should kids be allowed to use there cellphones in school.

I will first defend my arguments. 1. "You could put in your locker, your backpack, or other private places" Through personal experience and observation, it is a blatant fact that those places Pro mentioned are NOT safe. Time and time again, students come back from classes to see busted lockers and find their valuables gone. There are no private places in schools. Lockers are very easy to get into and one's backpack is not exactly the definition of impeccable. The safest place to put one's cell phone IS the private place that Pro mentioned: one's home. Also, children are prone to cell phone theft. According to the Office of National Statistics, mobile phone theft victims were most likely to be children aged 14 to 17 or young adults aged 18 to 24 years with the victimisation rate of these groups being twice as high as the average (at around 4%). [1] 2. "You could also put a password on your phone" First of all, having a password on a cell phone do not defer the thieves. They have no way of knowing whether cell phones are locked and will gladly steal them anyway since, as Pro explicitly stated, they have ways to unlock the password. And because of this insecurity and unreliability, password does not keep one's personal information safe from malicious individuals. Now I would like to rebut to Pro's arguments. 1. "Having your cell phone makes school more efficient and convenient" Cell phones do not make schools more efficient and convenient. First of all, school can not be made more convenient. Secondly, Pro has not provided solid reasoning and arguments that substantiates this point. 2. "Teachers are often busy, books are not convenient, and computers are often being used" The sole purpose of teachers in schools are to educate the children. I do not understand what they would be busy with since answering questions from knowledge-stricken children is part of their jobs. Books are convenient. Many are portable, information, accurate, and can be used in any locations. On the other hand, cell phones need Internet connection for students to perform many of their functions. Having 3G or 4G cost money. 3. "But those things cost money" Cell phones cost money. Books and access to teachers trained to help you cost significantly less. In addition, books and computers can be accessed free of charge in schools themselves and in public libraries. 4. "Most everybody has a cell phone at this point that will need it" Most people do have cell phones. However, that fact has nothing to do with whether cell phones should be allowed in schools. Even if many people possess some kind of cellular device, people do not have to need cell phones to operate. Need is defined as " a situation in which someone or something must do or have something" [2] Cell phones do not fit the definition of need. People do not NEED cell phones, they WANT them. 5. " I think the effect would be the opposite. " I ask Pro to explain how and in what ways. 6. "You could have certain times where cell phones are aloud, such as free research time, and time that you can't, like silent reading" If classes are given a free research time, chances are, the teacher will be sensible enough to book a session in a computer lab or in a library. There's no guarantee that students will use their cell phones appropriately. Like Pro said, there are times when silent reading when cell phones should not be allowed. And yet, students continue to use cell phones during this time. The best way to prevent students from abusing their cell phones are to prohibit them. 7. "Just take away there phone if they are misusing it" This creates problems. First of all, teachers are reluctant to confiscate cell phones because they cost hundreds of dollars. Teachers do not want the responsibilities that come with the power to take away valuables and to force the rules upon them is unfair. Secondly, students know that they are misusing cell phones. So, they tend to hide their usages as I mentioned. Teachers, having to education approximately 30 other students, are prone to miss inappropriate uses of cell phones. 8. "They can't rebel and use there phones if they don't have it" What do you mean by this? Rebelling further destroys the efficiency and purpose of school systems. 9. "If a classroom only has one computer there is probably going to be a lot of demand for it" Same arguments as above. There are other places to go to, other resources to use, and teachers are generally smart enough to recognize the need for resources when they assign research projects. Con asked me to expand on his reasoning for my arguments and I will gladly do so. 1. Defeated Purpose Schools are there to educate children. Cell phones have no place in schools. Children text, play games, and surf the web rather than to learn and interact with their peers when asked. Two main purposes of school are education and social interaction. Cell phones hinder education by distracting the students and impede social interaction by allowing students to text their usual friends. 2. Inefficiency. Cell phones are stupendous sources of distractions. As a result, they make school systems highly inefficient. Teachers have to spend class time on rules regarding the appropriate usage of cell phones and enforce those rules. Having to waste limited and valuable class time in such trivial issue as distraction by cell phone greatly decreases the quality and quantity of education received by students. That is all for now. I am looking forward to Pro's arguments. [1] . http://www.ons.gov.uk... [2] www. merriam-webster. com/dictionary/need