Craving connection

The arrival of the internet in our lives has drastically changed the way we receive information and communicate. Where information flow once required people to meet in person to speak or deliver documents, we are now able to access far-away people and places at rapid speeds. With change come both opportunities and risks. The internet opens exciting opportunities for learning and relating, whilst also provoking genuine concerns about user safety and the amount of time people, particularly children, spend in the "virtual" rather than the "real" world.

This week, a report commissioned by the British Government was released, titled Safer Children in a Digital World. The report examined internet usage amongst children and adolescents, pinpointing both its risks and its possibilities. The overwhelming advice given is the need for children to use the internet within reasonable boundaries. There are new risks for children associated with the internet, but these also provide opportunities, as learning to manage risk is an important part of a child's development. The report points out the need to "Equip children to deal with exposure to harmful and inappropriate content and contact." Coinciding with this report is an editorial in the American Journal of Psychology that speaks of a more disturbing impact of the internet on society. Authored by psychiatrist, Jerald Block, the editorial describes internet addiction as a serious medical issue, characterised by markers such as withdrawal, fatigue and lying. The problem is so bad in some places that "After a series of 10 cardiopulmonary-related deaths in Internet cafes ... South Korea considers internet addiction one of its most serious public health issues." Both the report and the editorial tell us what we already know but struggle to negotiate—that the internet has rapidly changed the way we interact, for good and for bad. The temptation is to vilify the technology itself when issues such as internet addiction are raised, when in reality the problem lies with our willingness to let the technology rule our choices and with our lack of boundaries.

The reported incidents of internet addiction worldwide are small, yet they speak grave and important words to us, if we listen. They speak of people trapped in the cravings for instant sensation and connection. They speak of people losing an ability to function physically as the virtual world rules their head. And they speak of a society that builds internet cafes that are cheaper the longer you stay, and then watches as people sit for hours, interacting only with a computer. They are words that we need to hear, not to spark paranoia, but to recognise that responsibility is crucial in the way we interact with information technology. The problem does not lie with the internet. It lies with a boundless culture, instant communication and a glut of sensation. It lies with fickle beliefs and an inability to siphon information. Somehow we must slow down, turn off some switches and speak to each other again about how to be discerning.

• Read Safer Children in a Digital World
• Read the "American Journal of Psychology" editorial on internet addiction

Keeping the Police up-to-date

Maxim Institute has just made a written submission to the Law and Order Committee on the new Policing Bill. The Bill, which would update and modernise the current law around policing in New Zealand, comes following a commendably comprehensive and broad consultation period and would make many timely and necessary changes.

Both the content of the Bill and the process followed in drafting it are to be applauded. It was the result of a wide-ranging consultation process on eight issues papers, involving many different organisations and individuals. The result is an effective bill that clearly sets out the principles, status and expectations of the New Zealand Police, while modernising existing systems through clauses that provide for measures such as a code of conduct and the collection of DNA from prospective police employees. The last major revamp to New Zealand's policing legislation was carried out in 1958. Consequently, the changes in this Bill move away from many of the military type procedures currently used in the police force towards a greater focus on procedures that reflect modern employment law.

The one thing the Bill does not adequately achieve is a clear separation of powers. Under the existing law police officers can not stand for Parliament unless they go on leave from the Police, and if elected, they must resign. Although the law also provides for restrictions on police officers standing for their local council, these restrictions have never been activated, so in practice officers may stand for local government positions, subject to internal police procedures. This Bill would remove even the potential restrictions on police being elected to their local authority, which continues a situation that unfortunately blurs the line between those who make the laws and those who enforce them. The doctrine of separation of powers that we have in New Zealand ensures division and accountability between the legislative, the executive and the judiciary—those that make the laws, those that implement the laws, and those that interpret and enforce the laws. Police officers should be encouraged to participate in their community by standing on local community and school boards, but by serving on a local council a police officer would be involved in both making laws, such as alcohol or prostitution bylaws, and putting them into effect—this could lead to a conflict of interest. Therefore, Police who stand for their local Council should be subject to the same rules as those who wish to stand for Parliament.

Overall the Bill provides a much needed update to New Zealand's law in the area of policing. The Law and Order Select Committee is currently considering the Bill and is expected to report back to Parliament by 31 May this year.

• Read the Policing Bill
• Read Maxim Institute's submission on the Policing Bill

One out, one in

The British Government is set to pass legislation that will require all secondary schools to accept an equal share of pupils who are excluded for difficult behaviour. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Ed Balls, recently announced that behaviour partnerships, which currently operate between 97 percent of schools, are to be made mandatory across schools, including specialist Academies, Foundation schools and Pupil Referral Units. Once the legislation is passed, schools can expect exclusions to be managed between schools on the principle of "one pupil in for every pupil out." The purpose is to encourage schools to take responsibility for the behaviour of all the pupils in their area, and to prevent some schools ending up with much higher proportions of difficult pupils than others.

Ed Balls is acting on a recommendation made by behaviour specialist Sir Alan Steer, who has reported on the progress being made with initiatives to improve school behaviour and discipline. His report stated that the effectiveness of behaviour partnerships is being "damaged" by a "minority of schools" which use unfair admissions and exclusions practices. For example, a school with a waiting list could unfairly exclude a pupil if it wished to create a new place for a better-behaved pupil. Another temptation might be that schools could exclude difficult pupils if they think they might harm their overall performance in national exams or standardised tests.

This move means popular schools and specialist schools will not be able to leave the challenge of educating excluded pupils to a handful of schools. Moreover, the model of behaviour partnerships shows how encouraging schools to cooperate together might improve schooling for difficult pupils. While evidence is still emerging about the impact of behaviour partnerships, cases indicate that the number of expulsions can be reduced when schools work together to manage moves, and take collective responsibility for preventing exclusions.

In New Zealand, the incidence of stand-downs and suspensions has increased substantially between 2000 and 2007 by an age-standardised rate of approximately 35 pupils per 1000. For Maori pupils, the age-standardised suspension rate is nearly four times as high as the rate for New Zealand European pupils. The Student Engagement Initiative, developed by the Ministry of Education, seems to be having a positive effect in reducing exclusions at schools with historically high suspension rates for Maori. As yet though, behaviour partnerships have not been implemented in New Zealand and should be considered as a possible strategy for schools to equally share the responsibility of improving the behaviour of difficult pupils and to reduce the number of exclusions.

• Read the "Sir Alan Steer Behaviour Review"
• Read current New Zealand Ministry of Education figures for stand-downs and suspensions from school