Education
Pressure to enact smartphone restrictions spurs change among provinces
From the Fraser Institute
More than a decade ago, a Verizon commercial put a man holding his cellphone up to his ear in different locations across the United States, asking: “Can you hear me now?”
In Canada, it often seems like one end of the country doesn’t talk to the other, and policies look very different from west to east. But occasionally we’re reminded that we can learn from one.
For example, smartphone restrictions in K-12 classrooms. As the new school year draws near, this policy—in various forms, grounded firmly in research—is sweeping across Canada including British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
Children and teenagers do not have a fully formed prefrontal cortex to help exercise self-control and limit their anxiety when smartphones are buzzing throughout the day. According to one study, the typical teenager receives 237 smartphone notifications per day—about 15 per hour. And according to the latest (2022) Programme for International Student Assessment report, 80 per cent of Canadian students feel anxious if their phones are not with them. Moreover, having a phone nearby, with notifications buzzing, is enough to cause students to lose focus on classroom tasks. One study found it took kids a full 20 minutes to regain focus after just one distraction.
So what’s the impact on student learning?
PISA research has found a clear connection between smartphone distraction and declining student achievement, particularly in math. Eighty per cent of Canadian students report being distracted by the devices of other students in math class—and students who were distracted by smartphones in math class scored 15 points lower on PISA math tests than those who were not distracted (PISA equates a 20-point drop in student test scores with one year of lost learning).
Of course, parents know this is a problem. According to a January 2024 poll, eight in 10 Canadian parents support banning smartphones in public schools.
Finally, while the research and polling support smartphone bans, the seven provinces that have enacted smartphone restrictions haven’t gone far enough. For example, Nova Scotia’s elementary school ban—which instructs elementary students to store their phones for the entire school day—is a great policy but doesn’t apply to junior high or high school students. Ontario’s failed 2019 restrictions provide a weaker example that didn’t work. And three provinces—Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador—have not enacted any provincewide restrictions at all.
But thankfully, this upcoming school year, some provinces are learning from each another in an example of functioning federalism. Yes, we can hear you now—and in this case, children and teens will benefit.
Author:
From the Fraser Institute
According to a recent poll, the vast majority of parents in Canada easily understand letter grades on report cards but are confused by the nouveau “descriptive” grading adopted in British Columbia. This should serve as a warning to any province or school board thinking about adopting this type of convoluted descriptive grading.
In September 2023, despite overwhelming opposition from British Columbians, the B.C. government replaced letter grades—such as A, B, C, D, etc.—on K-9 report cards with a “proficiency scale,” which includes the descriptive terms “emerging,” “developing,” “proficient” and “extending.” If these four terms seem confusing to you, you’re not alone.
According to the recent poll (conducted by Leger and commissioned by the Fraser Institute), 93 per cent of Canadian parents from coast to coast said the letter grade “A” was “clear and easy” to understand while 83 per cent said the letter grade “C” was “clear and easy” to understand. (For the sake of brevity, the poll only asked respondents about these two letter grades.)
By contrast, 58 per cent of Canadian parents said the descriptive grade “extending” was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 26 per cent could correctly identify what “extending” means on a report card.
It was a similar story for the descriptive grade “emerging,” as 57 per cent of Canadian parents said the term was “unclear and difficult” to understand and only 28 per cent could correctly identify what “emerging” means on a report card.
It’s also worth noting that the poll simplified the definitions of the four “descriptive” grading terms. The B.C. government’s official definitions, which can be found on the government’s website, speak for themselves. For example: “Extending is not synonymous with perfection. A student is Extending when they demonstrate learning, in relation to learning standards, with increasing depth and complexity. Extending is not a bonus or a reward and does not necessarily require that students do a greater volume of work or work at a higher grade level. Extending is not the goal for all students; Proficient is. Therefore, if a student turns in all their work and demonstrates evidence of learning in all learning standards for an area of learning, they are not automatically assigned Extending.”
So, what are the consequences of this confusing gobbledygook? Well, we already have some anecdotes.
Before the B.C. government made the changes provincewide, the Surrey School District participated in a pilot program to gauge the effectiveness of descriptive grading. According to Elenore Sturko, a Conservative MLA in Surrey and mother of three, for three years her daughter’s report cards said she was “emerging” rather than clearly stating she was failing. Sturko was unaware there was a problem until the child’s Third Grade teacher called to tell Sturko that her daughter was reading at a Kindergarten level.
Former B.C. education minister Rachna Singh tried to justify the change saying descriptive grading would help students become “better prepared for the outside world” where you “don’t get feedback in letters.” But parents in B.C. clearly aren’t happy.
Of course, other provinces also use terms in their grading systems (meeting expectations, exceeding expectations, satisfactory, needs improvement, etc.) in addition to letter grades. But based on this polling data, the descriptive grading now used in B.C.—which again, has completely replaced letter grades—makes it much harder for B.C. parents to understand how their children are doing in school. The B.C. government should take a red pen to this confusing new policy before it does any more damage. And parents across the country should keep a watchful eye on their local school boards for any plans to replace the ABCs with vague terminology open to interpretation.
Paige MacPherson
From the Fraser Institute
Not only does Alberta have a fully funded separate (Catholic) school system, it also provides between 60 and 70 per cent operational funding to accredited independent schools. In addition, Alberta is the only province in Canada to allow fully funded charter schools. And Alberta subsidizes homeschooling parents.
This week, the Smith government in Alberta will likely pass Bill 27, which requires schools to get signed permission from parents or guardians prior to any lessons on human sexuality, gender identity or sexual orientation.
It’s a sensible move. The government is proactively ensuring that students are in these classes because their parents want them there. Given the sensitive nature of these topics, for everyone’s sake it makes sense to ensure parental buy-in at the outset.
Unfortunately, many school trustees don’t agree. A recent resolution passed by the Alberta School Boards Association (ASBA) calls on the Smith government to maintain the status quo where parents are assumed to have opted in to these lessons unless they contact the school and opt their children out. Apparently, the ASBA thinks parents can’t be trusted to make the right decisions for their children on this issue.
This ASBA resolution is, in fact, a good example of the reflexive opposition by government school trustees to parental rights. They don’t want parents to take control of their children’s education, especially in sensitive areas. Fortunately, the Alberta government rebuffed ASBA’s demands and this attempt to abolish Bill 27 will likely fall on deaf ears.
However, there’s an even better safeguard available to Alberta parents—school choice. Out of all Canadian provinces, Alberta offers the most school choice. Not only does Alberta have a fully funded separate (Catholic) school system, it also provides between 60 and 70 per cent operational funding to accredited independent schools. In addition, Alberta is the only province in Canada to allow fully funded charter schools. And Alberta subsidizes homeschooling parents. Simply put, parents who are dissatisfied with the government school system have plenty of options—more than parents in any other province. This means Alberta parents can vote with their feet.
Things are quite different in other parts of the country. For example, Ontario and the four Atlantic provinces do not allow any provincial funding to follow students to independent schools. In other words, parents in these provinces who choose an independent school must pay the full cost themselves—while still paying taxes that fund government schools. And no province other than Alberta allows charter schools.
This is why it’s important to give parents as much school choice as possible. Given the tendency of government school boards to remove choices from parents, it’s important that all parents, including those with limited means, have other options available for their children.
Imagine if the owners of a large grocery store tried to impose their dietary preferences by removing all meat products and telling customers that the only way they could purchase meat is to make a special order. What would happen in that scenario? It depends on what other options are available. If this was the only grocery store in the community, customers would have no choice but to comply. However, if there were other stores, customers could simply shop elsewhere. Choice empowers people and limits the ability of one company to limit the choices of people who live in the community.
Think of government school boards as a monopolistic service provider like a grocery store. They often do everything possible to prevent parents from going anywhere else for their children’s education. Trusting them to do what’s best for parents and children is like assuming that the owners of a grocery store would always put the interests of their customers first and not their own self-interest. Monopolies are bad in the private sector and they’re bad in the education sector, too.
Clearly, it makes sense to require schools to get proactive consent from parents. This ensures maximum buy-in from parents for whatever courses their children take. It’s also important that Alberta remains a bastion of school choice. By making it easier for parents to choose from a variety of education options, Alberta puts power in the hands of parents, exactly where it belongs. Parents in other provinces should want that same power, too.
Nanaimo syringe stabbing reignites calls for involuntary care
Electronic monitoring of repeat offenders begins
FDA bans highly used food dye
Cancer drug pioneer praises RFK Jr., suggests link between childhood cancer and COVID shots
Canadian judge rejects complaint against maskless workplaces as frivolous
Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax
50,000 Students Missing: Trudeau’s Immigration Circus Hits New Low
-
Daily Caller2 days agoBiden Pardons His Brother Jim And Other Family Members Just Moments Before Trump’s Swearing-In
-
International2 days agoBiden preemptively pardons Fauci, Cheney, Milley on way out
-
Business2 days agoCarney says as PM he would replace the Carbon Tax with something ‘more effective’
-
International1 day agoTrump orders U.S. withdrawal from World Health Organization
-
Business2 days agoFreeland and Carney owe Canadians clear answer on carbon taxes
-
Business2 days agoUK lawmaker threatens to use Online Safety Act to censor social media platforms
-
Business2 days agoTrump promises new era of government efficiency with DOGE
-
Daily Caller1 day agoTrump Takes Firm Stand, Exits Paris Agreement Again