Government announces ban on mobile phones in schools

[noblegiraffe]

...because it won't cost them anything and there won't be any pushback because the vast majority of schools banned phones years ago.

Perhaps they could also ban kids running in corridors or pushing in the lunch queue.

What a waste of time government this is.

(by 'banning phones' it's generally accepted to mean kids can have them in their bags but they must be turned off or at least on silent and never seen - so any parental cries of 'but they need them for the journey home' are irrelevant.)

It’s hardly deflection to remember (relatively recent) previous governments.

Of course it is. What you’re saying is that they’re all as bad as each other, which is a tried and tested way of diverting scrutiny from the people who have been in power now for thirteen years.

Go on, what good things have the Conservatives done for education?

Why is that deflection? It’s a real world fact.

i don’t think the Tories have done anything good for education, but then I don’t think Labour did either after their many years in government. If a government had the gumption to bring back grammars I’d be cheering them all the way, whichever party it was.

No, that would be the taxpayer.

It’s a real world fact.

It’s your opinion.

No, it’s a fact.

Given that a new government has to be formed every time a Prime Minister resigns or we have a general election, by my reckoning we're now on the 7th government since the last Labour one so it's a bit of a stretch to consider them "recent".

It's a spectacularly pointless announcement. A countrywide ban on phones in classrooms will achieve nothing. Legitimate phone use in lessons, for educational purposes, will stop. Inappropriate, furtive use of phones in class will continue - as it has always done, regardless of school rules.

The most irritating thing about this announcement is that anyone is claiming it will be 'a relief to teachers'. Of course it won't. It will make literally no difference to teachers.

Yes. Very good.

I think we can all accept that governments run between General Elections, but may have different PMs.

That's your opinion. And whilst I'm sure that would be more convenient for you if we all accepted it, it would be rather ignorant of the facts.

“Ignorant” seems a little unnecessary.

But I’m happy to re-phrase what I said before:

I don’t believe the Tories have done any good for education, but then I don’t believe Labour did either in the years between 1997 and 2010, whoever the PM has been in the period 1997-2023.

Is that acceptable as a re-statement?

The monarch invites the leader of the party in government to form a government, every time we have a new one. So each leader has their own government.

The Conservatives themselves seem to be comfortable regarding each leader’s effort to be distinct from the next, given their own comments about each other.

I’ll bite on ‘what did Labour do?’ Surestart.
There’s evidence now (I’ll hunt for it if anyone is interested) that there have been long term positive health impacts on teenagers who attended Surestart.
Anecdotally, we have many more children arriving in school since Surestart closed with speech issues, behavioural issues due to as-yet undiagnosed SEN, and behaviour issues because parents don’t know what to do and now don’t have anywhere to access advice and support.
Covid hasn’t helped, for sure, but the removal of that Labour idea by a Tory government has had a massive impact.

I’d be willing to accept that Surestart is broadly accepted to have been a good thing. But I also think that the assisted places scheme, abolished by Blair, is generally regarded as having been positive too, before Labour did away with it.

I’m not doctrinal. But, given the subject of the thread, it would be absurd to argue that government spin and falsehoods weren’t just as bad in the past as now.

Theresa May had 'bring back grammars' in her election manifesto for the election where she did so badly she lost her majority and had to chuck a billion pounds to the DUP to prop up her government.

So thankfully, she had to abandon that policy as it clearly wasn't that popular.

Most smart watches don't do a huge amount of the other stuff without a phone in the vicinity anyway.

That’s just silly. May did badly for many reasons but not, on any evidence, that one.

Corbyn’s manifesto (I mention it because it was the last official Labour one - I realise Corbyn’s leadership was a weird Labour aberration) contained all sorts of things. Those commitments may return, or not, but whether they do come back doesn’t depend on the 2019 vote.

Hahaha amazing

In all seriousness waiting for government to start legislating on the minutiae of school uniform etc- they seem really confused on their role- 'give MATs more power except for tiny weeny little details which we will meddle in'

May did badly for many reasons but not, on any evidence, that one.

You said you'd be cheering on whichever party brought back grammars. Well, as I said, clearly people didn't agree that grammars were such a great policy that they'd abandon other voting preferences for it.

That’s no less silly, or unrealistic.

I’d like to see ‘bring back grammars’ rethought. Perhaps as ‘bring back secondary moderns.’ If it doesn’t look as good from that angle then how does it work? Because you can’t cream off some without leaving others in secondary modern equivalents.

Why? Nobody’s really ever asked why sec mods v comps is a bad thing. And many (largely on the left) have never answered why more able pupils from homes which value academic achievement - many of them from ethnic minority backgrounds - should be excluded from selective schools.

On a broader basis, polytechnics used to be a very effective third level ed way to a technical career. And their strength was often reflecting the industry of the locality. But Labour decided that all students should go to ‘university’. That’s made no difference to opportunities to enter professions or better paid jobs. It’s just introduced illusory expectations.

And many (largely on the left) have never answered why more able pupils from homes which value academic achievement - many of them from ethnic minority backgrounds - should be excluded from selective schools.

I notice that you didn't say disadvantaged backgrounds, because presumably you are aware that bright children from disadvantaged backgrounds are disproportionately excluded from entrance to selective schools.

Grammar schools is a shite Tory policy that they keep bringing up every so often like fox hunting. Something that only really benefits the wealthy.

Absolute bollocks.

Disadvantaged children are excluded from higher achieving state schools by catchment. Their parents can’t join the middle class ‘progressive’ house buyers in catchments of sought-after non-selective state schools because they don’t have the money to buy into the area.

Disadvantaged, ambitious and caring families (that is the norm) want selective state schools with wide catchment.

I see you're not familiar with the data.

🙄