Not to mention you can just, I dunno, borrow anyone else's phone and have one or two phone numbers memorized? Assuming if they are in an emergency and alone they are not going to be saved by a phone.

It's rare, but scary, and humans are often bad at judging things that are rare but scary.

I'm not saying it's a good net reason to let kids keep their phones, it's just founded in some real things that have happened in this country, including a famous case where kids were calling/texting parents while police waited for over an hour before entering, while blocking parents who had arrived from entering the school.

Letting kids have their phones isn't an actual solution to that problem, but right now in a lot of places that's the argument each teacher has to have with each parent. It's better for the state, county, etc. to pass an explicit policy about phones in the classroom so teachers can just point to that policy instead of having to rehash the argument with every parent.