Starting in the upcoming school year, high school students will face a ban on mobile phone use during educational activities and throughout school hours. This directive comes from the Ministry of Education, led by Minister Giuseppe Valditara, who emphasized the necessity of this measure due to the detrimental effects that excessive smartphone usage can have on adolescents' health and academic performance.

The circular references various studies from reputable organizations such as OECD Pisa and the World Health Organization, highlighting that over 25% of adolescents experience problematic smartphone use. This behavior is linked to negative impacts on sleep, concentration, and interpersonal relationships, all of which can hinder learning.

In response to growing concerns about digital device usage in education, several countries across Europe are implementing similar restrictions while also reevaluating how technology is integrated into teaching. Valditara has urged the European Commission to develop recommendations prioritizing student well-being and cognitive development through appropriate technology use.

To enforce this new policy in high schools, institutions will need to revise their regulations to explicitly prohibit smartphone use during school hours unless specified exceptions apply. These exceptions include provisions for students with disabilities or specific learning disorders as outlined in their Individual Educational Plans. Mobile phones may also be permitted for educational purposes within designated technological education sectors.

While smartphones will be restricted, other digital tools such as PCs and tablets will continue to be utilized for educational purposes. Schools are expected to ensure these tools are effectively integrated into teaching methods while maintaining compliance with the new regulations regarding mobile phone usage.

Original article

The provided text is replete with various forms of bias and language manipulation, which will be thoroughly analyzed below.

One of the most striking biases present in the text is its reliance on virtue signaling, particularly in its portrayal of Minister Giuseppe Valditara's stance on smartphone usage among adolescents. The text presents Valditara's directive as a necessary measure to protect adolescents' health and academic performance, without providing any critical evaluation or counterarguments. This creates a narrative that positions Valditara as a champion of adolescent well-being, while implicitly casting those who might oppose the ban as neglectful or uncaring. This type of framing reinforces a particular ideology that prioritizes state intervention in personal matters and relies on emotive appeals to justify policy decisions.

The text also exhibits cultural and ideological bias through its emphasis on Western-centric perspectives on technology use. The OECD Pisa and World Health Organization studies cited are reputable organizations within the Western world, which reinforces the notion that these institutions are authoritative sources for understanding adolescent behavior. However, this overlooks alternative perspectives from non-Western cultures that might view technology use differently or have distinct approaches to addressing similar concerns. By selectively citing Western sources, the text perpetuates a Eurocentric worldview that neglects diverse global experiences.

Furthermore, the text contains implicit racial and ethnic bias through its assumption that smartphone addiction affects all adolescents equally. While it acknowledges that over 25% of adolescents experience problematic smartphone use, it fails to consider how socioeconomic factors like access to education, income levels, or cultural background might influence this phenomenon differently across various racial and ethnic groups. This omission perpetuates a colorblind approach to policy-making that ignores systemic inequalities.

The text also exhibits linguistic and semantic bias through its emotionally charged language when discussing smartphone addiction. Phrases like "detrimental effects," "negative impacts," and "problematic behavior" create a negative connotation around smartphone use without providing nuanced context or evidence-based information about individual differences in usage patterns. This type of language manipulation elicits an emotional response from readers rather than encouraging critical thinking about complex issues.

Structural and institutional bias is evident in the way the text presents schools as authorities capable of enforcing regulations without questioning their own power dynamics or accountability structures. The emphasis on schools revising their regulations implies an assumption that institutions can effectively regulate student behavior without considering potential pushback from students or parents who may resist such measures. This framing reinforces existing power structures within educational systems without interrogating their limitations.

Confirmation bias is also present in the way the text cites studies from reputable organizations without critically evaluating their methodologies or assumptions about adolescent behavior. By accepting these studies at face value, the text reinforces existing narratives about smartphone addiction without questioning potential biases within those narratives.

Framing and narrative bias are evident in the story structure presented by the text, which emphasizes Minister Valditara's initiative as a necessary response to growing concerns about digital device usage in education. The ordering of information prioritizes this narrative over alternative perspectives or counterarguments, creating an impression that there is consensus around this issue when there may be more nuanced debates at play.

When examining sources cited by the text (OECD Pisa), we find ideological slant favoring neoliberal economic policies emphasizing individual responsibility for one's own well-being rather than acknowledging broader structural factors contributing to mental health issues among adolescents.

Finally, temporal bias manifests through presentism – focusing solely on contemporary issues (smartphone addiction) while ignoring historical contexts (e.g., previous generations' struggles with media consumption).