Spokane School Jams Cell Phones

95 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  JeanieSpokane on March 08 at 11:04 a.m.

  Yes, I support it. I hope it is legal. And I won’t take the excuse of what if there is an emergency at home and Mom is trying to reach her child because that is what the school secretary is for. There is no place for cell phones inside a classroom.

• 

  Bent on March 08 at 11:26 a.m.

  Only $100…I am net surfing as we speak. I want one for my car. I commute to spokane everyday, and when I get behind someone traveling 60 mph in passing lane, 9 times out of 10 they are jabbering on a cell phone.

• 

  Sam_Crawford on March 08 at 11:28 a.m.

  According to Wikipedia these devices are illegal to operate, manufacture, import, or offer for sale, including advertising (Communications Act of 1934)[4], with fines of up to $11,000 and imprisonment of up to one year.

  Schools shouldn’t be exempt from the laws.

• 

  Sam on March 08 at 11:33 a.m.

  Jeanie - what about if there is an emergency with a school lock down? From what I understand cell phones were crucial during the Virginia Tech shooting.

• 

  JeanieSpokane on March 08 at 11:39 a.m.

  I get your point, Sam. However, texting in class is a real problem.

  I’m with Bent on jamming cell phones while driving. At least a perimeter around my car. :) Even with the law in Washington, I am seeing in increase in cell phone use while driving. Nobody cares.

• 

  Sam on March 08 at 11:42 a.m.

  Yeah, Jeanie, I notice a lot of people driving while on their phones. So I’m unclear on how the new law has affected use.

• 

  Sam_Crawford on March 08 at 11:48 a.m.

  I read this a few days ago and it’s an interesting perspective on the subject of cell phone jamming.

  http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/160420/should_cell_phone_jamming_be_legal.html

  What is says in a nutshell is that only the Federal government can use cell phone jammers. Not states, local police, schools, prisons, theaters, etc.

  I’m not saying I agree with anyone restricting communications but where does Mt. Spokane get off being above the law?

• 

  Kage_Mann on March 08 at 1:41 p.m.

  Of course.My significant others lil sister,texts messages all the time and is on the phone alot.She texts messages faster than she could type and she employs a vast array of acronyms which she uses.She didn’t like school, so she talked her dad into having her take online schooling through the High School,
  so she could graduate faster and get a job.

• 

  hmoffsuite on March 08 at 4:07 p.m.

  I think it is a great idea to ban cell phones, etc. from use during school hours. The students entire day should be focused on learning. The phones are not only a distraction, but could be easily used to cheat on tests, I would think. Or maybe, they don’t give tests anymore so as not to hurt a students feelings if he does poorly. You know, the liberal view. Obama wants to spend billions on our schools to make education better, of course. Banning the phones might make a bigger difference and not cost a penny. He likely wouldn’t consider that, tho, as he has his own blackberry addiction, from what I understand.

• 

  Rosalind on March 08 at 4:36 p.m.

  I think a cell phone ban in schools is a good idea. Many high schools have rules against cell phone usage, but the enforcement is weak because there aren’t clear consequences.

  When teachers take away a student’s cell phone, parents go ballistic. I’d be curious to hear some ideas on how to enforce a cell phone ban in public schools….(hmoffsuite in particular)

• 

  Cis on March 08 at 4:43 p.m.

  I am with Brent… I have almost gotten side swiped twice and almost a t bone as a gal ran a stop sign,in the past 3 months…. all of them with their hands up with phone attached.

  I understand Sam’s stand on the college and text messages.. but they can turn it off for that.

  Surprising how we have gone a hundred years without a phone on a kid in school, and they have survived.

• 

  terrymr on March 08 at 4:46 p.m.

  Schools already prohibit use of cell phones during school hours period. This isn’t about prohibiting cell phones but rather the use of illegal jamming devices. Two wrongs do not make a right - and in fact the use of the jamming device is probably the far greater wrong.

• 

  hmoffsuite on March 08 at 4:48 p.m.

  Rosalind >> “I’d be curious to hear some ideas on how to enforce a cell phone ban in public schools….(hmoffsuite in particular)”

  I would send a letter to each parent and have it returned signed explaining the new policy. “Cell phones are banned. If a student is caught with a cell phone in sight, it will be confiscated and sent to our troops abroad for their use.” “No excuses, no exceptions”

• 

  terrymr on March 08 at 5:16 p.m.

  I guess that rather than preparing people for the world of employment - too many people take the view that school is about preparing our kids for state prison.

• 

  EagleKeeper44 on March 08 at 5:37 p.m.

  YES, I support the IDEA of jamming cell phones on
  school property during class time….however, I am
  sad at the fact school principal John Hook and Mead
  school district did not do their homework. ie. as to the
  legality of jamming BEFORE it was used. Speaks to
  the Quality of Leadership and management ….

• 

  hmoffsuite on March 08 at 5:54 p.m.

  Terry MR >>> “I guess that rather than preparing people for the world of employment - too many people take the view that school is about preparing our kids for state prison”

  Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of your post. You think taking phones away or jamming them is preparing kids for prison? Quite the contrary. Loose rules and a lack of discipline is what provides a path to prison. The proof is in the pudding. Look at the prison population these days. They are loaded. A lack of adequate discipline in the formative years may have a lot to do with it. When you finally do get a job, one does better if he follows orders and rules. Not doing so gets you unemployed. And, btw, I think Ipods should be not allowed on school grounds as well, but that is just me.

• 

  florined on March 08 at 5:58 p.m.

  techno-savvy hucksters…how would a user (even if it were legal) control the range of the jamming?

• 

  EagleKeeper44 on March 08 at 6:10 p.m.

  Great queston florined…

  It’s hard for me to believe a $100.00 jammer
  has the ability to discriminate between a cell
  phone used inside the classroom vs one used
  outside on the street in a passing car.

• 

  Stickman on March 08 at 6:41 p.m.

  Ban them all, their attention span has been altered forever.

• 

  hhuseland on March 08 at 7:07 p.m.

  there are two different issues being discussed here. One, students should not have the ability to text message each other during class. The obvious problem with cheating, then the sender and receiver not paying attention to what is being taught. When I was in school, we were brought up rather sharply when it became obvious that we were passing notes. I always got caught, and what was worse, the cute blond in the back didn’t know I was alive anyway.

  The second of the two issues is more complex. While I agree with those that want drivers to stop swerving all over the place while talking on the phone, there is in place a law called inattentive driving. Even without a specific law prohibiting phone use while driving a motor vehicle, any cop that wants to can ticket a person that is obviously not paying close attention to their driving, whether that resulted from phone use, or not. I do support a state law against such use, however.

  The issue that will confront the schools, will be how far the interference is effective. If the school is shutting down e- traffic for two blocks in all directions, the FCC is going to be all over them. They should never have even started the experiment without testing the geographical limits to the shut down.

• 

  EagleKeeper44 on March 08 at 7:20 p.m.

  Mead school district should have gotten
  FCC approval BEFORE the experiment.

  Failing to do so is unethical and is giving
  the wrong signal to students that because
  we’re in charge we can do whatever we
  want.

  A reprimand is in order for all involved….

• 

  hhuseland on March 08 at 7:38 p.m.

  Some of the comments border on,”if I don’t like it then it should be outlawed.” If we passed laws involving everything that involved every individual, you wouldn’t be able to move, lest you have broken some unknown taboo. That is why the constitution prohibits such actions. We, as long as out constitution survives, which sometimes is questionable, will not have to put up with, at least not too many abridgments of our individual rights. To loose these is much more serious than minor irritations. Not everyone thinks the same way. Having said that, Idaho is long overdue in passing a no driving while swerving law.

• 

  EagleKeeper44 on March 08 at 8:13 p.m.

  H.H: LOL such a convaluted constitutional arguement
  for doing “whatever I want”. It ain’t in the constitution
  ol’ buddy. Our system of laws protects us from anarchic
  behavior and regulate our actions for the common good.

  FYI; Idaho already does have a no driving while swerving
  law….inattentive driving law, as you posted already…..

  LOL 2X

• 

  Cindy_H on March 08 at 9:26 p.m.

  FYI: My son is a sophomore at Mt. Spokane.
  John Hook is an excellent educator with a high degree of respect in our community.
  I have never bought into the notion that a cell phone is a right for my child to have and will keep him safer and more accountable. My son is welcome to purchase a cell phone with his own money and pay for his own plan.
  However, I agree that the district should have checked with the FCC BEFORE buying the scrambler.
  I hope they get approved. Cell phones are a scourge to modern family life and too many parents labor under the illusion that a cell phone keeps them more “connected” to their children.

• 

  cantyoureadthesigns on March 08 at 9:36 p.m.

  Unless it’s a HUGE class, teachers can generally pay attention to what their students are doing. If the cell phone is noticed being used during class, immediate confiscation until the end of the day.

  Upon second offense, only the parent can get the kid’s phone back.

  Such a policy is in force in a Spokane high school, and it works. This is not that hard.

• 

  hhuseland on March 08 at 9:48 p.m.

  My previous question is still hanging out there. How far does the scrambler reach and does it reach beyond the school grounds???

• 

  hhuseland on March 08 at 9:51 p.m.

  Eagle 44, I read you rebuttal, and then reread my post. I can’t find an area that makes sense. could you tone down the sarcasm and tell me what part of my post you disagee with?

• 

  terrymr on March 08 at 9:58 p.m.

  Eaglekeeper, Cindy & others, there is no basis for them to get FCC approval - it is illegal by statute and fcc regulations to manufacture, import, sell or use such a device. The FCC does not issue approvals for such devices - mainly because a) they sold exclusive licenses to the cell operators, b) it’s a crime to deliberately interrupt service of a telephone network. It’s been noted that the federal government can use such devices - this doesn’t mean that they do, simply that the federal government doesn’t need fcc approval to use a radio device.

  Herb, difficult to say - it could reach beyond the school grounds. There’s no way to say for sure without taking measurements on site. As I’m sure you’re aware many different factors affect how far a radio signal will travel.

  It seems simpler as others have said to take the phones, and make parents come pick them up - they’ll stop giving them back to the kids pretty quickly.

• 

  Cindy_H on March 08 at 10:01 p.m.

  Thanks for the clarification, Terry.

• 

  hhuseland on March 08 at 10:05 p.m.

  A well appreiciated and so a well articulated explanation. So when are the feds going to move in for the bust?

• 

  Escapee on March 08 at 10:37 p.m.

  When I went to school in the ‘60s, it was a big sin to chew gum or eat candy in class. One teacher even levied a 5-cent fine everytime she caught a student chomping away. Now, the big deal is cell-phones, texting on them in class. It’s a different world these days. When I attended school back in the ‘60s, stores were selling Binaca-brand breath spray which came in a sort-of mini-aerosol container, and yes, alcohol was one of the ingredients. One kid in our class actually got drunk from spraying almost an entire container’s worth in his mouth during study hall. I’ll bet he had really fresh breath, though.

• 

  terrymr on March 08 at 10:48 p.m.

  I’m not sure if there will be a “bust” - a quick search of the FCC website reveals that their strategy seems to be education, warning sellers that the devices are illegal and pointing out that fines may be imposed if they don’t stop selling them.

• 

  Transplanted_Texan on March 08 at 11:21 p.m.

  Escapee, thinking back just four years, it’s still a big deal to be caught chewing gum in class.

  Latin Teacher: “Nathan, are you chewing something I should know about?”

  TT: (gulp) “No.”

  Teacher: (glowers)

  I also used to chew in church, then swallow for Communion.

• 

  nic on March 08 at 11:39 p.m.

  “b) it’s a crime to deliberately interrupt service of a telephone network.”

  While the FCC warns against it… there may be room to argue technicality. The law was written before the advent of PCS. In fact the law was written when AT&T was a government sanctioned monopoly. If the law specifies telephone network, the question is what kind of network. Land lines? Cellular? Technically, a cell network isn’t a phone network. And the law is outdated - designed to protect federal interests in the phone company. Since ‘82 when AT&T was divested after the DOJ’s anti-trust suit… the federal government doesn’t have the same vested interest.

  I have a feeling this issue will end up in the courts. It might not be a Spokane high school that brings it there, but it will happen.

• 

  nic on March 08 at 11:41 p.m.

  TT- you never figured out how to take communion with gum in your mouth? Shame…

• 

  Transplanted_Texan on March 08 at 11:44 p.m.

  Well now this is gross, but I’m gonna say it anyway:

  I would regurgitate the gum.

• 

  EagleKeeper44 on March 09 at 12:06 a.m.

  H.H.: Glad you went back and read your
  post @ 7:38. I too found in your post
  “I can’t find an area that makes sense”
  and that was the reason for the laughter
  (LOL). NO sarcasm. present only laughter.
  When I use sarcasm, you will note from
  prior post. sarcasm ON & sarcasm OFF
  are used.

• 

  EagleKeeper44 on March 09 at 12:28 a.m.

  Terry MR: Are you with the FCC? You speak with
  such absolute authority….just curious.

  nic: Great points about the law (Communications
  Act of 1934) as it definitely needs an update to
  match todays technologies. True, the Feds don’t
  have the vested interest like they did prior to 1982
  But, they do have an interest with the cell companies
  as they sold them exclusive use of the freqencies.
  Jammers still result in denial of service, so…
  your right in that this will probably be worked out in
  the courts.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on March 09 at 9:14 a.m.

  This law definintely needs to be update. Probably should remove that power from the government first. :)

  Businesses or organizations should be able to block cell phone use within their building as long as it is posted clearly. Hope this gets resolved because it would likely help the teachers maintain the attention.

  And for those that think the teachers should be able to monitor the class, I would prefer the teacher focus on teaching rather than have to worry about cell phones. Notes weren’t allowed in school either, but they sure got around in a hurry.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on March 09 at 9:16 a.m.

  And I agree with Cindy, cell phones aren’t a right. I may have to invest in one of these devices for when my kids get old enough to purchase their own cell phone. Come bed time, all cell phones would cease working in my house. How interesting.

• 

  Aliasjax on March 09 at 9:28 a.m.

  Wow…I’m surprised by the lack of progressive thinking among such a distinguished group of new media types. Banning or blocking cell phones during class so that students can “learn” is an archaic approach to a recent phenomenon…cell phones and the ability to IM, text, and email is an important part of modern global communication. It will drive trade and commerce locally and globally. If you want to “teach” kids skills that will be useful in the real world, the capabilities of these devices should be integrated into the curriculum, not treated like chewing bubble gum in class.

• 

  hmoffsuite on March 09 at 9:36 a.m.

  Alias >>>”If you want to “teach” kids skills that will be useful in the real world, the capabilities of these devices should be integrated into the curriculum”

  Spelling and arithmetic are important also. They can learn their other necessary skills after school and on the weekends. Texting, imo, is not going to be something a future employer will be looking for.

• 

  terrymr on March 09 at 9:45 a.m.

  No I’m not with the FCC. Just something of a radio / telephone geek.

  Cabbage : The problem with active jamming is that of the jamming signal extending outside of the intended area. If you want to block cell phones within your building then look at passive ways to block cell signals.

  As for cell phones not being a right, that’s true. However the company that paid for the use of the frequencies has the right to be free of intentional interference.

  Nic, the argument over whether the law protects cell networks as it did AT&T will probably come down to a question of whether people depend on cell phones for important safety matters such as calling 911. It is increasingly becoming the case that people depend exclusively on cell phones over land line phones.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on March 09 at 10:00 a.m.

  Terry, I get the implications of jamming and I was being facetious. All I am saying is this should be reviewed as a law and perhaps products will appear that have a limited range.

• 

  Joker on March 09 at 10:01 a.m.

  This seems like a very ill conceived idea. Consider all the school shootings in this country and how a student with a cell phone might be able to lessen a tragedy by calling 911.

  Also, what impact will this have on police and firefighters?

  I can understand why cell phones shouldn’t be turned on during classroom time, and if they go off, it’s two weeks in detention. Jamming them, dumb dumb dumb.

• 

  Cabbage Boy on March 09 at 10:02 a.m.

  Hmoff, wouldn’t you accept a txt’d resume and app? :) High school isn’t ITT Tech. Of course the calc function on their phones will be handy when they hand out change at McDs.

• 

  Aliasjax on March 09 at 10:04 a.m.

  Hmoffsuite: U R Wrng, IMO.

  Stop thinking of it as merely “texting” and start thinking of it as applying communication technology - much in the same way the PC and internet are changing media through, um, citizen journalism like the forum we’re participating in now… personal communication devices are changing everything and those most skilled at deploying those technologies will out comepete the less so skilled…we’re missing a great teaching opportunity.

  And, btw, I’m not suggesting the removal of core curriculums such as math & science; I’m merely suggesting the creative adaptation of the single most influencial communication technology since the internet into the classroom instead of knee-jerk, counter-productive rules banning those devices.

  By your way of thinking, typing and typewriters should have been banned in the classrooms of the 1940s-80s because students could learn that at home, or otherwise on their own time.

• 

  hmoffsuite on March 09 at 10:18 a.m.

  Alias. I understand what you are saying. And, I would agree with it if the cell phone etc were a part of a school curriculum. If it is being ‘taught’, I would go for it.

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic