No phone for secondary school

[StillCreatingAName]

AIBU? I feel like I might be missing something obvious on this one, but honestly why do children need to take a smartphone to school? It’s baffling me as to why there appears to be parents on auto pilot buying their children smartphones (£££) now in year 6, ready for year 7 as though it’s part of a uniform policy (and then sharing their purchase on the class WhatsApp, give me strength).

Is this all just a fallout from lockdown times, people were sort of forced into screen life, so now there’s more children at secondary school with them, who may not have ordinarily had a phone until older?
I’m expecting dc to walk home with friends talking and socialising without the inclusion of a screen or mindlessly scrolling social media instead of listening to friends. I can see where a basic phone might be needed to contact home, but that doesn’t mean the phone should be out of school bag anytime during school hours should it, but maybe I’m just being naive, time will tell 🤷‍♀️?

AIBU to say children don’t need to get a £££ phone for starting secondary school? (It goes without saying they don’t need it at all for primary school, IMHO)?

And no one is suggesting that those kids would have to hand in their phone

There are plenty of people on here who have said this in the past. A recent thread, as I have already said, someone suggested that because she knew of no conditions that needed a mobile phone for monitoring, it clearly wasn't necessary; someone else suggested it wasn't necessary or type 1 diabetics wouldn't have managed in the past; someone else suggested that blood only needed checking before and after school; others just don't see why anyone should have an exemption. Disability discrimination aside, it is frustrating for those of us who understand the impact the tech has had on type 1 management and thus the long term improvements to quality of life, to continue to see this kind of weird prejudice. In particular, the improvements in the tech will ensure that less and less type 1s have longer term consequences such as kidney failure, heart disease, loss of feet and blindness - and noted of course, that those are all things which could impact on people's ability to be productive, tax paying members of society until they reach retirement.

I can also assure you that as a teacher, I have heard colleagues discuss the nuisance that is the type 1 tech when it bleeps and alarms in classrooms. It beggars belief, frankly but I can assure you that there are plenty of people out there suggesting that those who might require their phone for health monitoring purposes shouldn't be allowed to use them in school.

And no one is suggesting that those kids would have to hand in their phone.

Sadly, that just isn't true. I wish it was.

Surely smokers just go outside (or somewhere else) for a break when they want a fag? So a closer analogy to that scenario would be prohibiting the use of smartphones during lessons but allowing them at breaktime and lunchtime. Whereas you actually want the opposite – they might occasionally be useful in lessons, but not for accessing social media at other times.

Anyway talk of a ban at societal level is pie in the sky – you can ban their purchase under a certain age, as with smoking, but you can't ban their ownership. Political parties who claim they will do this are just grandstanding in the face of a GE. And interestingly Labour have pledged to enable all DCs with T1 diabetes to use smartphone tech, and even talked of supplying those DCs with smartphones if they can't afford them for themselves.

Anyway talk of a ban at societal level is pie in the sky – you can ban their purchase under a certain age, as with smoking, but you can't ban their ownership. Political parties who claim they will do this are just grandstanding in the face of a GE. And interestingly Labour have pledged to enable all DCs with T1 diabetes to use smartphone tech, and even talked of supplying those DCs with smartphones if they can't afford them for themselves.

Ban a purchase at a certain age is a win, surely? As long as parents like me are not then expected to buy one in my name for use in school, because it’s needed at secondary?

Absolutely it’s going to be used as a political topic with the GE vote-wins in mind. However, Labour supplying health tech to those who can’t, would have my vote, as nobody is really discussing the affordability issue around smartphones, the data plans and WiFi costs at home, etc. It’s an entirely different topic thread though…

My DD is 9 and loads of her friends have phones. The other day her friend ran past us back into school because she had forgotten her phone 🤦‍♀️

My DD will point blank not be getting a smart phone until shes at least 14/15.

I have an old school mate on facebook who put online that a man had been asking her 11 year old to send him photos of herself on snapchat...... few days later the 11 year old had a Facebook account 🤦‍♀️

My DD thinks I'm well tight and she can carry on thinking that until shes a lot older I really dont care

How do I changey user name

My DD won’t be getting an smartphone until she’s 16. It’s not my job as a parent to do what she wants, it’s my job to keep her healthy and safe.

@Workworkandmoreworknow

"I can also assure you that as a teacher, I have heard colleagues discuss the nuisance that is the type 1 tech when it bleeps and alarms in classrooms. It beggars belief, frankly but I can assure you that there are plenty of people out there suggesting that those who might require their phone for health monitoring purposes shouldn't be allowed to use them in school."

Well fuck me, that has made my heart sink. That has made me truely sad.

I woke up at 4am. Because my blood sugar was high. I've been diabetic my whole life. What an invasive and shitty medical condition it is.

But other than diabetes, let's ignore that, I hope OP's children are happy with a phone, any phone will do so they aren't excluded, and they don't resent them in later life.

I am a prolific phone user, use mine for everything and love it. My Dh and ds's not so much. Phone use doesn't affect my self esteem nor ds's because their self esteem is good to start with. If that is solid, nothing can affect you anyway.

Banning smartphones doesn’t keep teenage girls ‘healthy and safe’.

What does is making sure they are busy and have interests that they continue. There is so much lazy parenting through ‘banning’ and just assuming they will give up interests at 11 and not encouraging them otherwise.

What is risky for teenagers is them being bored, spending all their time anlone in their room and not having enough positive friends. Whether or not they have a smartphone.

Btw OP, per your original post:
"I’m expecting dc to walk home with friends talking and socialising without the inclusion of a screen or mindlessly "
Be reassured : most children who do walk home from school still do this. I leave work and drive past 4 schools on my way home, kids do this. the other day I drove past ds2's school and it was nice to see.

Likewise took ds2 to Wimbledon theatre this week to see GCSE Macbeth and Jekyll & Hyde, (mostly boys for the later), with no decent WiFi in an old theatre, most boys just sat chatting, so be reassured all is fine.

What sort of personality is your son? You can't create inner confidence, if it's not natural, if you aren't naturally self confident then no one can make that inherent. But you can work at it. If your ds had inner confidence, inherent contentness then nothing that ever happened on SM would bother him. Are you sure your focus isn't misguided. Yes there's a generational MH problem. That requires attention and work. But blaming mobile phones (imo only) is not the answer.

You can stop your child having a phone in year 7/8, and that's probably a good thing. Any older that that and you will be turning them into social pariahs and 'that weird kid whose mum doesn't let them have a phone'. And that is more damaging than almost anything a mobile phone can do to them.

Even I got a phone ready for high school back in 2001.... not a smart phone because they didn't exist then, but pretty much everyone had a mobile phone. And bullying was rife even then (I would know, I had the cheap not a Nokia uncool phone). We all made phone holders/stands in woodwork class!

All that's changed now is how much the phone can do, and I personally wouldn't be willing to put my kid in the firing line by sending them in with a basic non smart phone (assuming you can still buy them?)

Mine is y6 and has had a basic smartphone for a couple of years now, he touches it about once a fortnight and isn't allowed social media (except YT, he has a YT channel he shares his roblox creations on). He asked for Snapchat recently as one of his friends has it and was told no, and off he went with zero arguments.

I just upgraded my own, so he will get my old one (much better than his current one, but still not a flagship big brand) when he starts high school, as it's a lot faster with more memory so will work better for him should he need it for school things

Me too. I started high school in 2001 and had a nokia phone. We used to prank call the boys on sleepovers!

All I remember is snake and creating ringtones using the key tones, and £3.99 (i think) ringtones in the back of kerrang magazine! I never had enough credit to call friends (emergency credit only for calling parents), so still used the landline for most calls in the first 2-3 years of high school!

And also prepare her for the world which increasingly requires the use of a smart phone. At 18 she is likely to go to university or work and there is a high chance that a smart phone will be essential. You need to make sure that she has sufficient time to get accustomed to it.

We always gave ds's our old i-phones. But what non smart phone are you gonna get? Apparently the Nokia 105 has .... "pre-loaded games such as Snake, Tetris." Whey-hey. I used to love a bit of snake.
Lets hope your parental controls of the internet work well. Or that no one with a dd gets sent a dick pic!! <<vomit>>

We're in ireland so start secondary school later here 12.5/13 and generally speaking people get phones the year before . ( probably earlier in big cities)
A friends mom held off as she didn't feel that her son was mature enough but she caved pretty quickly as our school uses google classroom for all its communication and you simply couldn't manage with our it. Changes to class times, after school activities etc. he is still not allowed join any groups on snap chat or what's ap but it doesn't seem to hinder him too much .

I think phones can be a bad thing but it's like trying to hold back the tide .

My DS has actually used his phone in classes from time to time, the teacher has got them to use it for a quiz and research. Generally they’re not allowed them out though. They (him and his peers) use Whatsapp A LOT though. Arrange meeting up before school, his football team chat, his scouts group chat etc etc. they don’t need the latest iPhone but not having what are effectively basic things like WhatsApp that you need a smartphone for does leave them at risk of being isolated.

This is rubbish, frankly. I first got a smartphone when I was 23 and it took me all of about 5 minutes to become accustomed to it. They are incredibly intuitive to use. But no one is saying ban them at 18, or even 16. Just wait until they are 14 to hand over a smartphone.

My 14 year old daughter has had a phone since year 6.

she accesses homework through teams

She uses whatsapp for her dance group and family chats.

She has a pet instagram account which I’ve got access to from my phone, no other social media. She has life 360 so I can see she’s home from school.

im not concerned with her usage and she is open to allowing me to look if I ask.

I wouldn’t support a ban

Well the previous poster did say to ban them until 16 and in fairness you probably use your smartphone for a lot more than what you did at 23. I am not saying children should have unlimited access to a smartphone just that we need to accept that they are very much a part of everyday life and once you get to an age where you are fairly independent not having access to one is likely to hold you back.

Or let parents use their own judgement. My DS had one from age 10 that I monitored daily and he's unscathed at 16. I didn't personally allow any apps such as tiktok or Snapchat until 13/14, or any other social medias. But I wanted to be able to track him when he was coming home to an empty home at age 11 while I was at work. There's no way you can enforce no smart phones until 14.

You make some good points, I can’t say this isn’t just about the phone. I’ve just seen friend’s DCs have a hard time at secondary, lose interest in their interests and seem to be glued to phones. I naively didn’t think we’d be looking at a decision about a smartphone so soon and other parents were buying and posting about them, I became aware we weren’t and hadn’t thought about it for year 6. Thanks for your posts, there’s food for thought there.

There are a lot of feature phones that aren’t smart phones. It’s smart phones in particular that are the concern, not simple phones that can be used for calling and texting. Some have the ability for music or tracking etc.

It doesn’t have to be like this. This doesn’t happen in other education systems. If you’re unhappy, complain. It’s perfectly possible to run a school and communicate with pupils directly without the use of smart phones.