This kind of muddled critique is suggestive of opposition for the sake of opposition, rather than opposition to an idea fought on its merits. But in a back-to-basics political campaign, a ban on phones in schools makes for both good politics and good policy.
Like National’s hour-a-day promises for reading, writing, and maths education in primary and intermediate schools, the policy is simple to understand (even for those who still think in ‘forms’ and not in ‘years’) and would cost the government of the day absolutely nothing to implement.
UNESCO supports a ban on phones in classrooms and there are plenty of international examples where phones have already been banned in schools.
National’s policy would extend a ban to the whole school day, meaning students couldn’t use phones during rests or lunchbreaks. In practice this would be more impactful than limiting the ban to the classroom, where most teachers already don’t permit smartphone use.
What appears to be a main critique of the policy – that students might be uncontactable in a logistical quandary or family emergency – can be most obviously unpicked by the fact that schools have offices and landlines and until the early 2000s we all seemed to get by OK.
Labour’s position is that schools should implement a phone policy that works best for them, a position consistent with that of the Government’s during the debate over mask mandates in the Covid-19 response.
When pandemic experts who’d previously been feted at every opportunity publicly urged mask mandates in schools, the Government rejected their advice and instead left it to schools to make the call in their respective communities. Inevitably, regardless of schools’ individual policies, devolving the decision meant school leaders spent huge time and energy arguing with their local communities. The Government outsourced the outrage.
There are some obvious and reasonable examples in which individual students should qualify for an exemption to the phone ban. But a general ban as a default position saves schools from the process of consulting, developing and defending their own policies.
An ideological critique of National’s policy is exactly this. Forcing all schools to implement cell phone bans is inconsistent with the party’s stated values around community-led decision making in education.
But it doesn’t matter. As with National’s parental leave bill, Labour has found itself opposing a policy which imposes no extra costs on taxpayers and appears totally sensible to many or most voters.
Jack Tame is a well-known television presenter and journalist in New Zealand. This article was first published HERE
UNESCO supports a ban on phones in classrooms and there are plenty of international examples where phones have already been banned in schools.
National’s policy would extend a ban to the whole school day, meaning students couldn’t use phones during rests or lunchbreaks. In practice this would be more impactful than limiting the ban to the classroom, where most teachers already don’t permit smartphone use.
What appears to be a main critique of the policy – that students might be uncontactable in a logistical quandary or family emergency – can be most obviously unpicked by the fact that schools have offices and landlines and until the early 2000s we all seemed to get by OK.
Labour’s position is that schools should implement a phone policy that works best for them, a position consistent with that of the Government’s during the debate over mask mandates in the Covid-19 response.
When pandemic experts who’d previously been feted at every opportunity publicly urged mask mandates in schools, the Government rejected their advice and instead left it to schools to make the call in their respective communities. Inevitably, regardless of schools’ individual policies, devolving the decision meant school leaders spent huge time and energy arguing with their local communities. The Government outsourced the outrage.
There are some obvious and reasonable examples in which individual students should qualify for an exemption to the phone ban. But a general ban as a default position saves schools from the process of consulting, developing and defending their own policies.
An ideological critique of National’s policy is exactly this. Forcing all schools to implement cell phone bans is inconsistent with the party’s stated values around community-led decision making in education.
But it doesn’t matter. As with National’s parental leave bill, Labour has found itself opposing a policy which imposes no extra costs on taxpayers and appears totally sensible to many or most voters.
Jack Tame is a well-known television presenter and journalist in New Zealand. This article was first published HERE
1 comment:
Tinetti claims National doesn't understand how schools operate and students need to learn to monitor their own cell phone use.
To me, she is reinforcing the current failing ideology of child-centred education which has children being in control of their own learning and activities.
Having taught students of all ages I know they what works best is direct guidance .Health authorities have indicated screen exposure should be minimized for the developing brain. This added to the distractions and dopamine addiction would indicate restriction is wisdom.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.