London Oratory complete mobile phone ban even on long commutes

Indeed. If you are this angry and outraged before you even sign your son up, go elsewhere. Stress is not good for you and this school is not a good match for your family. If you are able to pay private, you are lucky to be able to chose. It's a non issue. IMO phones are highly addictive and brick phones still allow text messaging causing many issues.

Alternatively, it's a way to weed out a type of parent.

@Araminta1004 I think it is a fine balance to strike. What you don’t want for children’s independence is eg parents who have to accompany or even drive them to school because they aren’t “allowed” a phone.

It's a school in Fulham - good luck driving there.
You didn't address my point: how much consensus is there among SEN experts on what's best in a case like this?

Couldn't some say that giving this child a phone makes their anxiety worse, instead of helping him cope with it?

Couldn't some say that, if their anxiety is so severe, then they should go to a school closer to home?

I have been very vocal criticising schools I would never send my kid to (like Mossbourne or Ashcroft), because I genuinely think that the needlessly draconian policies of those schools are hugely detrimental to children's mental health, and because I find the lack of accountability bonkers.

But I don't think a strict phone policy falls in the same category.

It’s totally a way to weed out a certain type of parent. Schools like the Oratory don’t want to have to deal with that kind of ag.

@Piglet89 I hear you, but at the same time this can easily become a slippery slope.

In this case, the Oratory's phone policy doesn't seem such a huge deal to me.

However, the same "let's weed out certain parents" philosophy is used by Ashcroft in Putney, which gives you a detention if you cycle to school and which gives you 5 hours of detention for every day of school missed (they misleadingly call it catch up but there is no catch up, they just lock you in a room).

And it is used by Mossbourne in Hackney to "weed out" the parents who have the audacity to think that it may be questionable to have seminars on how to instil fear in children, to isolate children in desks placed in the corridor to humiliate them, who don't bat an eyelid when hundreds, not a couple but hundreds of former students come forward, describe their mental health challenges, etc

There needs to be a balance between some uber-entitled parents ready to complain about everything and anything (Mumsnet is full of these characters) and the complete lack of accountability of certain schools (not even the department of Education can overturn a school's policy FFS!!!), which we would never accept in other crucial state-funded services.

Read The Anxious Generation. The evidence is overwhelming that the commute would be safer than their phone.

They’re in London - not the middle of nowhere. There will be plenty helpful staff in any train station or nearby that can help your children. You should either trust them to get across London safely and resourcefully or not, having the phone doesn’t actually change that risk (and increases the risk of them being mugged, one of the more prevalent crimes in London).

There are also a lot of skills and resilience built in knowing you have to solve a problem yourself and that you can’t just ring mum to solve it for you. I think it’s good for kids.

How would a phone help a child with a long commute? The phone makes them a target if nothing else… nobody says you can’t escort your child to school if you’re worried.

If they need help, there are staff at tube and bus stations who will help a child in need you know. They have phones.

The policy doesn’t prohibit parental tracking devices.

“You didn't address my point: how much consensus is there among SEN experts on what's best in a case like this?”

@ParentOfOne - there is never consensus. It is always a question of case by case basis.
Same with wearing a lanyard by the way. Are you actually making them more noticeable and helping them or the opposite in a global city with crime. It is a parental decision to make.

@Araminta1004 there is never consensus

Not true. If a child is visually impaired, there is absolute consensus that they need reading material printed bigger. No school could say that some experts think that a bigger printout is unnecessary or makes it worse.

Here the school might even have a case to say that a phone makes anxiety worse and/or that a child with that level anxiety should go to a closer school. Much less clear cut.

The need for some adjustments is obvious and undisputable.
This is not one of those.

By the way, if this is the OP's case, she should contact the school and see what they have to say about it. If they accept it, great. if they push back hard, is she sure she wants to engage in a prolonged battle with the school? I mean, to each their own, but...

“Not true. If a child is visually impaired, there is absolute consensus that they need reading material printed bigger. No school could say that some experts think that a bigger printout is unnecessary or makes it worse.
Here the school might even have a case to say that a phone makes anxiety worse and/or that a child with that level anxiety should go to a closer school. Much less clear cut.”

No a school can never tell a child already there to go to a closer school!
And no, there is no consensus on visual impairment either - there are all versions of hard copy, iPads, touch and feel, colour overlays, aural input etc
There is never consensus. It is needs based.

I’m torn on this. Yes kids don’t need internet phones and they can be glued to them after school

the amount of times I see children walking down the pavement about to cross the road with a phone in Their hand, not looking at 330/after school

but I agree it’s handy for commute

solution as some school have is either

a brick Nokia (I loved my first Nokia and playing snake game on it)

or

be trusted to have phone in bag turned off and if teachers see with a phone in their hand or hear it they lose it for a week

that is the policy of the secondary school last week we looked at for miniblondes (yes she isn’t baby blondes anymore) scary stuff

to not be allowed a brick phone even for travel seems harsh but if that’s the rules then Parents need to decide if they agree and support them or look for another school

miniblondes will likely have her own AI agent to manage her telecommunications for her 🤖

@Araminta1004 Ultimately, it's not me you need to convince.
Help the OP draft that legal letter.
Get the policy overturned.
Report back.
You'll make the news.
We'll be here cheering for you.

@ParentOfOne - the OP does not need my help. She has been through the DFE case studies etc and policies and statistics in detail. If her DC does end up there, she will figure something out for her DC, even if it is an James Bond style embedded tracking device in a cross…

So OP were you looking at this question purely from a “I fancy a moral debate about the LOS’s phone policy” angle, or had you actually been considering the school for your child?

@Goldie1990 Thank you for recognising that I did not engage in any of those fallacies nor attacks.

I was simply trying to be practical.

FWIW, I view that as a policy which some people may reasonably agree with, while others may reasonably disagree with.

Considering that, in our system, schools are so unaccountable that a #@@@##!! like Mossbourne can continue to harass and emotionally abuse children with total impunity, the odds of you ever changing the Oratory's phone policy seem zero.

If you want to make it a SEN issue, and request a reasonable adjustment to the policy, it's a different matter. I suspect the odds of success there won't be huge, because it's likely to be a hugely subjective issue with no consensus among experts, but good luck.

However, I remain surprised that you seem to want to focus on this specific issue. Like I said, The Oratory is a very marmite school; there are plenty of reasons to love it or hate it. I wouldn't have thought this was a priority, but of course these things are subjective.

As others have pointed out, it remains unclear if you are truly considering the school, if you wanted a discussion about the phone ban in general, if you don't want to send your boy there but still want to have the policy changed because you find it outrageous, or what.

May I ask how you feel about the rest of the school's policies and ethos? Is this one of the many things that don't convince you? Or is the school perfect for you, other than for the phone policy.

@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.

@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?

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.