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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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

Schools are required by law to obtain consent from 13+ students for processing and using personal data. Parents may be informed if appropriate but they don't have to be from a legal standpoint. And the relationship with social media companies is complex, so this legal requirement includes the use of photographs that the school may wish to place on their social media channels - e.g. showing a photo of a winning football team or photo of a drama production. This also includes signing up to online learning platforms, which may be provided by Google for example.

This is the relevant section from our data protection policy, which is based on a LA template and therefore is legally watertight.

'In the event that we are relying on Consent as a basis for Processing Personal Data about students, if a student is aged under 13, we will need to obtain Consent from the Parent(s). In the event that we require Consent for Processing Personal Data about students aged 13 or over, we will require the Consent of the student although, depending on the circumstances, the Academy should consider whether it is appropriate to inform Parents about this process. Consent is likely to be required if, for example, the Academy wishes to use a photo of a student on its website or on social media. Consent is also required before any students are signed up to online learning platforms. Such Consent must be from the Parent if the student is aged under 13. When relying on Consent, we will make sure that the child can demonstrate sufficient maturity to understand what they are consenting to, and we will not exploit any imbalance in power in the relationship between us.'

[Nearly Sane]

Schools are required by law to obtain consent from 13+ students for processing and using personal data. Parents may be informed if appropriate but they don't have to be from a legal standpoint. And the relationship with social media companies is complex, so this legal requirement includes the use of photographs that the school may wish to place on their social media channels - e.g. showing a photo of a winning football team or photo of a drama production. This also includes signing up to online learning platforms, which may be provided by Google for example.

This is the relevant section from our data protection policy, which is based on a LA template and therefore is legally watertight.

'In the event that we are relying on Consent as a basis for Processing Personal Data about students, if a student is aged under 13, we will need to obtain Consent from the Parent(s). In the event that we require Consent for Processing Personal Data about students aged 13 or over, we will require the Consent of the student although, depending on the circumstances, the Academy should consider whether it is appropriate to inform Parents about this process. Consent is likely to be required if, for example, the Academy wishes to use a photo of a student on its website or on social media. Consent is also required before any students are signed up to online learning platforms. Such Consent must be from the Parent if the student is aged under 13. When relying on Consent, we will make sure that the child can demonstrate sufficient maturity to understand what they are consenting to, and we will not exploit any imbalance in power in the relationship between us.'

This proposal applies to schools but social media access. So the picture won't be on the media without the parents approval. The enforcement will have nothing to do with the school. Your example also flags that in that case the school can't assume approval so they already have have complications which this would ameliorate.

[ProfessorDavey]

This proposal applies to schools but social media access. So the picture won't be on the media without the parents approval. The enforcement will have nothing to do with the school. Your example also flags that in that case the school can't assume approval so they already have have complications which this would ameliorate.

It wouldn't ameliorate the issue - it would merely shift it as secondary schools also have kids who are over 16 - so you'll just have a different 'cliff' edge where you need to determine who within a year group you get consent directly from and where you need to get consent from the parents.

But, from a school perspective, getting consent from the kids is much easier than from parents.

[Nearly Sane]

It wouldn't ameliorate the issue - it would merely shift it as secondary schools also have kids who are over 16 - so you'll just have a different 'cliff' edge where you need to determine who within a year group you get consent directly from and where you need to get consent from the parents.

But, from a school perspective, getting consent from the kids is much easier than from parents.

And at 16 there wouldn't be the need for the school to be dependent on the social media company and do their own checking on top of that.

You are really struggling with the concept that this proposal about age is dependent on the social media companies. And that it removes the difference between the 13/16 age groupings.

You seem to have decided that the bill is all about schools. It isn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

You seem to have decided that the bill is all about schools. It isn't.

No I'm not, but given the title of the thread forgive me for thinking the thread is about the impact of the Bill on schools.

[Nearly Sane]

No I'm not, but given the title of the thread forgive me for thinking the thread is about the impact of the Bill on schools.

That was the title of the article. It does not mean that the stuff in the article, or the bill is just about schools. Try reading what the article says rather than the interpolation you made up.

And none of that changes that you didn't understand the impact on schools of what the actual proposal in the article is.

[ProfessorDavey]

That was the title of the article.

It is also the title of the thread, so again seems reasonable to focus on the effect of the Bill on schools. Not least because this is an area I have direct experience of ... and indeed governance responsibility for.

It does not mean that the stuff in the article, or the bill is just about schools. Try reading what the article says rather than the interpolation you made up.

You are correct that the Bill isn't just about schools, but the article is pretty well entirely about the impact on schools. The only bit which isn't are the some of the summary bullet points.

And none of that changes that you didn't understand the impact on schools of what the actual proposal in the article is.

As far as I'm aware the Bill hasn't been fully published yet so none of us are fully aware what will be in it.

But, with respect, I suspect I know a lot more about the current position than you do - because I have read the current Department for Education position (have you?), which was published as recently as February. And the reason why I have read it is because I had governance responsibility for approving a new mobile use policy (approved in June) in a school that was specifically brought in to be compliant with the new guidance.

But, hey ho - armchair experts are always more knowledgable

[Nearly Sane]

It is also the title of the thread, so again seems reasonable to focus on the effect of the Bill on schools. Not least because this is an area I have direct experience of ... and indeed governance responsibility for.
You are correct that the Bill isn't just about schools, but the article is pretty well entirely about the impact on schools. The only bit which isn't are the some of the summary bullet points.
As far as I'm aware the Bill hasn't been fully published yet so none of us are fully aware what will be in it.

But, with respect, I suspect I know a lot more about the current position than you do - because I have read the current Department for Education position (have you?), which was published as recently as February. And the reason why I have read it is because I have governance responsibility of approving a new mobile use policy (approved in June) in a school that was specifically brought in to be compliant with the new guidance.

But, hey ho - armchair experts are always more knowledgable

It's the title of the thread because it's the title of the article, and the bullet points are about the other proposals which as you have just admitted here are not to do simply with schools
 So thank you for confirming that you think your reading was wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's the title of the thread because it's the title of the article, and the bullet points are about the other proposals which as you have just admitted here are not to do simply with schools

The other proposals seem sensible but, of course, the devil is in the detail. But frankly these are areas I know little about so I'm not the best person to be able to assess the detail even if it were available.

By contrast I do understand the current position in England (do you?) because I have needed to read it and determine how to revise a policy in a school to be compliant. And by the way the guidance requires schools  to have policies that ban phone use in schools unless there is a justifiable reason (e.g. medical) why this should not apply to individual students.

Have you read the current position NS?

[Nearly Sane]

The other proposals seem sensible but, of course, the devil is in the detail. But frankly these are areas I know little about so I'm not the best person to be able to assess the detail even if it were available.

By contrast I do understand the current position in England (do you?) because I have needed to read it and determine how to revise a policy in a school to be compliant. And by the way the guidance requires schools, by law, to ban phone use in schools unless there is a justifiable reason (e.g. medical) why this should not apply to individual students.

Have you read the current position NS?

Why is the current position on something that isn't about schools, as you have admitted, relevant? It's not, sad as it might seem to you, all about you.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not, sad as it might seem to you, all about you.

You are right that it isn't all about me.

But seeing as the thread is titled:

'Fight begins to make mobile-free schools law'

And links to an article with the same title that focusses pretty well exclusively on schools, then it is all about schools. So I make no apology for remaining on topic and focussing my comments on the effect of the Bill on ... err ... schools, not least because it a topic I know quite a bit about.

Have you read the current position on the use of mobile phones on schools in England NS?

Or even the current position in Scotland (where I believe you are based), which was updated even more recently (in August) but is much less strict than the current English position.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm presuming that one of the reasons that the Private Member's Bill approach is being used is to try and speec up some changes rather than being in a follow up to the Online Safety Act. That said given what is seen as the slow implementation of the Act, see report below, I'm not sure that the issue of implementation can be avoided.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0467e9e43o

As with pretty much all legislation as regards this type of regulation, it's way slower than the speed of the technological change.