The ban of anything for younger people is an exercise that even school heads don’t want to engage in. It becomes difficult because the reasons are not always obvious and this leads to confusion in school behaviour. It’s also the case that bitterness sets in against school guidelines and this may create subcultures of rule breaking that cannot immediately be seen.
If it appears to be specific to location, it’s also a problem beyond the limited confines of that place. Many children point out the hypocrisy of being able to swear at home and not being able to clear their mind on a school property. It’s also the contradiction of having to see older teenagers being able to do something that slightly younger teenagers cannot therefore do.
There are those that want lawmakers and school influencers to see that their investment of time and funding into finding better models of education regarding discipline is more important in the long-term than a prohibition on things. It strikes some as being paternalistic or even blankly moralist to remove a device without addressing a provocation of its misuse.
A blanket ban (as it’s called) is in need of being replaced by an ongoing adaptive approach to be more effective with the individual. Even if the reason is using a phone in a classroom, a meeting in isolation enables an instructor to help the student to understand their reason to the maturity level of the student in the school.
It’s becoming a main point in UK schooling contexts that people of any age or proximity to the classroom have an awareness of the reasons why things are happening that change protocols. It’s also a belief that such ‘rules’ are conditional on the context of the school population itself. This is how schools develop character, reputation, and their own discipline.
