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).

Maybe not if they don't personally agree with it. But when it comes to sen, that's into reasonable adjustments territory. My autistic DD has a 45 min journey to school and we've had a couple of incidents already, just a few weeks into year 7, where having a phone on the journey has been really valuable. Should she really have to go to a local school that isn't as suited to her, because she needs occasional help from us on the journey? I'd have no issue with her having to lock her phone away at school, but she is more vulnerable than the average and I would hope any school could accept that.

really not 'all' you've ever said... You were telling the OP to mount a legal case earlier on 😂

DD’s school was very strict on smartphones but allowed brick phones for years 7-11. That seemed a very sensible compromise to me. I had a phone card always with me when I was at school, but a fat lot of good that would be nowadays.

@Bigmove25 - yes because she said her DS was anxious and a stickler for rules etc. So why should anyone with a more anxious child or a child with SEND where reasonable adjustments have to be made by law, be put off by some batshit policy on the website proudly proclaimed by a head, which is basically discriminating against such kids even applying! Not in the spirit of the Roman Catholic faith.

But a school that doesn't allow phones isn't suitable for her. That's the point. They have their policies for the benefit of the whole school. Your child should go to a school that is suitable for her and if that is one that allows phones then that is the one you send her too.

It sounds like LOS do make some concessions. Why is your autistic daughter not eligible for transport if her only school option is 45 minutes away and she has issues travelling?

@Araminta1004
I’m afraid “thanks for the admission” is doing rather a lot of work there. There is a blanket ban on phones, with specific authorised exemptions for medical or SEN reasons. An exemption does not disprove a rule; it is the exception that sits within it. So no, you haven’t caught anyone out — you’ve just discovered what the word “exemption” means.
And yes, “from a teacher”. I spend a great deal of time patiently correcting young people when they say something foolish or misunderstand something straightforward — they’re children, so that comes with the territory. Professionally, I’m paid to show them patience. You, however, are presumably an adult, you’re not one of my pupils, and I’m perfectly entitled to respond to nonsense with considerably less patience.

But schools have to allow reasonable adjustments for kids with sen to level the playing field. It seems from what someone has said up thread that they do make exceptions on medical grounds which is great. You can’t just say that a specific school “isn’t for sen kids”. That’s discrimination. They have as much right as any other child to attend.

But state funded schools should be accessible to any child that qualifies for a place, they shouldn't be making policies (and not flexing on them) for children who have send, when the flex would be pretty trivial (a turned off brick phone in the bottom of a bag). That's exactly the point of a "reasonable adjustment ". If LOS flexes, fine but clearly some schools don't and that isn't really ok.

My DD's only school option isn't 45 mins away, that's the one we thought was most suitable for her. She doesn't have "issues traveling" she just has had a couple of unfortunate incidents at the beginning of year 7. For my older DD, we've had plenty of disruption in her 4 years on a similar journey. Sometimes public transport just doesn't work and they end up stranded.

and would that be the spirit of the Old Testament or the New Testament you are referring to there? I don't recall hearing the parable of the schoolchild without a mobile phone as the second reading on any Sunday ever, or recall thou must always carry thy mobile phone as of the 10 commandments.😂

Why not? If a school can say it is set up to help all types of SEN kids and so you should send your kid there, why can't a school point out that it is really not set up for SEN kids? It's not stopping your from sending your child there but it is saying you might find other schools a better fit for your child and your expectations might not be met if you send your child to a high performing academic school.

Yes, and it’s interesting that Cardinal Vaughan’s top end results at GCSE are now considerably stronger than LOS’ despite having very similar intakes (yes Vaughan ensures a top tail through their banding test but from what I can see the two are still almost neck-and-neck for prior attainment scores). Oratory was about 38% Grades 9-7 this year vs 52% at Vaughan; there are many suburban comps in London that exceed LOS on this measure. It’s true that it pushes more pupils into an academic curriculum (its EBACc entry is much higher than Vaughan’s) but I wouldn’t expect that to account for a 14 percentage point gap.

I don't think it is legal to discriminate based on send. Maybe take a look at the send code of practice which is statutory guidance.

This is a section from it:
Every school is required to identify and address the SEN of the pupils that they
support. Mainstream schools, which in this chapter includes maintained schools and academies that are not special schools, maintained nursery schools, 16 to19 academies, alternative provision academies and Pupil Referral Units (PRUs), must:
• use their best endeavours to make sure that a child with SEN gets the support they need – this means doing everything they can to meet children and young people’s SEN
• ensure that children and young people with SEN engage in the activities of
the school alongside pupils who do not have SEN
• designate a teacher to be responsible for co-ordinating SEN provision – the
SEN co-ordinator, or SENCO (this does not apply to 16 to 19 academies)
• inform parents when they are making special educational provision for a
child
• prepare an SEN information report (see ‘Publishing information: SEN
information report’, paragraph 6.78 onwards) and their arrangements for
the admission of disabled children, the steps being taken to prevent
disabled children from being treated less favourably than others, the
facilities provided to enable access to the school for disabled children and
their accessibility plan showing how they plan to improve access progressively over time

There are also sections that talk about reasonable adjustments.

There's nothing in it that says "but it's ok to tell parents that you can't be arsed to do this if they send a child to your school, so they might be better off looking elsewhere".

I think it's also worth noting that plenty of send children perform highly, academically.

Obviously academically selective schools can select based on tests of academic aptitude. But non-selective schools can't, other than things like banding to ensure a comprehensive intake.

Yes, it's not quite the stand-alone RC power house it once was. It was the CV schola that was chosen for David Attenborough's 100th celebration at RAH last year, not LOS!

A pupil almost burning it down can't have helped. It's been a building site for a couple of years now and that level of disruption will have had an impact. Think that's coming to a end, so they may level up in the next few years.

I am very anti phone but I think there should be an exception for brick phones for commutes.

No one is discriminating based on SEN but why would you pick any school that says they will do everything by the book but they are not really set up to offer the kind SEN support that actually makes a difference?

This is exactly what Labour are trying to push though - so it clearly doesn't exist at a local level yet.

All state schools will have some SEN children, but forcing your child into a school that isn't the right fit isn't a good thing, is it?

Would you prefer all schools to smile and say 'please send X here' or would you prefer them to be honest about the experience X will most likely get at their school (the by the book experience) and suggest you look elsewhere?

If you are still arguing about mobile phones then you have been told that LOS does make medical/sen exceptions and you have also been told that other schools actually want to adopt a no phone policy. So it appears phones create more problems for schools than they solve. It is a fine balancing act and ultimately if parents aren't happy they can send their children to a school that aligns with their views. Plenty of parents don't want their children to have phones and now they have a choice of schools that align with their views too... isn't that great?

"By the book" is putting in the SEN support that the children with SEN need. Any similar size comprehensive school should be able to offer an appropriate range of SEN support. Other than accessibility issues (e.g. needing to install lifts, possibly in buildings that aren't suited), SEN support is an an ongoing, evolving provision to meet the needs of the pupils. It isn't an ethos that schools can opt in and out of.

As for mobile phones, that is very clearly a simple case for reasonable adjustments. Great that LOS has acknowledged that. Other schools need to follow suit.

It is in their policy now. I pasted a relevant excerpt and link earlier today. I believe a number of the new pupils and parents first heard about the travel ban during Y6/7 transition. Even so, there appears to be some confusion amongst teachers about the policy, at least when verbally relaying it to parents and pupils, inferring that the in school and out of school policies are identical i.e. phone can be confiscated out of school.

Mill Hill County High also support the Smartphone Free Childhood Barnet initiative. The letter to parents, includes a list of schools supporting the initiative and states that brick phones can be used (Feb 2025), link below.

Excerpt
“If you need to contact your child while they travel to and from school, a simple 'brick' phone is enough. 'Brick' phones do not have internet connectivity, and they are inexpensive”

https://www.qegschool.org.uk/attachments/download.asp?file=5951&type=pdf

BBC article with SFC’s comments:
Excerpt
“The SFC also signposts parents to other types of phones such as "brick" phones, which only allow calls and texts, or other models that can access podcasts and music, but offer no internet access.
Ms Eden said: "We are not saying no phones, just one without the dangers of the internet in the child's pocket.”

Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78wpy45ex3o

That should be 'kind of' SEN not 'kind SEN'. It was a typo (because I'm not AI) Just thought I"d better say so before someone starts a whole thread about not being kind....

I'd be supportive.

I had a long train commute to school and there were only two times in 7 years when a mobile phone would have been useful. But in this day and age my parents have their own phones and would been able to see my train was delayed themselves.

I had a great time on the the commute chatting to the other kids. Sometimes read or did homework. I hear horror stories about my friends' teens and what goes on with their phones. I'd love to blame the school for not letting DC have one!

Also, no-one carries around an A to Z now, but that doesn't mean they can't? You could always get them one.

I have also had a very long association with the Oratory as both a teacher and a parent. I’ve never known there to be a single incident on the way to or from school that an enterprising boy couldn’t sort out. That includes during terrorist incidents and when a boy got stuck in an elevator at Earl’s Court on the way to his Latin gcse.
Look at the boys on the tube or the bus. They are talking to eachother, they are doing their homework, they are reading a book!! Isn’t that what we want? Also, the school is not going to change their policy because a prospective parent wrote a strongly worded letter.

So they do allow brick phones?

“A boy got stuck in an elevator at Earl’s Court on the way to his Latin GCSE” may be the most London Oratory anecdote imaginable. 😂 But logically, “he managed without a phone” establishes that the situation was eventually resolved, not that preventing him from contacting anyone was beneficial. And “during terrorist incidents” actually makes the argument rather more eyebrow-raising, not less…..

Why should the school have any opinion on what equipment children have outside of school? What if the children have other plan than going directly home - plans which might require some coordination?

(Sounds like a business opportunity for running a phone safeboxes close to the school gate).

No. I am normally a rule follower, almost to a fault. This particular rule puts her in danger. It is a bad law.

many of the people who passed it even admitted it was a blunt, poorly written law, but they were in a rush before the legislative session closed so they chose to pass something rather than craft a better law. They felt they had to do something about phones in schools, but did not take the time to deal with all the issues the law they wrote created.

Thankfully our school has made it clear they know the law was poorly written. They have adopted a don’t ask, don’t tell philosophy. There are no bag searches. As long as students aren’t stupid, no one is going to get caught with a turned off phone in the bottom of their bag.

My child is also almost an adult. Many of her classmates are adults. They go from school straight to internships and part-time jobs. Telling them they can’t carry a phone is illogical and completely impractical.

No!