Running Head: Necessity for Wi-Fi

The necessity for Wi-Fi in schools
Ryan Shields
06/08/2012

Running Head: Necessity for Wi-Fi

Abstract
This paper explores the reasons behind the current fight against Wi-Fi in BC Schools
and develops an argument against the anti-Wi-Fi position. Wi-Fi enables many
portable devices that are ubiquitous in contemporary society, and are thus also
necessary components in education. Removing or limiting Wi-Fi removes or limits
students ability to learn effectively. Educational environments should make use of
Wi-Fi as a healthier alternative to cellular phone data service to enable mobile
devices.

Running Head: Necessity for Wi-Fi

The necessity for Wi-Fi in schools

It seems that parent groups and schools are constantly at odds on some issue
or another. Currently, there is a widespread movement against technology in schools
that spans many areas in Canada, including BC, and the world at large. The
movement calls for removal of wireless technologies from schools, and this issue has
recently been brought to the table very formally in BC. The removal of Wi-Fi
technologies from schools would be a massive hindrance to learning for a number of
reasons, and since the main argument against Wi-Fi is that it is an undetermined
health threat, removing it may actually backfire by drawing an even larger health risk
into the learning environment. Mobile technologies, most specifically the
smartphone, are becoming increasingly important, even essential, to education, but
the removal of wireless technologies is an indirect removal of the mobile
technologies that depend on it.
On May 26, 2012, the BC Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils passed
two resolutions calling school districts to a). supply at least one school in each
district and at each level of education that bans use of wireless technologies, and b).
halt installations of wireless technology in schools where other technology is
available (Globe and Mail, 2012). These resolutions come in the wake of reports that
some students have experienced headaches, dizziness, and fatigue after being
exposed to wireless technologies (Steffenhagen, 2012). One only need visit the EMR
Health Alliance of BC website to see that there are many news stories reporting
students who have had this experience (http://emrabc.ca/?page_id=1323). As many
reports as there may be, though, there are no where near as many reports in each

Running Head: Necessity for Wi-Fi

district as it would take students to fill all the wireless-less schools that the recent
resolutions request. Likewise, to halt further installations of Wi-Fi in schools would
extort a massive learning tool, essentially excise a ubiquitously socially instituted
tool, from the formal learning environment in which many students strive to learn
the skills appropriate in their societies.
As Kahn and Kellner have aptly pointed out,

. . . education involves developing proficiencies that enable individuals to
successfully develop within their concrete environments, to learn from
practice, and to be able to better interact, work and create in their own
societies and cultures (p. 441).

Indeed, Maureen Ciarniello, associate superintendent with the Vancouver School
Board, astutely points out that parents of an age similar to her own, since they come
from a different generation and thus school and life experience, may fail to realize
how central mobile devices are in students lives, how integral they are to learning,
and how learning is constantly evolving (CBC, 2011).
In the past, when most parents of children who are students today were
educated, educational institutions strove to excise real-life contexts from learning.
The thought was that this learning, abstracted from real life, would be more
generalizable. Students might be able to take their out-of-context learning and apply
it in many different contexts (Barab, Squire & Dueber, 2000, p. 38-39). We now know
that contextualized, situated learning that is explicitly valuable in known
communities of practice is very effective. Expecting students to take abstracted
learning and apply it to concrete life situations without showing them how is unfair.
It is the task of education to deliver students into knowledgeable agency in society.

Running Head: Necessity for Wi-Fi

Anthony Giddens, in theorizing social knowledge, power, and human agency, points
out that

. . . Knowledgeability is founded less upon discursive than practical
consciousness. The knowledge of social conventions, of ones self and of
other human beings, presumed in being able to go on in the diversity of
contexts of social life is detailed and dazzling. All competent members of
society are vastly skilled in the practical accomplishments of social
activities . . . (p. 26).

Of course, this idea necessitates that learning be inextricable of its real world

contexts in the same sort of sense that form and content are one. Students learning
should deliver them into a state of agency in the real world, agency being not
peoples intentions in doing what they do, but their actual real-world ability to do
things in the first place (Giddens, 1984). Thus, if any tool or situation becomes a
social reality outside of the formal learning environment, it needs to be absorbed
into the formal learning environment and included such that students can build their
real-world agency.
Cook, Pachler, and Bachmair (2011) make the excellent point that schools,
with their formal, institutionalized learning are the one sphere that has tended to
remain unaffected by the trend towards ubiquitous devices, and that it is obvious
that mobiles are the interface to the Internet within new mass communication
systems which destabilize established school based modes of learning (p. 182). They
point out that mobile mass communication is established in the everyday lives of
young people and even children, and that the educational idea is to integrate
learning in informal contexts into the formal learning of the school (p. 185).
They go on to point out that these devices have fostered and embodied a
worldwide trend towards individualization in the sense that users have the ability to

Running Head: Necessity for Wi-Fi

access information and generate and manipulate their own learning contexts in
virtually unlimited ways. Web 2.0 and other forms of user-generated points of
intellectual convergence are examples of this, and new forms are turning up all the
time. These new user-generated and manipulated contexts for learning reside at
the interface of mobiles, everyday life, the Internet, and school (p. 183). Learning
and knowledge are no longer purely the domain of educational institutions, and they
are definitely not the sole, or even main, site where learning happens (Cook, Pachler
& Bachmair, 2011).
With the importance of the mobile device, and thus wireless technology
established, removal or avoidance of this technology is clearly working in opposition
to effective learning. Naturally, health is also extremely important, though, and both
sides of this need to be weighed. While results determining definite safety or danger
related to Wi-Fi are still unavailable, the World Health Organization continues to
look into the issue. They do caution though, that while no definitive proof that Wi-Fi
is 100% safe is available, it may never be possible to arrive at such proof. There are
many similar situations. Take apples for example; eating an apple benefits nearly
everyones health, however a few people may be allergic to apples. Thus, test results
may always show a few extreme reactions to apples mixed with virtually no negative
results in the vast majority of people. People are all different, and while a few may
have reactions, the rest may have no recognizable reaction at all. Thus results will
constantly leave the ultimate safety of the technology open to some interpretation.
In order to better understand the concerns, it is useful to first understand the
nature of the technology. Electric fields are generated from differences in voltage;
the higher the voltage, the stronger the field. Magnetic fields, on the other hand are

Running Head: Necessity for Wi-Fi

generated from the movement of current; the greater the current, the stronger the
magnetic field. These two types of fields often exist together, and thus an
electromagnetic field is formed. The electrical sockets in our homes, for example,
generate these fields (WHO, n.d.). The concern lies in the idea that these fields may
cause physical symptoms in the human body, and the World Health Organization
does note that low-frequency magnetic fields induce circulating currents within the
human body, and that these can lead to stimulation of nerves and muscles and
affect other bodily functions as well (WHO, n.d.). In fact, they say that

It is not disputed that electromagnetic fields above certain levels can trigger
biological effects. Experiments with healthy volunteers indicate that short-
term exposure at the levels present in the environment or in the home do
not cause any apparent detrimental effects. Exposure to higher levels that
might be harmful are restricted by national and international guidelines. The
current debate is centered on whether long-term low level exposure can
evoke biological responses and influence peoples well being (WHO, n.d.).

It is clear that high intensity fields can cause detrimental effects with either short or
long term exposure. Whether or not low intensity fields cause detrimental effects
that are unapparent with short-term exposure, or detrimental effects of any sort

with long-term exposure, is not 100% proven either way. One thing does seem to be
clear though: the higher the intensity of the field, the more dangerous it is.
This being the case, it makes a lot of sense to install Wi-Fi in all schools
immediately. That seems counter-intuitive at first, but when Wi-Fi radiation levels
are compared to cellular network radiation levels, it becomes clear why this makes
sense. The British Health Protection Authority has conducted research showing that
exposure to Wi-Fi in schools accounts for about 20 millionths of international
exposure guidelines, while a child with a mobile phone receives around half of the

Running Head: Necessity for Wi-Fi

international exposure guideline, and that 20 minutes of cell phone use equates with
about 1 year of Wi-Fi exposure (NCI, n.d.). In fact, a Wi-Fi base station generates
around 2 V/m while the background levels in most homes are around 5-10 V/m, and
referring back to the World Health Organizations tables, some household appliances
generate significantly more. A stereo receiver, for example generates around 180
V/m, and a refrigerator 120 V/m (WHO, n.d.). Thus, Wi-Fi is a lot less likely to cause
harm than cell phone network usage, or even some very universal household
appliances. Being that mobile devices are so key to effective contemporary learning,
and almost every family exposes themselves to fields mush stronger than those
generated by Wi-Fi in their homes already, it makes sense to install Wi-Fi in schools
and encourage the use of that technology rather than the use of cell phone networks.
Virtually every practicing teacher can attest to the fact that smartphones are
in schools. They are in schools because they are a real part of students lives outside
of schools. It is hard to ask students to deny the existence of these powerful tools
while they are in school when they already know the power smartphones yield to
their users. After the television became readily available, few people chose to use
film projectors instead. While the television is commonly known to emit radiation
and to be bad for vision, schools readily use them. Rather than fighting a battle
against the existence of smartphones in schools, it makes more sense to take some
time and think about how these tools can be appropriated to enhance learning.
The necessity for smartphones to be included in education by nature also
necessitates the availability of Wi-Fi in schools. To remove access to Wi-Fi removes
access to a myriad of wonderfully useful tools and creates a learning environment

Running Head: Necessity for Wi-Fi

that poorly represents reality and thus fails to educate students effectively. Naturally,
this situation should be avoided rather than deliberately ceonduced.

Running Head: Necessity for Wi-Fi

10

Works Cited

Barab, S.A., Squire, K.D., Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting
the emergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research and
Development. 48(2), 37-62.

B.C. Parents with WiFi health fears vote to limit school networks. (2012). The Globe
and Mail. May 28, 2012.

Cook, J., Pachler, N., Bachmair, B. (2011). Ubiquitous mobility with mobile phones: a
cultural ecology for mobile learning. E-Learning and Digital Media. 8(3), 181-
195.

Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California
Press.

Kahn, R., Kellner, D., (2007). Paulo Friere and Ivan Illlich: Technology, politics and the
reconstruction of education. Policy Futures in Education. 5(4).

National Cancer nstitute (NCI). (n.d.). Magnetic field exposure and cancer: Questions
and answers. Retrieved from:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/risk/magnetic-fields.

Steffenhagen, J. (2012). B.C. Parent group split over WiFi hazards in schools.
Vancouver Sun. May 25, 2012.

WiFi in Vancouver schools concerns parents. (2011). CBC News. Retrieved from:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/10/14/bc-
wireless-vancouver-schools.html

World Health Organization (WHO). (n.d.). What are electromagnetic fields?
Retrieved from: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/whatisEMF/en/