Teachers have spent years trying to hold back the tide of harm pouring into children’s lives through their phones. It is a daily battle – one fought in classrooms, corridors and playgrounds – while the world’s biggest technology companies continue profiting from products and platforms designed to keep young people hooked.
The government’s decision to formally support phone‑free schools is welcome. At The John Wallis Church of England Academy, we took the decision to ban smartphones. Pupils now put their phones in lockable pouches when they arrive at school that can’t be unlocked until the final bell has rung. Now two-and-a half-years in, the results of the ban are clear. Lessons are calmer, behaviour has improved and staff can focus on teaching and supporting pupils instead of confiscating devices.
But while the ban has undoubtedly made an impact, it’s not enough on its own. During the school day, we can draw firm boundaries. But once the bell rings, control passes straight back to the social media platforms designed to pull children in and keep them there for as long as possible. This is where the real damage is happening, and it is where government action is badly needed.
Outside of the school gates, children return to online spaces shaped entirely by commercial interests. Decisions about what they see are made by companies thousands of miles away, using algorithms that push ever more extreme content because it keeps young users scrolling. Their wellbeing comes a distant second to profit.
The danger of allowing access to social media pre-13 has been exposed clearly. In the Algorithm Experiment from the Big Tech’s Little Victims campaign, researchers set up accounts posing as 13-year-olds – the current legal age for social media. Within minutes, those accounts were shown sexualised material, self-harm content and extreme videos. This wasn’t accidental. It was the system working exactly as designed.
No parent would accept a stranger showing a child this material in the real world. Yet online, it is delivered automatically and at scale, with little consequence for the companies responsible.
Raising the minimum age for social media access to 16 would not solve everything overnight, but it would give children vital breathing space during a critical stage of development. It would reduce exposure to harmful content and take pressure off parents and schools who are currently expected to manage risks they did not create.
The government’s consultation on children’s online safety is now exploring measures such as curfews and time limits on scrolling. But the Algorithm Experiment shows why tinkering around the edges will not work. When harmful content appears in an average of three minutes, limiting social media to an hour a day or switching it off after 9pm offers no real protection at all.
Ministers are now starting to signal that the status quo cannot continue, and that age restrictions on social media may be on the table. That acknowledgement matters. But warm words and consultations are not the same as action. Until there is a clear commitment to raise the age, children remain exposed to systems that are doing them real harm every day.
If ministers are serious about protecting children, they must be prepared to stand up to Big Tech and raise the age of social media access to 16. Schools cannot do this alone. Childhood should not be shaped by profit‑driven algorithms and now is the moment to draw that line.
