Sir, Your leader on the use of smartphones in schools (Aug 22), based on the obvious premise that messaging during lessons is distracting, might seem compelling — but it ignores a fundamental truth about education: that it prepares young people for modern life.
Digital technology cannot be un-invented. As it improves, students will access the internet and message each other from more subtle devices. If schools do not teach students to use technology sensibly, who will?
At my school we have adopted the stance that we want mobile devices. The average smartphone’s browsing capacity gives children access to as much information as was held in the fabled Library of Alexandria, instantly. Add in all the other technical features and you have a really versatile tool. Surely the benefits of these devices outweigh the downsides?
Of course students should not become distracted by their phones during lessons, and teachers will have to be on the ball — but that has always been the case. As educators our role should include showing students what digital behaviour is acceptable and what is not: this is part of the preparation for modern life.
Kathy Crewe-Read
Advertisement
Head, Wolverhampton Grammar School
Sir, Tom Bennett’s comment (report, Aug 22) that mobile phones are an “enormous distraction” for pupils stops the latter from being able to take advantage of the enormously powerful resource that most of them already carry around. Giving access to phones is like allowing students to use a calculator in a maths lesson. Mobiles, like calculators, should be placed on top of the desk, in full view, and pupils should be invited to use them when directed by the teacher.
Caroline Jordan
Headmistress, Headington School, Oxford, and president-elect, Girls’ School Association
Sir, Schools would appear to be in a no-win situation if they were to be fined every time a student failed to achieve good grades in key GCSE subjects (“School should pay for maths and English failures”, Aug 25).
Advertisement
No exam board would ever risk its reputation by awarding a 100 per cent “pass rate” at grade C or above. Irrespective of the genuine level of student performance, the qualification would then be regarded as worthless — especially among those who are proposing these fines in the first place.
Graham Davies
Lancing, W Sussex
Sir, The vast majority of my family are in education in some form. My mother, for example, leaves the house at 6.30am each day and rarely comes home before 9pm. She then devotes her weekends to her job (her passion). I seriously doubt that fining her school £500 per “lost” GCSE would produce better results, because she and her colleagues are already working 70-hour weeks with a shrinking budget. I propose fining the parents, given that a school’s contact time with children is roughly 15 per cent of a year.
Alice West
Advertisement
Virginia Water, Surrey
Sir, It would be most unfair to charge schools for “failures”, particularly if it has large numbers of pupils with English as a second language, for whom a modest D grade might represent a huge achievement.
Chris Sanderson
Hastings
Sir, John Sleigh’s view that recruiting top-qualified graduates is not the means of increasing attainment in maths is questionable (letter, Aug 24). Neither does the “Madras” system, whereby able pupils teach their peers, offer a credible solution (letter, Aug 25). This is because we are surely lost if our schools do not seek to inspire pupils with first-rate subject specialists.
Advertisement
The real challenge for heads is to recruit experts who can balance depth of knowledge with a keen appreciation of the complexity of their pupils’ learning journeys.
Dr Millan Sachania
Head master, Streatham & Clapham High School, London SW16
Sir, The letter on “Madras” teaching reminded me of the fact that my husband attended an infant/junior school in Farringdon during the war. It was housed in a local folly, and consisted of two classes with two teachers. If one teacher was sick the older students taught the younger ones. My husband’s education did not appear to suffer, however: he became a successful Lloyds underwriter, working alongside public school and university- educated colleagues and using maths every day to calculate risks.
Gillian Pendreich
Advertisement
Romford, Essex