Laptop Rollout Questions and Answers
In follow up to the communication earlier this week regarding Mulgrave’s shift in approach to laptops, we have compiled a set of Q&As. Please take the time to read through these responses and connect with the research links to ensure you have all of the latest information about this initiative. The initial Head Space post outlining Mulgrave's commitment to responsible and effective technology use is here and provides useful background.
Newly added Q&A
Why not just add more robust filters and controls to the system so students can keep their preferred device?
While adding stronger filters and monitoring tools to personal devices may seem like a solution, it does not provide the level of security, control, and consistency required for an effective learning environment. The key issue is machine rights - with a BYOD programme, the school does not have administrative access to student devices, meaning we cannot enforce security policies, install required software, prevent installing games, or prevent students from removing monitoring tools. This significantly limits our ability to ensure a distraction-free and secure digital learning experience.
For example, on a personal device, a student can simply uninstall security tools, disable content filters, or install a VPN to bypass school network restrictions. Even if we apply network-based filters, these protections disappear once students are off-campus. With school-issued devices, we can ensure that monitoring tools are only active when appropriate, that students have access to the necessary educational resources, and that distractions and security risks are minimised.
What about privacy for device use, content, location, etc?
Our approach to privacy is to disable and limit all features that could compromise student privacy, and only enable what is needed to support learning at school and at home. Privacy settings that relate to this school-issued device programme will also be made explicit to families and students through an Acceptable Use Agreement to ensure maximum transparency. This means that, while some settings will need to be available so that our programme is effective (such as monitoring student screens), they would be limited based on the reasonable educational need (such as monitoring screens only during class time to reduce distractions in class). These limitations will be set by the software and/or by school policy. Simply put, our goal, as with any educational tool, is to support student learning while minimising unnecessary data collection or surveillance. Keep in mind that the provided device is only to be used for school purposes, and it is important that students and families are mindful of this when using the device.
Our Acceptable Use Agreement will also works both ways; as a progressive, inclusive, values drive school we will set ‘essential agreements’ with our students as well as our teachers. As we are keen to emphasise to families, this is not a binary issue as the increased capacity for guardrails does not create a 100% immersive controlled environment. Our primary objective in moving towards school-issued devices is only to serve the purpose of decreasing the current worrying extent of digital distraction.
Furthermore, it is also essential for families and students to realise that our philosophy of differentiation applies to devices, too. Ultimately teachers, advisors, parent-partners, and student behaviour itself can help us determine how to adjust our supportive device features. Once we are up and running we can change protocols depending on grade group and even by individual student if necessary, thereby tailoring the continuum of ‘full filter capacity” at one end to much more “open access” on the other. This is very important to understand.
Without practice, how will students effectively transition into real world environments like university and the workplace?
If you examine the University of Pennsylvania’s page on device use at one of the top global institutions in the world, you might be surprised to learn that digital distraction is leading these institutions towards more controlled environments. The ‘privilege’ of using a device is revoked if misused.
You might think that we could do the same as UPenn and remove the device from any students caught misusing it for entertainment purposes, but the main difference at Mulgrave is the requirement for students to access online class pages via SEQTA or Google Classroom etc for learning. Given the requirement to use a device for learning only we believe the more appropriate ‘middle ground’ is ensuring this device has guardrails, filters and the capacity to severely limit distractive opportunities.
We would invite families to view school-issued devices as providing some effective guardrails to support students in their development of good habits. This does not alter our progressive school values in wanting our students to continue to move towards the intrinsic capacity to self regulate and self manage. This is not a binary issue. As our university partners tell us, digital distraction is not limited to the individual student behaviour as someone else watching a basketball game in class also distracts every other student in their sight line. By providing some effective and personalised tools for teachers to use to help support this developmental growth we are not undermining our commitment towards cultivating these habits. Furthermore, because of the totally unrestricted access we are currently operating under, Mulgrave students are actually not aligned with many ‘real world’ employer norms. A quick survey of some of our parent workplace environments reveals that they have far more robust firewalls, security protocols and limitations placed around employee access than we do for our younger students.
Previous Q&A
What is the school trying to accomplish with this change?
Our duty of care at Mulgrave is to ensure that effective learning is occurring as much as possible.
Both our phone policy and school issued laptop policy have not been carried out with any expectation that they will change adolescent behaviour when outside of school. Our aim is different. We want to ensure, as much as possible, that when students are in class learning, that the device they have to use to access class pages, assignments, and posted case studies, etc has the capacity to prevent the temptation to simply open an adjacent tab and be distracted or cognitively disrupted for that lesson.
The second aim is to better enable parents at home to have more confidence that their children are actually focussed on homework when using a school issued device. It is the school's responsibility to ensure, as much as reasonably possible, that this device has forms of security that better protect students from distraction given their pre-frontal cortex is nowhere near fully formed.
Given that so much school work and homework occurs on a device, it is appropriate and responsible for us to ensure this device has guardrails to help keep students focussed on this work. Currently, we know from feedback and observation over a long period of time that students are off task in both classroom and home environments.
What research is driving this decision?
Please see both pieces of research on phones and the latest Head Space blog on laptops. Additionally, see this document for summary research conducted by the Leadership Team and these slides for global case studied.
Please be reassured that for a decision of this significance we have not been selective and have actively dived into some of the counter claims in published research. In summary, the meta analysis highlighted in the research document above clearly indicates that digital distraction is a serious and significant impediment to learning and development. The research also shows that BYOD approaches are only partially successful if there is continuous and highly interventionist patrolling by teachers at all times. This continuous and pervasive teacher monitoring would undermine the valuable one to one support our students need in lessons and disrupts the positive relationship building between teacher and student if there is continual policing and calling out. As outlined in the research document above, this is an experience shared by many schools globally.
So the research clearly indicates that the only conditions under which BYOD might be successful for effective learning are with an unsustainable amount of surveillance. The same research also indicates that schools using a device that itself enables filtering and surveillance actually improves student learning outcomes.
Importantly as you will see in the linked pieces, the intensification of the algorithmic ‘attacks’ and attention-grabbing tools we are all exposed to has completely shifted the context that led schools to implement BYOD programmes in the first place. (see the Brad Carter reference below)
What devices will be used?
We are currently working with teachers and students to determine the best device to support learning at our school while reducing distractions. This work is currently underway, but it is safe to say that we will be selecting from fully capable, powerful learning devices (i.e. PC or MAC). This rules out Chromebooks due to software compatibility required to be successful across all subjects at our school. It also means we will be trialling a range of devices that are most compatible with all of the needs of our various subjects, LEAPS, and user expectations.
Who will decide on the device and what about specialised needs such as with robotics programmes?
We have a task force of teachers from across the disciplines that includes design, coding, STEM and art, plus representation for our LEAP electives to try and ensure our device supports all of this learning. Students will join the task force when needed to provide feedback on devices.
Can students have the choice of Mac or PC?
Students will be provided a device that is chosen by the school. For a variety of reasons including device management and learning consistency, we will likely be selecting a MAC or a PC device.
It is important for both students and parents to understand that using a consistent device enables guardrails and filters to work. As outlined in the research, we believe the significant benefits to be gained override the convenience of being able to use any device in school. Our job is therefore to make the device we choose effective for learning and student use.
Is having restrictions at school counter to the school’s aim to develop self-management skills in students?
Not at all! We will still be teaching and practicing self–management skills with and without technology. Our emphasis on Digital Literacy (i.e. technical skill development) and Digital Citizenship (responsible, healthy, and safe use of technology) will still be taught throughout our curriculum.
We are also ‘doubling down on’ our continued emphasis on ATL self management skills, Life Skills, Character Education, and Advisory focussing on interpersonal real time interactions and increasing outdoor learning opportunities that must come hand in hand with limiting damaging screen time. We do not think that school issued devices with some guardrails and filters undermine the self management education we will continue to provide for students.
Psychologist Jonathan Haidt asserts that normalised screen addiction realities for teenagers today are equivalent to drug addiction in terms of dopamine release and impulse control. Our own Mulgrave students presented on this at our recent TEDx event. Given the power of algorithms today, drawing this analogy is not an exaggeration. We feel confident that this measure to apply tools and safeguards on their learning device will not undermine life preparedness.
Will students get ‘training’ on their new devices before school starts?
Yes, upon receiving their devices (G5, 7, 10 in August and G6, 8, 9, 11 in January 2026), students will have initial training as well as opportunities to learn tips & tricks throughout the year. Our Learning & Technology Services team is also ready to support them and they are able to drop by at any time.
What happens if a laptop is damaged during the school year?
Reasonable wear and tear will be handled by the school. As we want to encourage responsible usage by students, we do feel there needs to be some jeopardy for them if there is willful neglect.
Can families opt out of the programme so their children can continue to use a personal device?
No, this would ultimately defeat the purpose of the programme.
Doesn’t this just make it more complicated for students, if they have one laptop for school and another one for personal use?
Our expectation is that the school-provided laptop will be used exclusively on campus and for all homework and assignments done at home. The laptop is the student’s to use throughout the year so they can take it to and from school as they do their own device now. There is no need for students to transfer work between devices (or even to have two devices at all). This segmentation delineates the use of the device for learning, which doesn’t then get intermixed with entertainment.
Are we alone amongst independent schools in moving to school issued devices?
No. Our fellow ISABC schools Southridge, GlenlyonNorfolk and Island Pacific School run similar school-issued programmes. Interestingly Brad Carter, who was Mulgrave’s Director of Educational Technology and supported a shift to BYOD in 2016, has now implemented a school-issued device with guardrails in place to remove distractions at the ISABC school where he is now Head.
Additionally, highly respected independent schools worldwide like Wellington and Eton College do the same. My recent visit to Canada’s oldest independent school, Upper Canada College, also runs device programmes with filters, blocks, and teacher control features. A look at the research links above provide just a small sample of whole countries, jurisdictions, and public and private schools that have moved to similar school issued norms.
This is not an isolated or controversial move.
How will the school fund the devices? Will there be an increase in tuition for this?
Laptops will be rolled out to students in Grades 5-11 in the 2025-26 school year. There will be no additional levy to families for this cost. As we roll out our new 2025 Strategic Directions initiative that focusses on high impact student learning, the costs for school-issued devices will be allocated from this fund. Given the Board’s oversight of school strategy, they have been supportive of allocating funds from this budget line item.
Comments from verified Mulgrave community members are posted below.