No – they help independent study
"You'll have someone's eye out with that" used to be the refrain of teachers in my day. In malevolent hands, a pencil, a rubber, even a piece of paper could become a lethal weapon in class, and that's before we got on to compasses and Bunsen burners.
A mobile is the same: a potentially potent tool for learning but strangely feared in a school pupil's hand, where it is assumed to wreak havoc with concentration, unleash cyber bullying and surreptitiously video up teachers' skirts.
But isn't it also madness when schools that cannot afford modern IT facilities ignore the powerful computers in every pupils' pocket?
I was amazed when I visited my old school recently: having remarked how sorry I felt for teachers in the mobile era, several teachers immediately declared how useful they were in class. There's even an acronym for it: BYOD, or Bring Your Own Device. As one teacher has argued in the Guardian, this is the future: students using their trusted devices rather than a machine they leave in school at the end of each day.
Jo Debens, a geography teacher at Priory School, Portsmouth, a comprehensive with a mixed intake, was dashing out to take 30 pupils orienteering when we spoke: her students were testing whether it was easier to use an OS map or a mobile phone's mapping services.
Earlier this year, the school drew up a "mobile device policy" in consultation with students. Mobile phones are allowed in school and used in class at the teacher's discretion, with a clear system of sanctions applied for misuse. Since the policy was introduced, only 1.4% of negative behavioural incidents have been connected with mobiles.
Pupils record homework tasks on their phone's calendar (why do they forget homework diaries but never their textbooks?) and in Debens's geography classes they use the camera function to record things and report back to class. They also use mobile internet for independent research.
"We're always being told as teachers that we should give pupils differentiated learning and personalise it. Now they can," says Debens of using mobiles. "Like anything, it's only useful in the hands of the user. They are not the be-all and end-all. We would have death by Wikipedia if all people were doing was cutting and pasting from them."
"I was very anti phones," admits Nasim Jahangir, a business and economics teacher at Wyggeston and Queen Elizabeth I College, Leicester. Several years ago, however, she incorporated smartphones into lessons as she "learned to teach in a different way" – with an emphasis on independent study. She admits it is probably easier to ensure his A-level classes use phones constructively but she thinks it has improved behaviour. "The whole atmosphere in the class has changed," she says, becoming less adversarial, with students policing themselves over inappropriate phone use.
What about pupils who cannot afford a smartphone? And what about children running up big bills doing school work on their phones? Jahangir ensures his tweeting and mobile phone work is accessible to all on the school's intranet. Debens says her school provides Wi-Fi and portable dongles with Wi-Fi so pupils are not paying for their own study. "We have people who come to school without a coat or without having had any breakfast," she says, "but they always have a phone." Patrick Barkham
Yes – they cause disruption and distress
Mobiles are the curse of the modern age – in restaurants, on trains and, most of all, in schools. Pupils are texting when they should be working; they use social networking sites to bully fellow pupils; and they post pictures of their teachers on YouTube. Ian Fenn, head of Burnage Media Arts College in Manchester, had had enough. "Mobiles rather crept up on education and in our experience it was a nightmare," he says. Fenn has banned pupils from making calls or sending texts on school premises and, according to the Daily Mail, the results in terms of improved behaviour and reduced cyberbullying have been dramatic.
Mobiles in schools is one of many issues over which the Mail obsesses, but that doesn't mean a ban is wrong. Indeed, in May an online poll in the Guardian produced a three-to-one vote in favour of a ban. The poll was prompted by a statement by Sir Michael Wilshaw, the new chief inspector of schools and head of Ofsted, that mobiles in schools were disruptive. When he was head of Mossbourne Academy in Hackney, east London, he banned them and said the decision produced immediate benefits.
Ofsted has supported Fenn's decision, but it admits , despite Wilshaw's views, it has no powers itself to impose a ban. "The issue is for schools to manage," says a spokeswoman. There is, in effect, a policy vacuum, with each school being left to decide best practice.
"We introduced a complete ban on mobile phones two years ago because of the disruption they were causing," says a spokeswoman for Cockshut Hill Technology College in Yardley, east Birmingham, "and it has improved behaviour. If pupils want to bring them in because of parents' fears for their safety getting to and from school, we provide lockers where they can be kept. But if we see them in school, we confiscate them. If they're confiscated three times, parents have to come and sign for them." The legality of similar schemes elsewhere has been challenged, but the spokeswoman insists parents and pupils have accepted the policy and that it has produced a much better learning environment.
Teachers union the NASUWT supports a classroom ban. In a recent survey, 46% of its members identified mobiles as a cause of disruption and indiscipline, and the union is particularly worried by pupils taking photographs in lessons and posting material on YouTube and social networking sites. NASUWT general secretary Chris Keates has said such material causes teachers "untold distress and trauma".
A recent report by the Scottish government concluded that mobiles were a "frequent and distracting influence", with cyberbullying especially prevalent. "Mobile phones in the classroom can be disruptive," says a spokesman for teachers union the Educational Institute of Scotland (EIS), "and their use should be the subject of an explicit school policy. While we understand parents might want their children to have mobiles with them because of concerns about safety, we don't see any reason for them to be in classrooms. An outright ban is very difficult and wouldn't gain parental support, but they need to be turned off during teaching time."
The EIS says that sometimes the rules are fuzzy, which is where arguments over confiscation occur. But the spokesman adds that the rash of "happy slapping" incidents a couple of years ago forced local authorities to confront the issue, and gradually a consensus is emerging. That consensus is that classrooms are for teaching not texting, and if the rules are clear parents will accept temporary confiscation. Stephen Moss
• This article was amended on 28 November 2012. One of the teachers was mistakenly referred to as he rather than she.
Contoh Discussion Text about Smoking Should Be Banned Beserta Artinya – Discussion text adalah sebuah text yang memaparkan sebuah perdebatan dengan menyajikan dua buah pendapat yang berbeda tentang sebuah permasalah yang sedang terjadi. Di bawah ini adalah contoh discussion text about smoking should be banned.
Pro and Cons the Prohibition of Smoking in Public Place
Smoking is a bad habit which is very harmful both for the smoker itself and the people around them. It is because a cigarette contains tens or even hundreds of toxic substances that are so dangerous to the body. Therefore, the government bans smoking in public places.
However, this prohibition becomes hot issue in the community. They are split into two groups. The first group is people who agree and support this rule to keep on running. Meanwhile, the other party does not approve this rule and demand this rule to be lifted immediately.
Those people who pro with the ban on smoking in public places, consider that this rule could reduce the adverse effects of smoking on health, especially for the health of people who do not smoke but also inhaling the cigarette smoke. They are referred to as passive smokers whose have risk on the danger of smoking as high as the active smoker.
With the enactment of this prohibition, people who are non-smokers have the right to protect themselves from nicotine which is inhaled by them unconsciously. They do not deserve to be ill just because of the effects from other people’s bad habits. Moreover, this ban will make public places smoke-free.
On the other hand, people who cons toward this rule argue that it could cause a financial loss for Cigarette Company, tobacco farmers, restaurant owners, and others. Moreover, the smoking ban is also regarded as a form of oppression against the smokers’ human right.
Based on the discussion above, we can conclude that the smoking prohibition in public places is made as an attempt to create clean air as well as a form of respect for those who are non-smokers. To realize it, we have to make a special place for smokers so that they can still enjoy a cigarette without annoying non-smoker.
Pro dan Kontra Larangan Merokok di Tempat Umum
Merokok adalah suatu kebiasaan yang sangat merugikan baik bagi diri sendiri dan orang lain. Hal ini dikarenakan di dalam rokok terkandung puluhan bahkan ratusan zat beracun yang sangat berbahaya bagi tubuh. Oleh karena itu, pemerintah berencana akan melarang merokok di tempat umum.
Namun, larangan ini menjadi sebuah perdebatan yang hangat di masyarakat. Mereka terpecah menjadi dua kelompok. Kelompok yang pertama adalah pihak yang setuju dan mendukung agar larangan ini terus dijalankan. Sedangkan, pihak yang lain, tidak menyetujui larangan ini dan meminta agar larangan ini segera dicabut.
Pihak yang pro terhadap larangan merokok di tempat umum, menganggap bahwa aturan ini bisa mengurangi dampak buruk rokok bagi kesehatan, terutama kesehatan orang-orang yang tidak merokok namun turut menghirup asap rokok. Mereka ini disebut dengan perokok pasif yang sama-sama memiliki resiko tinggi atas ancaman bahaya merokok dengan perokok aktif.
Dengan diberlakukannya larangan ini, orang-orang yang bukan perokok memiliki hak untuk melindungi diri mereka dari asap nikotin yang tidak sengaja mereka hirup. Mereka tidak sepantasnya sakit hanya karena efek dari kebiasaan tidak terpuji orang lain. Terlebih lagi, larangan ini akan membuat tempat umum yang terbebas dari asap rokok.
Di lain pihak, orang-orang yang kontra terhadap larangan merokok ini berpendapat bahwa ini bisa menyebabkan menurunnya pendapatan pabrik rokok, petani tembakau, pemilik restoran, dan lain-lain. Selain itu, larangan merokok ini dianggap sebagai bentuk penindasan terhadap hak asasi para perokok.
Berdasarkan pembahasan di atas, kita bisa menyimpulkan bahwa larangan merokok di tempat umum dibuat sebagai upaya untuk menciptakan udara yang bersih sekaligus sebagai bentuk penghormatan bagi mereka yang bukan perokok. Untuk mewujudkan hal itu, maka kita harus membuat sebuah tempat khusus bagi perokok agar mereka tetap bisa menikmati rokok tanpa menggangu orang-orang yang tidak merokok.