Fight begins to make mobile-free schools law

[Nearly Sane]

I've never really understood why the age for giving access to data without parental.consent is 13 rather than 16.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czj98jrj112o

[jeremyp]

Some of those in favour of smartphones say they provide good opportunities for child development, including socialising, and there is little evidence supporting restrictions of devices in schools

So first of all, somebody doesn’t understand what socialising is and “little evidence” is more than no evidence.

[ProfessorDavey]

Schools, without doubt, need to restrict mobile use in school and most already have a ban. However I'm nervous about the 'ban it by law' knee-jerk. Specifically because you need to consider how and to whom the law would apply.

So if a 12 year old whips out their phone in school, who would feel the force of the law? Would it be the 12 year old - I think you'd struggle to argue that they should feel the force of the law for such a misdemeanour. But under the current situation that child would be sanctioned by the school (albeit not by the civil law). Would it be the parents and how would they be sanctioned. There are already similar legal sanctions on parents - e.g. on attendance, but enforcing them is really quite hard. Or would the force of the law fall on the school for failing to maintain a 'phone-free environment'. And that, of course, is the concern of schools - that actually it ends up with the school have to satisfy the law and being penalised if they don't.

SO my feeling is that this would be best as a 'should' in statutory guidance and not a 'must'.

[Nearly Sane]

Schools, without doubt, need to restrict mobile use in school and most already have a ban. However I'm nervous about the 'ban it by law' knee-jerk. Specifically because you need to consider how and to whom the law would apply.

So if a 12 year old whips out their phone in school, who would feel the force of the law? Would it be the 12 year old - I think you'd struggle to argue that they should feel the force of the law for such a misdemeanour. But under the current situation that child would be sanctioned by the school (albeit not by the civil law). Would it be the parents and how would they be sanctioned. There are already similar legal sanctions on parents - e.g. on attendance, but enforcing them is really quite hard. Or would the force of the law fall on the school for failing to maintain a 'phone-free environment'. And that, of course, is the concern of schools - that actually it ends up with the school have to satisfy the law and being penalised if they don't.

SO my feeling is that this would be best as a 'should' in statutory guidance and not a 'must'.

I don't disagree but the answers would be part of the bill, surely. Note this seems to be a bill getting a reasonable amount of support from the govt so I would suspect if it does become law it will not be the same as the draft presented initially.

What about the other proposals?

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't disagree but the answers would be part of the bill, surely.

I doubt they would be.

A law would simply declare what is and is not lawful. It wouldn't provide any answers as to how schools actually deal with this on the ground - which, of course, they are already. To which most school's answer would be 'fine, but how?'

I think it is very unlikely that any sanction for mobile phone use in school would be a legal sanction - it would remain, as it already does, under the school's legitimate behaviour policy. So if a school confiscates a phone, because of unauthorised use under the school's behaviour policy, it would remain just that. A sanction under the school's existing authority - a law saying the use would be unlawful would be pretty well irrelevant as I somehow doubt that the school would ring the police ... and the police would pitch up at the school to arrest the pupil.

What schools need isn't 'musts', but 'shoulds' which are backed up by support and examples of best practice which are likely to work in the relevant school setting (noting that not all schools are the same). Statutory guidance of this nature needs no bill in parliament - it can be decided on and implemented via the relevant department - in this case the Department of Education, as happens every year without any resource to a bill in parliament.

[Nearly Sane]

I doubt they would be.

A law would simply declare what is and is not lawful. It wouldn't provide any answers as to how schools actually deal with this on the ground - which, of course, they are already. To which most school's answer would be 'fine, but how?'

I think it is very unlikely that any sanction for mobile phone use in school would be a legal sanction - it would remain, as it already does, under the school's legitimate behaviour policy. So if a school confiscates a phone, because of unauthorised use under the school's behaviour policy, it would remain just that. A sanction under the school's existing authority - a law saying the use would be unlawful would be pretty well irrelevant as I somehow doubt that the school would ring the police ... and the police would pitch up at the school to arrest the pupil.

What schools need isn't 'musts', but 'shoulds' which are backed up by support and examples of best practice which are likely to work in the relevant school setting (noting that not all schools are the same). Statutory guidance of this nature needs no bill in parliament - it can be decided on and implemented via the relevant department - in this case the Department of Education, as happens every year without any resource to a bill in parliament.

I doubt your doubt. It seems in contradiction to your belief that any issues with the assited dying bill will be sorted, and yet this won't.


Any about the other proposals? As I asked in my previous post but you edited out for some reason.

[ProfessorDavey]

I doubt your doubt. It seems in contradiction to your belief that any issues with the assited dying bill will be sorted, and yet this won't.

The situations are completely different. In the case of assisted dying this is currently a criminal offence which can result in people being jailed. That potential legal sanction is so severe that it effectively prevents people who might otherwise consider assisted dying from doing so.

In the case of this potential new law, I'm struggling to see what direct legal sanction on a 12 year old (for example) could be legally justified that would be greater than the current sanctions that schools are able to apply (and are backed up by legal protection for schools if they do apply them under the existing Education and Inspections Act 2006). This allows schools to discipline pupils for breaches to behavioural policy but also permits phones to be confiscated for considerable amounts of time. The school where I am a trustee (and where my kids go/went) has a policy that allows a phone to be confiscated for several weeks for a third offence.

The school has a 'not seen and not heard' policy throughout the school day - and it works, not least because kids know that if they contravene the policy not only will they be disciplined but their phone won't be available to them for a considerable amount of time.

All this is already available to schools within the current statutory guidance and other legislations and the new guidance only came in less than a year ago. So I'm not sure what additional impact a new law would have in practice. My concern, and that of many schools, is that the legal sanction will be on the school, not on the phone user, with the new law not actually helping the school to make their space phone-free. 

Any about the other proposals? As I asked in my previous post but you edited out for some reason.

The consent age one is a bit strange. I'm well aware that consent, in legal terms is context specific, so presumably at some point legislators determined that kids at age 13 were sufficiently mature to consent on their own in this context, while they might not be for some other things.

Going back to schools - this is a nightmare. As you have one year group (year , which included a mix of 12 and 13 year olds. So some can consent themselves, while others cannot. A change to the law wouldn't alter this in principle, it would merely shift from year 8 to year 11 the year groups where you have some, but not all pupils, who can consent.

[Nearly Sane]

The situations are completely different. In the case of assisted dying this is currently a criminal offence which can result in people being jailed. That potential legal sanction is so severe that it effectively prevents people who might otherwise consider assisted dying from doing so.

In the case of this potential new law, I'm struggling to see what direct legal sanction on a 12 year old (for example) could be legally justified that would be greater than the current sanctions that schools are able to apply (and are backed up by legal protection for schools if they do apply them under the existing Education and Inspections Act 2006). This allows schools to discipline pupils for breaches to behavioural policy but also permits phones to be confiscated fro considerable amounts of time. The school where I am a trustee (and where my kids go/went) has a policy that allows a phone to be confiscated for several weeks for a third offence.

The school has a 'not seen and not heard' policy throughout the school day - and it works, not least because kids know that if they contravene the policy not only will they be disciplined but their phone won't be available to them for a considerable amount of time.

All this is already available to schools within the current statutory guidance and other legislations and the new guidance only came in less than a year ago. So I'm not sure what additional impact a new law would have in practice. My concern, and that of many schools, is that the legal sanction will be on the school, not on the phone user, with the new law not actually helping the school to make their space phone-free. 

The consent age one is a bit strange. I'm well aware that consent, in legal terms is context specific, so presumably at some point legislators determined that kids at age 13 were sufficiently mature to consent on their own in this context, while they might not be for some other things.

Going back to schools - this is a nightmare. As you have one year group (year , which included a mix of 12 and 13 year olds. So some can consent themselves, while others cannot. A change to the law wouldn't alter this in principle, it would merely shift from year 8 to year 11 the year groups where you have some, but not all pupils, who can consent.

The situations are completely analogous. Legislation in both is complex, and there will be need for govt support to get the detail right. It's just that you are in favour of one and not the other.


As to the age proposal, you haven't expressed an opinion  and I'm not sure of the relevance of the school's comment in relation to it. It's not specifically related to schools nor would Tey be expected to enforce the age of consent there.

[ProfessorDavey]

The situations are completely analogous. Legislation in both is complex, and there will be need for govt support to get the detail right. It's just that you are in favour of one and not the other.

They are not analogous as the phones proposal appears to be suggesting direct legal sanction that would likely be less severe and therefore less effective that that which already exists and is available to schools. It rather strikes me as tokenism, rather than actually giving schools more teeth and more support to make their environments phone-free, unless there are justified exceptions (which there are).

As to the age proposal, you haven't expressed an opinion  and I'm not sure of the relevance of the school's comment in relation to it. It's not specifically related to schools nor would Tey be expected to enforce the age of consent there.

I haven't expressed an opinion because I don't know enough about either the current position or the planned change to comment. Schools are expected to enforce the age of consent on this already. I do know about the schools situation as it falls to the committee I chair to approve their policy on this matter annually.

[Nearly Sane]

They are not analogous as the phones proposal appears to be suggesting direct legal sanction that would likely be less severe and therefore less effective that that which already exists and is available to schools. It rather strikes me as tokenism, rather than actually giving schools more teeth and more support to make their environments phone-free, unless there are justified exceptions (which there are).
I haven't expressed an opinion because I don't know enough about either the current position or the planned change to comment. Schools are expected to enforce the age of consent on this already. I do know about the schools situation as it falls to the committee I chair to approve their policy on this matter annually.

Your objection that the legislation is unclear at this stage is completely analogous to questions around assisted dying. You've just moved the goalposts to another argument.

Schools are not enforcing children giving consent without their parents knowledge for their data usage to social media companies.

[jeremyp]

A law would simply declare what is and is not lawful.

Nope. The law will be worded in such a way as to specify who has committed an offence if a child uses their mobile in school and it will lay out the range of penalties to be applied.