London Oratory complete mobile phone ban even on long commutes

I don’t know where your kind of know-all “actually” comes from, @Araminta1004as nothing you’ve said contradicts or addresses what I’ve said.

It would take the school to defend for the challenge to reach a hearing in order for a judge to decide the point and therefore provide the “common law guidance” you’re talking about.

Are you a qualified lawyer with experience in public law, or just a motivated amateur? I’m the former, you see.

“This is a massive and dangerous assumption. Schools have defended before and will do so again.”

Actually @Piglet89 - if you read what @ParentOfOne says, there are a fair few parents around that would welcome more guidance in the form of common law on practices in some schools these days. Because if you read the entire Michaela case, it is pretty clear that Barbalsingh’s practices are OK within the context of her very specific ethos that is supported further by lots of teacher attention, meal times together, community grouping, debates/poems/and a whole world view to support that to make sense.
Yet, a lot of schools have run with her practices without the community support aspect and the overall explanation behind it. That is when it can become authoritarian, arbitrary and harmful.

[Above nothing to do with LOS, which I believe does have a very distinct ethos backed up by expertise and history etc]

But no school would want to….

This is a massive and dangerous assumption. Schools have defended before and will do so again.

I think the conclusion is the DFE should add a few more case studies to their website to illustrate differing acceptable practices, if this kind of practice is becoming wider. Because when you “ban” something in a way, you need to think about it from all sorts of angles and also describe any bans that may or may not be overkill and why.

I think not allowing a tracker that contacts the parent in an emergency because (anecdotal according to the OP it went off once in a classroom) is a big overkill by the LOS and its Achilles heel. They could still issue a detention/confiscation if some kids decided to do it for fun.

“Ultimately, the question is whether the measure in question is proportionate. That is for the court to decide. In arriving at an answer to that question, however, the court will make allowance for the breadth of the decision making power conferred on the decision maker by Parliament and it will give appropriate weight to the relative expertise of the decision maker where they have made a judgment on an issue which is within their sphere of expertise, even if that judgment is made after the event. However, I agree with Ms Hannett to this extent: all other things being equal the better the quality of the decision making process, and the greater the relative level of expertise of the decision maker, the greater the weight which their judgment is likely to be given by the court, and vice versa.”

See 168. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Judgement-R-v-Michaela-Community-Schools-Trust.pdf

It seems to me the overall ethos of the school in that case did carry very significant weight, prior knowledge was relevant via open days etc.

Also note very brief mention of “contraband” - anything the school did not specifically permit! So it is quite wide. As is the discretion of the head teacher decision, as conferred by Parliament, provided it is based on expertise and proportionate.
There is brief mention in the Michaela case of confiscating mobile phones until half term.

But no school would want to go to court surely and have their discipline and ethos aired in this much detail, for all to see and discuss. I would have thought most schools if they possibly can would reach an agreement with a parent.

Also note the reference to “resilience” and the Invictus poem, “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul”...
The LOS would probably run pretty much very similar arguments.

It takes a certain level of self centredness to expect an organisation or employer to change because you disagree with its direction. Sometimes, it really is a case of take it or leave it. I had to let someone go a couple of months ago, and they told me they didn’t like the direction the company was heading in. I thought to myself, well, didn’t we already know, you may now go.
There are plenty of schools out there. If this school isn’t right for you or your family, find one that is.

Someone always pops up with "public phone boxes".

I remember public phone boxes - or rather the lack of them on school routes and those which did exist were usually vandalised. I don't ever remember a functioning phone box on my route.

What I do remember is learning multiple routes to school and proactively being taught strategies to deal with strangers, harassment and traffic problems. Astonishingly we all made it through seven years of school without being kidnapped, run over or getting lost. We were are lot more independent than children tracked and monitored to within an inch of their lives.

Phones do not come with only the upsides - the downsides are multiple and loss of confident independence without a phone is a big downside.

Any school can include conduct whilst wearing school uniform part of it’s behavioural policy.

In terms of possible challenge: the question isn’t whether whether LOS may ban phones on school premises. It almost certainly can. The more nuanced point is whether disciplining a pupil merely for possessing a phone during an off-site journey is a proportionate extension of the school's behavioural jurisdiction.

Curious to see the exact wording of the school's "Journeys Policy" and behaviour policy, because the strength of any challenge may turn on how the school defines misconduct during travel rather than on the phone issue itself.

It is grossly disproportionate.

I mean, @Goldie1990while you’re busy philosophising (and @Araminta1004is busy trying to Jonathan Sumption their asses) LOS will just carry on with a pretty defensible policy.

It’s all just pie in the sky, really.

You’ve got no option but to love it or leave it 🤷🏻‍♀️
You may not even be offered a place at this vastly over subscribed school, there are clearly a lot of people who have zero issue with their policies who will hopefully be allocated a place ahead of people like you.

Don't send your dc then. Why are you in a rage about their policy when your dc isn't even a pupil there? It's got nothing to do with you. You are the wrong kind of family for this particular private education provider, better to find out before paying deposit for your dc. Other schools in London will suit your specific preferences.

@Goldie1990presumably one can still text on a dumb phone, though? It’s still a distracting device that stops them interacting with the world around them.

The reality is, kids don’t really need either smart phones or dumb phones.

@Goldie1990 First you talked about Catholic families wanting to send their kids to the Oratory. Are you now admitting that there aren't clear, faith-specific reasons to do so?
It is unclear to me if you agree with me or not that the only thing you'd get out of a faith school is being surrounded by a few more religious symbols and maybe praying a couple of times a day.

@Araminta1004 Schools are not allowed to do just do as they want. Just to make that clear.

In practice they are. Have you ever looked at the complaints policy of a secondary school? Not even the department of education can overturn a school's decision. Only a judge can

I very much doubt that a judge would ever find that Ashcroft's ban on bicycles is reasonable and proportional.

Or take Mossbourne. Do you remember my two huge threads on Mossbourne here? Hundreds of former students have come forward. An investigation confirmed the practice of shouting at children and isolating them in corridors. And what has changed? Nothing. The school has basically said: "Our way or the highway, we ain't gonna change a thing, suck it up and f# off"

So, please, do tell me again how schools are not allowed to do just as they want

School policies have to be reasonable, proportional and in line with common law principles and any applicable statutes (eg disability discrimination). Further, where the DFE has specifically issued guidance it is reasonable to expect school policies to have considered the guidance and be operated within the spirit of that guidance.

Any parent could go through the internal processes first and then refer the matter to the DFE for consideration.

Schools are not allowed to do just do as they want. Just to make that clear.

@Goldie1990 Yes, sure, you have every right to criticise the policy, but, also, be practical. Reading between the lines, I almost get the impression you are outraged that not everyone agrees with you.

Again:

• You will NOT be able to change this policy
• You MIGHT (maybe yes, maybe not) be able to get a SEN exemption if you manage to prove your boy needs it. If this is important for you, start contacting the school and doing the legwork now, otherwise you risk being in a situation where you boy gets a place but no exemption/adjustment is granted
• accept that this policy is not as batshit crazy as those of Mossbourne or Ashcroft, and that reasonable people can reasonably disagree with you on the merits of the policy
• accept that some people are rude and come back with aggressive / nonsensical replies (like saying the school won't care, which, I agree, doesn't per se mean the policy is right). Ignore them.

We may well be in the privileged position of having strong alternatives, but for Catholic families across London living in areas where there isn’t one

I have always found this line of thinking puzzling. What many people truly mean, without admitting it explicitly, is that they really want a more socially selective school where people of the "wrong" socioeconomic background or skin colour are less likely to be admitted. The Sutton trust and plenty of other research have repeatedly confirmed that state-funded faith schools tend to be more socially selective.

Again, remember that the Oratory used to consider financial donations to the Church in its admission criteria, and that it took a fierce legal battle, which the school fought tooth and nail but ultimately lost, to have that declared illegal! If we want to talk about values and ethos of the school, let's talk about that!!!

What I truly, genuinely, sincerely fail to understand is: what, exactly, do you think a child gets in a faith school that they wouldn't get in a non-faith one?

The Supreme Court with its ruling on religious indoctrination in Northern Ireland clarified that schools cannot teach one religion as the truth but must teach multiple religions and worldviews.

So, what, exactly, do you get that's so unique?

Christian values? Such as? Do you think Christian schools teach kids to be nice...while non-faith schools teach them to be evil? I don't get it

Being surrounded by more religious symbols and maybe a few short prayers once-twice a day? That's it? That's all?

@Goldie1990 ok. And I understand logical fallacies in philosophical debate. I’m have never suggested you have less of a right than current parents to question the policy - I’m just suggesting there are definitely more productive uses of your time because the Oratory won’t change to suit your views, current parents are clearly happy enough and that’s why there’s no outcry.

I mean, I travelled to and from secondary school in the middle of Troubles-ridden west Belfast with no mobile phone and I’m still here.

As I understand it - the policy is about creating a completely phone-free culture and removing what the school sees as the biggest threats to adolescent development: distraction, addiction, social media pressure, and constant digital connectivity.
From reports of London Oratory open evenings, the Head's argument has been that modern smartphones pose a greater risk to children than travelling across London independently. According to parents who attended, the school explicitly extends this logic beyond the school gates and into the journey to and from school.

The current parent body clearly agrees with the Head and I agree too, so I’d be happy to send my kid there (if we didn’t live so far away - but that’s a consideration of practicality, it’s not to do with the phones bit).

If you are not; don’t. But I’d suggest starting a Mumsnet thread wringing your hands about it is a colossal waste of time.