London Oratory complete mobile phone ban even on long commutes

[Goldie1990]

Interested to hear from any current parents - how can there not be an outcry about this? With an intentionally pan-London intake where many commutes easily exceed an hour, it's the last school that should have this policy. Yet it's one of only a tiny number I can find that doesn't even permit brick phones - and it's deliberately extended to the entire school journey, making it an offense to have so much as a Nokia on hand during a transport emergency.

The head's rationale at the open evening was that there is far more danger on a smartphone these days than there is for an 11-year old crossing London by themselves. While that argument may be debatable, it breaks down completely when applied to brick phones. New guidance from DfE even recommends schools with large commuter populations to consider workarounds like handing in brick phones/keeping them switched off in their bag throughout the day. Even trackers with SOS call buttons are banned - all you're allowed is a basic tracker to see where they are (but with no means of contacting them).

@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

@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.

You can disable texts on dumb phones. They also aren’t allowed trackers with SOS buttons that allow calls to parents only in emergencies because apparently one went off in a classroom once. It’s not about banning distractions - it’s about banning all possible means of communication even in emergencies. I call that grossly disproportionate to what the school is trying to achieve.

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.

See my post on page 9 regarding the Ergo Decedo / "Love it or leave it" fallacy). Also, the school is not private - that’s part of the issue.

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.

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.

It is grossly disproportionate.

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.

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

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.

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.

“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.

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.

But no school would want to….

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

Hopefully? That’s a bit harsh isn’t it. :-)

Also, not to be pedantic it’s not vastly oversubscribed. It’s moderately oversubscribed.

“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]

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.

I don’t know why you keep resorting to the ad hominem @Piglet89

And since the statutory guidance only came in end of June with effect from 1st September nobody is an expert yet anyway. So not sure what you are trying to achieve here, yet again.

It is new guidance, the OP is discussing it and questioning it. There are specific references to Sixth Form independence and eg young carers which I could not see in the LOS policy.
It is specifically stated in the guidance to work with parents etc. None of what I said is factually incorrect.
And in my last post, I made it pretty clear that I was referring more widely to @ParentOfOne ’s point.

“When designing a policy to prohibit the use of mobile phones during the school day, schools should consider the impact on children travelling to and from school, where not having a mobile phone poses a risk or the perception of a risk. Schools are encouraged to consult with parents to develop such a policy, considering ways to mitigate specific concerns and build support for this approach.”

The use of PERCEPTION OF A RISK is wide, for example.

And yes, I am a lawyer, a governor, a parent and a practising Roman Catholic so not sure why you keep trying to stick the boot in @Piglet89
Looked at this school many years ago, but don’t have a DC there. Not that I ever pretended that I did, nor do I answer to you.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-phones-in-schools/mobile-phones-in-schools#about-this-guidance

And unlike some, I do believe that most people can read some statutory guidance and draw their own conclusions. Rather than having to throw my own expertise around. Law is common sense ultimately and people should just read it, that would be my view.

In the name of God, stop using ad hominem as an argument when you clearly don’t actually know what it is: I think you’ve referenced it about 3 times with me on three separate threads. It’s embarrassing.

Law is common sense.

And that would be your downfall, were you to take any action in a case like this. Which you would presumably initiate by sending a “legal letter”.

TBH I think you make a lot of stuff up @Araminta1004No lawyer worth their salt would ever use the term “legal letter”, for instance. Nor would they be likely to express so unsophisticated a view as “law is common sense”.

Unless you’re a Canon lawyer? Mind you, that law’s about as far from common sense as you can get.

Bit of a Walter Mitty, overall.

Yes, I ‘popped up’ here with my telephone box comment 12 days ago 😊

But I did want to reply and congratulate you on a fantastic job being a more resilient teenager than I was, having better strategies when being harassed and for suggesting that phone boxes were too vandalised and sparse to be a thing?

That’s bizarre. Yes they stank of piss, sometimes were out of order, but let’s be honest, people used them every day in their thousands and they were absolutely part of daily life. Congratulations on what a great kid you were though.