Smartphones continue to get bigger and better. And we are using them more and more, from an ever-younger age. In fact, many of the devices in our students’ pockets are now better than those their school provides. If you throw into this mix the fact that a well-run “bring your own device” (BYOD) programme can offer fantastic financial savings at a time when school budgets are increasingly squeezed, the case for smartphone usage in schools is compelling.
Yet, while many teachers will have seen new devices from Apple, Samsung and Google turn up in their classrooms, they are more likely to have confiscated them until the end of the lesson than to have let their students use them. Indeed, the disruption these devices can cause, from in-class messaging to cyber bullying, has led to much debate about whether they should be banned from schools entirely.
Banning phones
For now, the latter argument appears to be winning out, with most schools feeling more comfortable banning phones and relying on their own mandated devices. But my view - heavily skewed to the technology side of the argument - is that there will come a time when schools must seriously question whether it makes sense to keep buying expensive hardware when pupils can bring their own - often better - technology to school.
That may seem an unlikely outcome considering the strength of feeling against mobile phones among many teachers, but there is a precedent for a shift in mindset. In the business world, there was similar reticence about the idea of staff providing their own technology, but in many industries it is now standard practice. There are multiple reasons why schools may end up having a similar change of heart.
Pupils are far more likely to look after their own device than a school-issued one, from keeping it safe to ensuring it’s charged and running the latest software. It also means that they will always have the necessary apps on their own device when at home, increasing the likelihood of additional learning outside school. In addition, it could save teachers a lot of time by removing the need to set up devices during lessons, ensuring the right apps are installed or just teaching pupils how to use devices.
And as mentioned earlier, it could save schools a lot of money. By not having to provide expensive hardware, there are serious cost savings to be made that could be better spent elsewhere.
I’m not ignoring the challenges, however. Such a programme could put pressure on parents to provide devices that are very expensive. It puts children in the position of being responsible for bringing the device to and from school, keeping it safe, and ensuring it’s “lesson ready”. And the opportunities for pupils to “accidentally forget” the device, not have it charged or not running the right apps are obvious. Problems may also occur where pupils claim that they are using their phone for study purposes, even when they are clearly using it to send texts, take photos or play games.
Last, and perhaps most damaging, there could be the risk of pupils being bullied over the device they bring if it is not deemed good enough by their classmates.
But are any of these issues so different from traditional classroom management issues that teachers and schools have always had to deal with: pupils forgetting books, misbehaving in class or being mean to one another? Those schools already using BYOD don’t seem to think so. And as for the financial argument, schools already using BYOD have successfully shown that every child can have access to a device via innovative funding schemes or through use of funds to provide devices for those that cannot afford them.
Misuse will still occur
It is naive to believe that students will never bring their own devices in simply because the school rules forbid it. Parents now want their children to have a method of contact to and from school, so students might bring them with the intention of keeping them in their bags during school hours. However, those same issues of misuse will still occur. Simply banning phones does not make them - or the issues that teachers have to deal with as a result - disappear.
Evidence from the business world suggests that, rather than causing the above issues, BYOD can reduce technology misuse or complications. Indeed many technology leaders in business that I have spoken to have said embracing BYOD was a far better way to take control of how staff use devices rather than just trying to ban them.
They said it enabled them to establish the right frameworks around device use to benefit end users and the business, such as offering access to corporate wi-fi and then blocking access to certain apps and websites.
Many schools now do likewise, creating an open environment where devices are permitted in lessons with the necessary boundaries: the idea of a technology free-for-all is actually quite inaccurate and misleading.
Where I can see more sense in an argument against BYOD - in terms of that device being a smartphone - is pedagogy. Schools are currently very tied to tablets.
As Christina Zanelli-Tyler, headteacher of West Cliff Primary School, notes: “We have a big focus on the arts so use tablets for animation, drawing and photography, and so we prefer bigger screens.”
But the difference between a small tablet and a large phone is now minimal and using a smaller screen is really a matter of habit - YouTube is full of videos recorded on phones and Instagram is full of photos taken on phones. The differences will only get smaller.
So I think the technology debate around smartphones is a bit of a red herring, as are the behaviour arguments. What we are really grappling with when it comes to BYOD is the attitude of many teachers that they simply don’t like the change such a policy represents.
However, as the next generation of teachers comes through the ranks, as school budgets get ever tighter and as the technology continues to improve, that attitude will be harder to maintain.
BYOD is the most sensible technology option for schools already, and that cannot be ignored for much longer.
Daniel Worth is deputy editor of technology magazineV3
