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.)

Here you go. People don't want new grammar schools, even those most likely to have kids entering secondary age.

Most popular among the elderly, but even most of them don't want them.

I don’t understand how these statistics support what you say. I’ve had a look at the YouGov site on grammar school views and it doesn’t appear to show anything about balance of opinion of pro v anti generally.

I may be wrong about that. But even if I am, on a broader social question it can’t be so easily captured or decided. What is the view among disadvantaged parents or ethnic minority parents? And what is the evidence of more general demographic and familial attitudes about selective state school entrance? And what is the view among those who can and can’t buy into the catchments of sought-after comps?

Not sure anything like this could happen with so many schools being academies. In principle it would be better to have more practical schools which might also suit those with moderate behavioural needs and more academic classes. But this would be an enormous undertaking and cost so much money. It's just coasting now with schools. It's the new NHS crisis

I don’t understand how these statistics support what you say

"Do you think the government should open new grammar schools"

Majority said no.

Vast majority of parenting age said no.

Trying to make a social mobility argument in their favour is doomed to failure because of the fact that the selective entry process selects out disadvantaged kids and sends them elsewhere.

As I said, I couldn’t see that there is any clear pro v anti data about grammar schooling on the YouGov site. There is no ‘anti’ data given, that I can see.

But I did come across clear majorities - pro v anti - for the reintroduction of the death penalty for certain offences. You must be in favour of that then, surely? Such data is compelling, presumably in your view, about the rightness of social policy? (I abhor the idea of capital punishment and think it should be avoided whatever the public thinks generally. But then I’m consistent in my view as to the relative weight and value of evidence of public opinion as against good social policy.)

Seeing as social mobility was mentioned, here's the government's take on it. I've not looked to see if schooling is examined and irritatingly all the case studies are men.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-of-the-nation-2022-a-fresh-approach-to-social-mobility/state-of-the-nation-2022-chapter-2-mobility-outcomes#

As I said, I couldn’t see that there is any clear pro v anti data about grammar schooling on the YouGov site. There is no ‘anti’ data given, that I can see.

You were the one claiming that parents want more grammar schools. The poll I provided shows that it is not a popular policy. 🤷‍♀️

But I did come across clear majorities - pro v anti - for the reintroduction of the death penalty for certain offences. You must be in favour of that then, surely?

wtf are you on about.

Oh Jesus. Just look over your own comments and opinion and the YouGov site, and then re-read my comments. It shouldn’t be that difficult for a teacher to understand plain thought and argument.

My year 7 child has just done his homework on his. It is slightly annoying as l had taken it off him as punishment.

You appear to believe that because I presented you with some polling data showing that people don't generally support building more grammar schools, contrary to what you were asserting, that I should be pro the death penalty.

That's just batshit logic on your part.

The government isn't banning kids doing homework on phones, they just don't want them using them in school.

I cannot see on the YouGov site any data that defines results generally as “are you in favour of selective schooling - yes, no, or don’t know” even in the data tables; and even if that data is there, whether it can tell us about demographic breakdown of respondents.

But I haven’t looked carefully. So I’ve conceded that I may be wrong.

Yet, assuming you’re right, you want to argue that views expressed to a polling company support a social policy. So why does that support the pursuit of one policy but not another?

It’s really not difficult.

Dear god.

You claimed people wanted more grammar schools opening up.

I showed polling data that said they didn't.

No, you didn’t, at least as far as I can see.

And you seem completely unwilling to accept that polling is not definitive as to the merits of social policy.

I do understand that you’re a committed teacher. Good on you. But your arguments are a bit…year 7.

No, you didn’t, at least as far as I can see.

It's the first row. The bit that says "the government should build more grammar schools" where only 30% agreed that best reflected their views.

And you seem completely unwilling to accept that polling is not definitive as to the merits of social policy.

I have not said that, nor do I believe that polling is definitive as to the merits of social policy so not sure why you're arguing against something I haven't said, nor believe.

I do understand that you’re a committed teacher. Good on you. But your arguments are a bit…year 7.

Good grief.

Ours is the same. Teachers will sometimes tell my girls to take a pic of the textbook/board/whatever to save them making an error copying it down (or wasting time doing so).
Phones and similar tech are a way of life. I don't see what use it is to not utilise them in education when it's almost a guarantee that they'll be using them or other technology in their lives and workplaces.

WTF?

I’ve made my arguments clear, and even been willing to accept that I may be wrong about the interpretation of data. Still you persist in an absolutist argument.

Even the screenshot you posted shows - if the respondents are taken to exclude ‘don’t knows’ or others - that the answer to the proposition, “The government should stop schools selecting by academic ability and the existing grammar schools should be opened to children of all abilities” is 26%.

How does that support your view then?

I don't see what use it is to not utilise them in education

Because they are way more trouble than they are worth. Getting them to take a picture of the whiteboard or whatever is not a benefit that outweighs the massive negatives of kids pissing about on them, and the distraction that creates from actual learning.

They are designed to be incredibly addictive, sap your attention and keep you checking in regularly. That's not something that is helpful in the classroom.

How does that support your view then?

What view? You don't appear to know what my views are.

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

The poll I posted shows that people, particularly of the age of secondary school entrance kids (the caring families that you say are the norm) do NOT agree that opening new grammar schools or encouraging more schools to be selective best represents their view.

If they wanted selective state schools in their area, then they would be pro opening more of them. But they're mostly not.

Which is sensible, because most kids, particularly disadvantaged kids, don't get into them.

I think we’ve come to an impasse.

You’re not listening to me - or at least pretending not to.

I am listening to you. I will back down if you make a decent case.

But I can’t get through to you that on the evidence you cite, or on sensible everyday experience, selective education is not rejected by - often disadvantaged - sections of society who don’t show up in the polling. And even then, the polling doesn’t even show disapproval of selection on a general basis.

I will back down if you make a decent case.

For what?

YOU are the one who made a claim. YOU are the one who needs to present a case.

You haven't presented anything apart from claims. You said parents wanted more selective schools, I presented polling data that suggests otherwise.

You're now claiming that disadvantaged parents want more selective schools.

Go find some data to back up your claim.

But incidentally, even if you did find data saying that loads of parents from disadvantaged backgrounds are clamouring for grammar schools to open up - as you yourself said, that doesn't mean it's a good policy.

Because those kids disproportionately won't get in.

The point of notes is to learn the content, ie have it inside your head.

The teachers should be making the kids creates notes of the content on the board, not photograph it. Snapping a photo of notes pretty much guarantees you will forget it, IME.

I have to disagree. There is not enough time in lessons for students to take meaningful notes. Taking a photo of the whiteboard in class allows my daughter to make useful notes later on at home when she has the time to arrange them in the way that best suits her learning style and means they are actually useful for revision.

When a school's blanket ban on mobile phones means that your (predicted A*'s in A levels) sixth-form student daughter is told by her subject teacher that no, she can't now take a photo of the board as she isn't allowed her mobile phone on in school, you know that common sense has left the building.

Or the teacher could provide the students with their powerpoint.