Hi! I'm Lan. I live in Ha Noi with my family. On school days, I get up at six and go to school at seven. I study hard because I want good marks, especially in maths. After school, I finish my homework before I play. This routine helps me meet deadlines, but it sometimes leaves little time for exercise. Last month I felt tired during a school trip, so I changed one part of my day. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, I now walk home with my sister instead of taking the bus. I still complete my work before dinner, and the walk gives us time to talk. I have not become less organised; I have found a healthier way to use the same afternoon.

Hello! I'm Nam, and I live in Ha Noi too. On weekdays I get up at half past six and walk to school with my friend Minh. English is my favourite subject because I hope to travel one day. After school, I usually play football before doing homework. That order helps me concentrate later, although I must stop playing at five. Last week our team practised too long, and I rushed an English task without checking it. My teacher showed me three mistakes that I could have found myself. I now set an alarm and leave the field on time. Lan prefers completing work first, while I work better after exercise; both routines succeed only when we manage our time carefully.

My grandmother lives on a small farm where my brother and I stay for two weeks each summer. The first day is always difficult because there is no Wi-Fi or television, and the quiet feels strange. By the second day, however, we are feeding chickens, collecting eggs and swimming in the lake. This year heavy rain damaged part of the vegetable garden. We first wanted to replace every plant, but Ba showed us that several roots were still healthy. We moved those plants to higher ground and replaced only the ones that could not recover. A week later, most were growing again. We measured the healthy plants every two days and found that those on higher ground recovered fastest. Next summer Ba will use those results when deciding where to plant. I learned that a disappointing result does not mean the whole plan has failed. Careful observation can show which parts should change and which are worth keeping. When it was time to leave, I did not want to go home.

The RoboFriend toy looks impressive in advertisements: it dances, tells jokes and responds to a few spoken commands. I bought one for my son last week, but the experience did not match the promise. After three days, the battery lasted only twenty minutes, although the box claimed it would run for two hours. Customer service replaced the battery, yet the second one had the same problem. My son enjoyed the robot at first, then stopped using it because charging took longer than playing. The toy is not completely useless; its clear voice could help younger children practise simple English phrases. However, that small benefit does not justify the high price or unreliable battery. I tested both batteries with the same game and recorded similar results, so the failure was unlikely to be one unlucky unit. Families who want a language toy should compare less expensive products and read independent reviews. Until the company publishes evidence that the battery has improved, I cannot recommend RoboFriend.

Many children spend more time on smartphones than on books, yet reading remains essential for young minds. A good story develops vocabulary and concentration, but its value is not limited to school marks. When readers follow a character facing fear, disappointment or joy, they practise seeing events from another point of view. Research often links regular reading with stronger language skills; however, a link does not prove that reading alone caused every improvement. Children who read frequently may also receive more support at home. This limitation should make us careful, not dismissive. One school compared two classes after introducing daily reading, but the classes had different teachers and the pupils chose different books. The improved scores were encouraging, although the design could not show which factor produced them. A better trial would record starting ability, use similar support and combine test results with interviews. A useful reading plan can include twenty quiet minutes a day with conversation about the text. Schools should compare progress over time and ask pupils whether the books suit their interests. They should also avoid treating fast reading as the only success: a slower pupil may give a deeper explanation. Reading works best as an active habit supported by choice, reflection and evidence, rather than a rule measured only by page numbers.

Scientists have found that children who read for just 20 minutes a day do better in school, have bigger vocabularies, and can concentrate for longer. Reading also helps with feelings: when you read about a character who is sad or happy, you learn to understand those feelings in real life, too.

So the next time you have free time, try opening a book instead of your phone. Your brain · and your heart · will thank you.

Every morning I see pupils at the school gate with their eyes glued to a phone. I support limiting phones during lessons because messages and games divide attention, and secret recording can harm privacy. A complete ban, however, is harder to defend. Phones can help with translation, accessibility and emergencies, while some families depend on them after school. Supporters of a ban often describe distracted pupils but rarely compare different policies or provide data from similar schools. One nearby school reported fewer interruptions after a ban, but it also introduced smaller classes in the same term, so the cause is uncertain. Another school allowed phones in bags and punished only unauthorised use; teachers there reported improvement without collecting formal data. A stronger approach would store phones during lessons, allow teacher-approved educational use and return them at the end of the day. The school could test this rule for one term, recording classroom interruptions and surveying pupils, teachers and parents. It should publish negative outcomes too, including delayed family contact or extra staff work. If attention improves without creating safety problems over the full term, the evidence would support continuing it. Rules should respond to measured harms and legitimate needs, not to the assumption that every phone use is equally damaging.

First, research from the University of London shows that students score 6% higher on exams when phones are banned. Second, I have seen with my own eyes how phones destroy concentration. Students who check their phones every few minutes never really listen to a full lesson.

Some argue that phones are useful for learning. Of course they can be. But students can use school computers. Phones in pockets are a distraction, not a tool. Until we remove them, the classroom will never win against the screen.