Parents to be consulted on phones in Highland schools
Highland Council plans to consult parents and school staff on pupils' use of mobile phones in classrooms.Nairn Academy and Grantown Grammar School have already introduced bans.Councillors have now unanimously backed a proposal from Labour's Michael Gregson and Conservative's Helen Crawford for a wider consultation.Mr Gregson and Ms Crawford said phones were having a disruptive effect on children and their education.
The proposal includes a commitment from the local authority to support schools that decide to ban the devices.
Inverness councillor Mr Gregson, who is a former teacher at Inverness Royal Academy, said phones were part of "an age of fragmented attention spans".Aird and Loch Ness councillor Ms Crawford raised concerns about phones being used to take photos or videos of teachers in classrooms, and the material then being used to bully or embarrass staff. She added: "At the end of the day, we want all our kids to thrive and having the constant distraction of a mobile phone clearly does not help."Let's get these phones out of our schools and let's free up our kids to concentrate and learn."Highland Council has 29 secondary schools, three special schools and more than 170 primary schools.
Lockable pouches
Plans for the consultation follows pupils at two high schools in Edinburgh having to keep their mobiles in lockable pouches during the day under a new phone-free policy.Students at Portobello High School and Queensferry High School are being issued with special wallets which once sealed require a magnetic pad to unlock them.Pupils are allowed to keep their phones in their possession but will be expected to keep them in the pouches until the bell rings at the end of their final lesson.Moray councillors voted earlier this month to bring in stricter guidelines limiting the use of mobiles in schools from August.Councillors hoped the move would reduce disruption in the classroom, as well as stop some incidents of bullying.Scottish government guidance allows head teachers to make their own decisions on mobile phone use but Moray Council has decided to introduce blanket guidance.Moray's new policy would have exemptions for medical use such as diabetes monitoring.Reporting by local democracy journalist Will Angus.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
14 minutes ago
- The Guardian
France to use UK drama Adolescence to teach teenagers about toxic masculinity
France has followed the UK and the Netherlands in allowing the Netflix drama Adolescence to be used in secondary schools as part of efforts to teach teenagers about toxic masculinity and online harms. The French education ministry will offer schools five classes based on excerpts from the critically acclaimed mini-series, which has provoked a global debate about the impact on young boys of misogynistic content online and on social media. The producer of the series – the second most-watched English-language series ever on Netflix, with more than 140m views as of 1 June – had granted the government the rights for educational use, the education minister, Élisabeth Borne, said. Borne told LCI television the excerpts were 'very representative of the violence that can exist among young people' and would be shown to pupils aged about 14 and older, accompanied by specially developed teaching materials. It was aimed at raising awareness of the problem of 'overexposure to screens and the trivialisation of violence on social networks', as well as the spread of so-called masculinist ideology advocating violence against women, Borne said. Adolescence, which launched on 13 March, tells the story of a 13-year-old boy arrested for the murder of a female classmate after being radicalised by toxic online material such as that posted by the self-styled misogynist influencer Andrew Tate. Netflix made it available to UK secondary schools in April, to accompany teaching resources from a relationships charity, in what Keir Starmer, the prime minister, called 'an important initiative'. The Dutch-speaking province of Flanders in northern Belgium has also begun using Adolescence in secondary schools. 'The series shows how digital influences and loneliness can lead some young people astray when they lack sufficient support,' the Flemish minister for media, Cieltje Van Achter, told the regional parliament. 'It also highlights how adults and teachers are increasingly losing touch with the world of young people. It is important that we support both teachers and young people so that these topics can be discussed.' In the Netherlands, the series is being used in secondary schools after a proposal from the GreenLeft-Labour MP Barbara Kathmann, with materials om social media influencers and peer pressure developed in conjunction with Netflix by a media studies institute. Sign up to This is Europe The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment after newsletter promotion Kathmann said: 'By showing the series in classes, we can create a safe setting in which to discuss it and the issues it raises, so making teenagers more resilient and preventing them from being sucked into the 'manospere' and its pernicious consequences.' Eppo van Nispen tot Sevenaer, the director of the media studies institute Beeld en Geluid (Image and Sound), said Adolescence was 'the perfect vehicle' to engage young people about 'a world that is completely separate from that of teachers and parents'. Jack Thorne, the series' co-writer, said after its launch it had been made 'to provoke a conversation', adding: 'We wanted to pose the question: how do we help stop this growing crisis. So to have the opportunity to take it into schools is beyond our expectations.'
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
These are Britain's options for tactical nuclear weapons. We must choose, and act
As the dust begins to settle on the Strategic Defence Review, Lord Robertson's interview with the Telegraph 's Roland Oliphant answered a number of important issues. However his lordship danced around the critical and pressing issue of re-introducing a tactical nuclear capability to our national deterrent. This is vital against the background of continuous nuclear threats against the UK and Europe from President Putin and the gangsters who advise him. The need to show military strength to Moscow could not be more pressing. The re-introduction of a tactical nuclear capability would impact Putin's decision-making far more than a few hundred tanks or half a dozen capital ships, but it is not quite so straight forward as strapping a nuclear bomb to a jet or on the end of a cruise missile. If the UK sticks with our closest ally, probably still the US, we will most likely purchase some F-35A runway stealth jets to go alongside our existing jumpjet F-35Bs. The Bs have the advantage of being able to operate from our carriers, but their vertical thrust equipment means that they lack range and cannot carry larger weapons in their internal bays. The F-35A is also the only 5th generation stealth jet that is certified to carry nuclear weapons – specifically the American B61-12 nuclear gravity bomb. This can be carried by German jets, will soon be certified on Italian ones, and would most likely be our tactical option also. But this may not be a credible enough option to effectively deter Putin. Though the F-35 is paraded as the stealthiest thing in the sky it is not actually invisible to radar and it might be shot down before it could get above its target to drop its B61-12s. This brings up the need to be able to knock out Russian air defences in order to make our tactical nukes (or other air power) effective. Air defence is nowadays hugely important and has been possibly the defining issue in the Ukraine war. In my day, you became an air defence officer – a 'cloud-puncher' – if no other path was open. Today the air defence officers are the first pick. Air defences, even modern and powerful Russian ones such as the S-400, can be suppressed: we have seen Israel do this against Iran's S-300s before bombing some of Iran's nuclear research establishments this and last year. Recent Ukrainian attacks, most especially the strike last week on the Russian military air base at Bryansk show that Russian AD is not as water-tight as the Kremlin would have us believe. Nonetheless it might be a big ask to get F-35s almost on top of their target in order to deliver a free-falling gravity bomb like the B61-12. The other option possibly available to the UK is to do what the French have done: rather than a free-falling nuke, France has the Air-Sol Moyenne Portée (ASMPA) supersonic cruise missile, which can be released from its carrying jet hundreds of miles from the target. The ASMPA is supersonic, making it harder to knock down than a normal subsonic cruise missile. Our missile making capability is joint with France and Europe anyway, so if we went down this route we could partner with the French, who already know what they're doing in this area. Our existing subsonic Storm Shadow cruise missile is actually French too – the warhead is the only British part. It has been put to good use against Russia in Ukrainian hands, though it appears to need help – either US defence-suppression technology or special forces operations against Russian defence radars – to be fully effective. It could be argued that it is now Monsieur Macron and France who are our closest allies, as President Trump seems to shun us 'pathetic' Europeans. This could be a viable way forward. Even I, a soldier, can recognise that reintroducing a tactical nuclear air delivered capability is not an insignificant task. It is complicated by our current lack of any AWACS radar planes and other specialist defence-suppression equipment. Nonetheless we have been in the nuclear deterrence game almost since the beginning and our Atomic Weapons Establishment can at least furnish us with the key: the actual warhead. We might alternatively make a beginning by developing a home-grown nuclear tip for our stock of US-made, submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise weapons: the Tomahawk was originally developed to deliver nukes, so we know it can do that job. One thing I am sure of is the need. As a former commander of the UK and Nato's chemical and nuclear defence forces, I know the overwhelming impact that tactical nuclear weapons can have on the battlefield, and the huge advantage they give to an aggressor against somebody who does not possess these weapons. We must be ready to deal with the Russian bear. Putin will not be deterred by 12 more submarines in the ocean in the next decade, and Dad's Army covering the White Cliffs perhaps sooner – useful and vital as these things will be. As Uncle Sam backs away from the fight, the prospect of the UK joining France in fielding a tactical capability which could cripple a Russian army in the field would likely get Putin talking peace quicker than most other threats. For 80 years there has been nuclear equilibrium in Europe, but this has become unbalanced. It is the major metric in Putin's decision making, psychologically if not physically. It isn't very important which tactical nuclear option we choose – F-35A, a French style standoff weapon, or Tomahawk. What is important is that we choose at least one and get it into service.
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Too low, now too high': Rachel Reeves' winter fuel U-turn reignites fairness debate
As the government hikes the winter fuel payment threshold to £35,000, many Independent readers say the means test was too low last year – and is now far too high. The sudden shift has sparked frustration, confusion and claims of political opportunism. Many readers criticised the move as politically motivated, coming just days before a crucial spending review and following electoral losses and pressure from Reform UK. Several argued the new threshold is too high, with one pointing out that a £35k salary should not warrant government support, especially when many working-age families and the unemployed receive far less help. Others echoed the IFS and Resolution Foundation's concerns that the policy is poorly targeted and administratively messy, potentially creating unfair outcomes for households just above the income line. Some welcomed the return of payments for lower-income pensioners but questioned why the government scrapped them in the first place without a clear plan. Pensioners themselves weighed in too – some said they managed perfectly without the payments and felt younger families in poverty needed the support more. One commented: 'We are mortgage-free and have enough – give it to those who really need it.' The overall feeling from our community was that the government had acted too late and without transparency. The move was described as a 'headless chicken' reaction, lacking clarity on implementation, repayment, and future policy direction. Here's what you had to say: I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Not a U-turn, just a high threshold It's not a U-turn. They brought in the concept of means testing the WFA and now they've raised the limit. A U-turn would be going back to universal WFA. Personally, I think they've set it far too high. I know plenty of families that would love to be earning £35k and getting guaranteed pay rises every year, plus money towards their fuel bill. KrakenUK Means test still not right Means test was too low before and is too high now – and should be based on household income. We're both pensioners with a joint income of close to £50k, no dependent kids, no mortgage. Added to this, we've got the protection of the triple lock. There is no way we need this money, whereas many young families do. WokeUp 4,000 lives at risk The enduring problem is that the government's own estimate said that 4,000 people would die of the cold if this policy was introduced. The excess deaths figures will not be published for another year and, in any case, are now very complicated. The question for me is: would I ever vote for people who were prepared to allow 4,000 old people to die because they don't understand economics? MrBishi We manage, give it to those who need it I've always said the same. We are mortgage-free, I'm on a state pension and get a small private pension. My wife, who is younger, still works part-time and gets around £600 per month. We manage perfectly. We know a lot of younger people who work and struggle with rents, children to keep, etc. Give it to them. Some pensioners out there are just plain greedy and want every penny piece they can grab. Ian Why should wealthy pensioners get it? I barely earn £35K as a 45-year-old professional in the NHS and certainly won't get that kind of money for a pension. Why should so many get a £300 handout when they've more than likely paid their mortgage and don't have to spend money on children, etc., any more? OnlyFishLeft Social care funding was the original point I expect both the Tories and the Lib Dems are hoping everyone's forgotten that they have both, at one time or another, called for either means testing the WFA or restricting it to pension credit claimants only. It was, in fact, in the Conservatives' 2017 election manifesto. For the Libs, it was one Paul Burstow MP, who had served in the coalition government. In both cases, the money saved was to be diverted to social care reform, which was a pretty good idea, I think. RickC Help paying the gas bill on £35k? Thirty-five grand coming in a year and you get help paying your gas bill? Truly outrageous. This suggests a person needs £35k a year, minimum, to live. So how about getting disabled people and the unemployed up to that rate then? Because they are far, far below. BigDogSmallBrain A compromise, but poorly communicated This sounds a more sensible compromise rather than going back to the old universal payment, but the government should have made this announcement last year so people would have been prepared for it, and it wouldn't have looked so much as if they were frightened of Farage. ruthmayjellings What if one earns over the limit? I suppose we will have to wait for the detail, but what happens if a couple claim the WFA (one per household) through the non-earning spouse, while the other has income over £35,000? That's not very clear. SteveHill Why not last year? Last year there was no money so they cut WFA and they can blame it on the Tories. This year the economy is in an even worse mess and they reinstate it, against all logic, and then they put the level far too high. No details as to how it will be paid for, how it will be recouped, nor how they will ID those who can get it and those who will have to pay it back. And if they suddenly found a system, why did they not use it last year? And I do not suppose the shellacking they got in May has anything at all to do with it, has it? Headless chickens, the lot of them — especially Reeves and Starmer. ListenVeryCarefully
