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.