Group of 17 London secondary schools join up to go smartphone-free

2024-06-1715:02115187www.theguardian.com

Measures will impact more than 13,000 pupils in Southwark, and include confiscating phones used at school

A group of schools in London have announced they will go smartphone-free, in a sign of the growing public concern over phone-based childhoods.

Headteachers at 17 of the 20 state secondary schools in Southwark, south London, have taken the collective action to shift their pupils away from smartphones, in the hope of also addressing the downsides of their use outside the school gates.

The other three state schools in the borough are working towards introducing the policy.

The schools will also help families and pupils to understand the well-documented downsides of smartphones and social media use among young people. These include mental health concerns, screen time addiction, the impact on sleep and attention spans, access to inappropriate and graphic content and increased risk of thefts and muggings.

“We were prompted to collaborate after seeing first-hand the negative impact of smartphones and social media on our children’s wellbeing and education,” said Mike Baxter, headteacher of the City of London academy.

“While the issues that we had to address typically occurred outside of school hours, it was often in school that these negative behaviours were exposed,” he added.

The schools have agreed that if any phone is used by a pupil during the school day, it will be confiscated. If the phone is a traditional mobile phone – without access to wifi – it will be returned relatively quickly. If the phone is a smartphone, however, it will not be returned for up to a week – or until parents collect it themselves.

The measures will impact more than 13,000 young people in one of the highest performing boroughs in London. All secondary schools will impose the policy for children from years 7 to 9. A number of schools in the group, however, are adopting a “whole-school” approach.

The group of secondary headteachers are also in contact with the leaders of primary headteachers in the borough, in the hope of establishing a borough-wide approach.

“Creating this positive change for the wellbeing and success of young people in Southwark is at the centre of this collective drive,” said Baxter. “Children are getting smartphones as young as four. We could make a massive difference if every parent in this borough knows what every school says about smartphones.”

Jessica West, headteacher of Ark Walworth academy, said the schools had to take action after phone companies failed to do so. “Many requests for stronger measures have been made of ‘big tech’ companies but action is woefully slow and that leaves our children at risk,” she said. “We are therefore acting in collaboration to support families and children in making healthy choices – we take our responsibilities to children seriously.”

A recent House of Commons education committee report found that extended screen time had become increasingly normal for young children and teenagers, with a 52% increase in children’s screen time between 2020 and 2022.

According to the report, nearly 25% of children and young people use their smartphones in a way that is consistent with a behavioural addiction.

The collaboration was greeted with delight by Daisy Greenwell, co-founder of Smartphone Free Childhood (SFC).

“This move from the headteachers in south London is fantastically powerful and pioneering – never have secondary schools clubbed together to take collective action on this issue before,” she said. “We know that the younger a child gets their first smartphone, the higher their incidence of mental illness later on, so this has the potential to change the lives of a generation of children in south London.

“School leaders have the ability to effect change in their schools immediately and to shape social norms in their communities,” she added.

The concern about smartphones and children has rocketed. There are now SFC groups in the US, UAE, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland and Portugal.

In the UK, there has been an increase in parents joining together to make “pacts” not to give their children smartphones until 14 years at least. In Bristol, 80 schools have started SFC groups and more than 1,000 parents taken pacts.

“We are so excited about how this is snowballing organically amongst schools, headteachers and parents, it was clearly a conversation that was waiting to happen,” said Greenwell.


Read the original article

Comments

  • By jasonjei 2024-06-1716:129 reply

    I think many of the comments in opposition to this are coming from people that do not have children. Many of those in support do. I speak as a parent of a child, and I think “parent brain” will affect your thoughts on this. Having said that, I grew up on dial up and very low tech HTML. Not social media which is an entirely different beast.

    There is a book called The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. NYU Prof. Jonathan Haidt argues that the rise of smartphones and overprotective parenting have led to a "rewiring" of childhood and a rise in mental illness. Suicides for both teenage girls and boys are up.

    I’m choosing to send my kids to a school whose parents have also agreed to remove or drastically curb the use of social media. Not eliminate the creative sense of electronic tinkering.

    • By the_snooze 2024-06-1716:151 reply

      I think it comes from the "I tinkered with tech as a kid!" mindset. It ignores the fact that smartphones are about as low-friction and consumption-centric as it gets when it comes to distracting material. If you want kids to learn about tech, then do it in a higher-friction deliberate context like a desktop computer.

      • By altacc 2024-06-1716:32

        Totally agree. I regularly hear that students should use tablets at school as it gets them used to technology they will use in the workplace. This is technology designed to be easy enough for an 80 year old to pick up and use, no training is required! Much better to be teaching them real work based activity & creative problem solving.

    • By hnthrowaway0328 2024-06-1716:272 reply

      As a father of a 4 year old boy, I plan to remove smart phones and pads from my son for as long as possible. He can watch TV or play console/PC games but absolutely no mobile games for as long as I can. He will get a dumbphone maybe with a snake game when he grows up a bit.

      In the mean time, I'll try to bring him to hiking, camping and other outdoor activities. If he is very into electronics then I'll introduce gaming and programming.

      I'm also considering a no smartphone policy for myself. I cannot persuade my wife who is deep into scrolling hell already, sadly.

      • By thomasahle 2024-06-1717:48

        > I plan to remove smart phones and pads from my son for as long as possible.

        It seems that once you send the kids to school, you no longer have full control over these things.

        The friction is too big if you're the only parent with this policy. That's why "multiple schools join up" is a good thing.

      • By doublerabbit 2024-06-1718:002 reply

        Educational dos games. You can't beat them.

        Where they're at an age before knowing FPS, MMOs they will have tons of fun jumping up and collecting words.

        Word Rescue, Maths Rescue the Fun School series all hold weight to name a few.

        Just because the old don't have hyper-ai-raytracing graphics doesn't mean they're not playable for the younger generations.

        • By lawn 2024-06-1718:32

          I've started introducing retro handhelds that can emulate most older console games to my kids.

          They really like games like Tetris, Pokemon and Zelda.

          It's fantastic.

        • By hnthrowaway0328 2024-06-1721:16

          That's something I have in mind. Is 6 years old a good age? My father exposed me to games like Alley cat and Bigtop when I was 6/7. He gave me 30 mins every weekend day. I might do the same to my son when he reaches 6.

    • By PUSH_AX 2024-06-1716:19

      I’m a parent. My kids are not getting smart phones for as long as I can reasonably demand it. I foresee this going into secondary school age.

    • By dudu24 2024-06-1716:421 reply

      Haidt is a reactionary who makes grandiose conjectures about the Kids These Days with little real scientific evidence to back them up. He's the same guy who threw a fit over safe spaces in colleges and made them out to be a way bigger deal than the were/are.

    • By Delphiza 2024-06-1716:511 reply

      At least you have a choice. Other parents have little choice but to send their kids to the same school as everyone else in the neighbourhood. London-based academies are not going to be as exclusive as independent (private) schools.

      • By jasonjei 2024-06-1716:58

        I’m grateful I have that choice to send her to a Waldorf school and I want more parents to have more options.

    • By jstanley 2024-06-1716:284 reply

      Isn't banning smartphones rather an example of overprotective parenting?

      • By Loic 2024-06-1716:34

        No, it is protecting them from 100's of PhDs spending their days optimizing their apps/websites for addiction[0].

        This what I explain to our kids and they understand it very well.

        [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39987490

      • By rincebrain 2024-06-1716:48

        IMO the problem with that argument is similar to the problem with arguing stopping the kids from touching a whirling sawblade is overprotective - you can let them learn that way, but there is a nontrivial chance they will suffer extreme lasting harm before learning their mistake, so the calculus becomes avoiding the cases where the probability of irrevocable harm is significant.

        I'm all in favor of letting kids make mistakes rather than trying to stop them from doing everything, and that past a certain point, your attempts to filter what they consume are doomed in most environments.

        But to the best of my ability to judge, not exposing children to unfiltered 0-friction instant gratification for some number of years is going to be somewhat practically necessary to allow them to develop enough experience with longer-term reward seeking to make such decisions based on actual information about the rewards versus just picking the easy button every time.

        Otherwise, we've all seen the portrayals for many centuries before cell phones of what happens when you have people who have never had to do long-term planning for significant rewards, and are bored of the lack of texture in just taking the easy hit every time. Cell phones have just commoditized failing the marshmellow experiment.

      • By jasonjei 2024-06-1717:53

        Everyone’s definition of overprotective parenting is different. But we do know the harms of smartphones. Many of us have decided to curb it as much as we can, just as we want to mitigate pre-adult drinking and marijuana consumption (or at least demonstrate an environment that produces the least harms).

        For me I don’t mind her running around in a forest school or climbing on trees. Modern playgrounds are surprisingly sterile and overly safe.

      • By gffrd 2024-06-1716:361 reply

        Where is the boundary between appropriately protective parenting and overprotective parenting?

        • By pixxel 2024-06-1716:45

          It’s a boundary set by childless internet commenters.

    • By bitcharmer 2024-06-1719:51

      100% agree. My daughter's school in Blackheath has special Faraday cage pouches for each student. Children deposit their phones in their pouches and upon crossing the school gate the pouches get magnetically sealed until the student leaves school for the day. Parents are loving it.

    • By michaelgrosner2 2024-06-1717:21

      I believe it is Haidt himself who said bringing phones is analogous to a kid in the 90s bringing in a portable TV and putting on a show during class, and no one thinking that it is out of place. Of course it is! As a society we've made the determination that personal TVs and music players are unacceptable in the classroom, but phones, the single most addictive device ever made, is OK?!

      My oldest is only 7 right now but I'm also seriously considering middle and high school options for him that severely restrict phone use. We play Minecraft on the weekends, he does MakeCode Arcade coding tutorials, and occasionally gets (heavily supervised) YouTube time. I don't think he's missing out on opportunities to become skilled with computers.

    • By whimsicalism 2024-06-1716:36

      it sounds to me like you are describing overprotective parenting

  • By teekert 2024-06-1716:013 reply

    We have schools doing this in the Netherlands. Students actually report liking it because they are now more in real physical contact with their fellow students directly instead of immersed in their phone every chance they get.

    I think that shows that indeed it should be a rule, voluntary will not work because of something akin to the network effect.

    When we get interns at our company many of them, instead of communicating with us are in their phones during lunch and coffee breaks. It’s a disease, they don’t integrate, they don’t learn being social around collegeas. I don’t like most people of that generation and they never get to know me. Something has to change.

    • By gffrd 2024-06-1716:33

      > something akin to the network effect

      Yes. Kids are tuned in to the negative effect of phones/social media on themselves, don't want them, but feel they can't not have them because … everyone else is on them.

      This is more about social media, but a research report [1] quoted by Jonathan Haidt in conversation with Tyler Cowen [2] expresses this:

      "Users would need to BE PAID $59 to deactivate TikTok and $47 to deactivate Instagram if others in their network were to continue using their accounts."

      BUT

      "Users would be willing to PAY $28 and $10 to have others, including themselves, deactivate TikTok and Instagram, respectively."

      Emphasis mine on the above two quotes.

      [1] https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insight/research-summary/when-produ... [2] https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/jonathan-haidt-a...

    • By whimsicalism 2024-06-1716:34

      > Students actually report liking it because they are now more in real physical contact with their fellow students directly instead of immersed in their phone every chance they get.

      I wonder what a poll of those students would actually show

    • By jstanley 2024-06-1716:29

      It will change the same way it changed for the generations before you. The old guard will retire and the young will become old. It's the circle of life.

  • By vidarh 2024-06-1716:121 reply

    My son (15 in London) has moved schools more than I'd like and they've all had smartphone policies that ranged from "must be in your bag", via "must be in your locker", to "must be left at home". None have allowed phones to be out during school hours, or on school grounds, other than in very limited circumstances, generally with prior permission, so I'm more surprised that so many schools, apparently all in Southwark, were this lenient to start with.

    The one school my son went to that had a "must be left at home" policy, I think went slightly too far (many students there had a complex travel route, and parents wanted to be able to check in if e.g. they were running late), but at the other ones having them lock it in a locker or hand it in at the door didn't see to be an issue for either the students or parents, nor did many students seem to want to risk detention for taking their phone out of the bag without good reason at the school were that was policy.

    • By willsmith72 2024-06-1716:262 reply

      > parents wanted to be able to check in if e.g. they were running late)

      this one is just so funny to me. dumbphone argument aside, what do these parents think happened when they, themselves, were running late from school? somehow, their parents managed without a direct, 24/7 line.

      • By vidarh 2024-06-1716:41

        I agree to an extent, and found it idiotic how strict they were about kids being accompanied to/from his primary school for that matter. But that secondary school was in an area where even I was skeptical about having him have no way of getting hold of us, not so much for safety, as because it'd take fairly little disruption for it to get complicated for him to make his way home in a reasonable time due to odd bus routes. And some kids have health issues - e.g. my son has struggled with various issues with his knees - where you don't want them facing a 1.5h-2h walk home if busses are messed up etc.

      • By whimsicalism 2024-06-1716:38

        teenagers back then were more likely to have a car in the US, so they could get themselves home.

        not so today in suburbia

HackerNews