Question
I thank the Minister for his statement, and welcome the announcement of strengthened guidance on mobile phones in schools. It constitutes agreement with the Select Committee, which called for a policy whereby children have no access to their phones during the school day rather than a “not seen or heard” policy. The Committee also said that schools should be given the resources, where needed, to implement such a policy in full. For secondary schools, the cost of buying pouches can be as much as £20,000. How will the Government ensure that schools have the resources to implement the policy effectively? The Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry on AI and edtech. We have received a vast amount of evidence about the complexity of this landscape and the challenges that schools face in respect of procurement and the deployment of technology, and understanding the pedagogical basis that underpins it. Standards should be set, and I welcome the Government’s consultation, but they should be set in relation to a clear sense of the educational purpose of the technology, a deep understanding of pedagogy, and an understanding of the technology itself. What work has been undertaken on those aspects to underpin the Government’s thinking in this area?
Answer
I thank the hon. Lady for her long-standing campaigning and support for these issues, including the work that she has done in her role as the Chair of the Education Committee. The source of the Government’s confidence in recommending this as the approach that all schools should take from September next year is that 39% of secondary schools are already, from within their existing budgets, able to implement a full ban, which means that young people are not taking phones around the school in the middle of the day. They have found a number of means of doing that, which include pouches. We will work closely with school leaders very closely to ensure that this is implemented effectively next September. The hon. Lady asked about the role of the certification process, and the deployment of AI tools and the need to ensure that they are effective. I completely agree with her description of the complicated landscape that headteachers and subject leads face when deciding what to use: that is exactly why we want the certification process to go alongside the trials and the evaluation work that we want to do, specifically on the use of AI tools in the classroom. We need to do that as quickly as we can, but, as the hon. Lady will know, the quality of these trials needs to be robust enough to provide schools with really clear guidance.
Verdict: AMBER (40/100)
The reply only partly answers the question. It gives a concrete figure, that 39% of secondary schools can implement a full phone ban from existing budgets, which suggests no new money is needed, but it does not say how schools that cannot afford the ban will be supported. On the question of whether AI tools in classrooms have an educational purpose and sound pedagogical basis, the reply mainly describes future certification, trials and evaluation in general terms, with no detail on work already done. A member of the public would likely need to ask again for specifics on both points.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| How will the Government ensure that schools have the resources needed to implement the policy of no pupil access to mobile phones during the school day effectively? | Partially Addressed | Direct | Statement 2 gives a concrete figure (39% of secondary schools can implement a full ban from existing budgets), which implicitly answers the resourcing question by saying no new money is needed. Statement 5 only commits to working closely with school leaders, with no named support, funding, or mechanism, so the reply never says how the government will ensure resources beyond existing budgets. |
| What work the department has undertaken on the educational purpose of AI and edtech, the underpinning pedagogy, and understanding of the technology itself, to inform its thinking on standards in this area. | Partially Addressed | Hedged | Statements 8 and 9 describe forthcoming certification, trials and evaluation of AI tools in classrooms, which is relevant to standards. However, they do not describe work already undertaken on the educational purpose, underpinning pedagogy, or the department's understanding of the technology, and the trials are largely future and unspecified. |