Scientific innovation Notes

Solution

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to your recent article on the introduction of artificial intelligence in schools. As a student currently preparing for the IB, I have already seen how AI tools are reshaping the way we study. Used well, they can provide quick feedback, suggest resources, and even guide revision. For many students, especially those without access to private tutoring, this could make learning more equal.

At the same time, I worry about what we may lose. School is not just about information but about discussion and collaboration. If AI replaces too much of the teacher’s role, students may become passive learners who expect instant answers rather than thinking critically. Education should not only be efficient; it should build independence.

There is also the issue of fairness. Not every school can afford the newest tools, which risks widening the gap between rich and poor communities. If AI is to be part of classrooms, governments must ensure that it is introduced fairly and with clear guidance for teachers.

Scientific innovation should make us more human, not less. If we remember this principle, then AI in education can be a help rather than a threat.

Yours sincerely,
Olivia

Solution

Should Schools Ban Phones?

The announcement that several schools across Europe and Asia have introduced full phone bans made headlines last month. The policy is simple: students hand in their devices at the start of the day and only collect them after the final bell. Reactions have been mixed, but the debate goes beyond convenience. It touches on the deeper question of how schools should manage innovation when it starts to control rather than support learning.

Supporters of bans argue that phones are the biggest distraction in classrooms today. Studies show students check their devices dozens of times an hour, breaking focus and reducing productivity. Teachers often find themselves competing with TikTok rather than leading discussion. Removing phones allows lessons to flow without constant interruptions. Students talk to each other more, and even playground dynamics shift when everyone is equally “offline.”

But the other side deserves attention. For many students, phones are not just entertainment. They are dictionaries, research tools, calculators, and cameras for school projects. Banning them entirely risks treating all use as negative when, in fact, technology has become inseparable from how young people learn and communicate. A strict ban can feel like schools are shutting the door on the digital world rather than teaching students to use it responsibly.

The issue is not just about distraction; it is about access. Wealthier schools can afford laptops and tablets in class, so their students continue to benefit from technology even without phones. In underfunded schools, the phone may be the only personal device a student has. To ban it without providing alternatives creates inequality rather than reducing it.

A more balanced approach is needed. Instead of blanket bans, schools could restrict phones during lessons while allowing controlled use for study. Teachers could set tasks where students use their devices for research, then compare sources critically. This way, students learn digital literacy rather than avoidance.

Innovation has always raised challenges for education. The printing press once sparked fears that students would stop memorising knowledge. Calculators were criticised for making maths “too easy.” Now phones are the latest battleground. History suggests that banning tools rarely works; teaching students how to master them does.

If the aim of education is to prepare students for the real world, then schools cannot pretend the digital world does not exist. The question is not whether phones belong in classrooms, but how we ensure they are used to build focus, creativity, and fairness rather than distraction. That requires guidance, not confiscation.