Colman Noctor: Why it's futile to ban phones from primary schools 

These concerns were reinforced by research released last week by CyberSafeKids, which found that cyberbullying is a significant issue for children and young people. 

The online safety charity surveyed more than 5,000 eight-to 16-year-olds and found that over 25% of primary school-aged children and 40% of secondary schoolchildren had experienced cyberbullying. 

Girls were more likely to be victims than boys. While boys were more likely than girls to play over-18 games (28% vs. 6%), young girls were more likely to post videos of themselves online (26% vs. 18%).

These worrying statistics tell us that action needs to be taken to deal with cyberbullying. 

But is a ban on smartphones in primary schools the way to go? I believe it’s a red herring. 

I don’t know any primary school that permits smartphones, so in many ways, the ‘ban’ is already in place.

Smartphone ownership is the core issue that needs to be addressed. While primary schools may ask parents to sign up for a voluntary no-mobile phone policy, this is not enforceable and not every parent will sign the proposal. 

As is often the case, the parents with the most lenient approach to smartphone ownership will set the bar for other parents to follow. 

It is not acceptable how we allow the lowest common denominator to set the pace for children’s access to smart technology but this is what has happened. 

As soon as one child in a primary school class has access to a smartphone, TikTok, Snapchat or an over-18s video game, the pressure is on other parents to follow suit. 

This pester power is real and I have witnessed it in my own family.

Alarming statistic

The most alarming statistic from the CyberSafeKids survey is that 93% of eight to 12-year-olds own a smart device. This means more children own a smartphone in primary school than those who do not.

We have created a situation where denying a child access to platforms like Snapchat will likely put them at a social disadvantage. 

We also have created a scenario where children whose parents don’t relent and buy their children a smartphone are in the minority.

In the past, I told parents if their child says, ‘everyone in my fourth class has SnapChat and I am the only one who doesn’t’, they were probably embellishing the truth and that it’s critical not to relent to these attempts to persuade you to give them a smartphone. 

However, as smartphone ownership has soared I have had to reconsider that advice.

I now believe your child may well be telling the truth and the task of prolonging the innocence of childhood by denying them access to the cyber world has a social consequence.

So many younger children have migrated to the cyber world that those who do not may be missing out — not on YouTube and TikTok videos but on opportunities to communicate with their peers. 

I fear virtual communication has surpassed face-to-face offline communication and we need to acknowledge this and try our best to address it.

The CyberSafeKids research confirms that the tide has turned and these social media platforms are now the most dominant space for children’s social interaction. Yes, I have grave concerns about the potential impact of social media on the lives of children, but I have to accept the reality.

When looking at the impact of premature smartphone ownership on child development, I do not mean the risk of cyberbullying, pornography or grooming; it is the subtle pressure of having to answer 50 SnapChat messages in the morning before you have your Coco Pops. 

Young children cannot deal with this volume and complexity and can feel overwhelmed.

Cyber world residents

Though many child and adolescent professionals and I have given loud warnings about smartphone usage, our advice has had little impact. 

Instead, tech company advertising and children’s determined voices appear to have won out.

Most young children are now residents of the cyberworld and those who are not are putting pressure on their parents to relent because they are missing out on opportunities to socialise, mix and contribute to their peer discourse.

It’s got to a point where smartphone ownership has become so prolific among primary school children that phoneless children risk being socially isolated.

Parents are in a 'lose-lose scenario' where they must decide between providing their child with a device likely to introduce them to space they cannot manage socially and emotionally. 

Or deny the child access to the platforms where their friends hang out and risk them becoming excluded and possibly ostracised.

Even giving a child a dumbphone is no longer an option because these children don’t communicate via text. Snapchat is where it is at, and you require a smartphone to access it.

Is the genie out of the bottle? Do we sit by and let our children scroll the cyberworld with unfettered access and hope for the best? 

While we can try to regulate their usage in terms of time, it is much more difficult to survey the content they consume, especially Snapchat, where messages disappear once they have been viewed.

Content is a more important metric than screen time. It is not about ‘time spent’ it is about ‘time well spent’ or ‘time poorly spent’.

One option is to educate children by introducing media literacy much earlier in schools to help them navigate cyberspace better. While this is useful, it is not foolproof. 

The alternative option is to stop the sale of smartphones for young children. This cannot be done by introducing a voluntary code in primary school — it is only possible by making it illegal.

The public response likely depends on whether people focused on ‘rights’ or ‘responsibilities’.

Those focused on rights will probably endorse the awareness and media literacy approach. Whereas those who are more responsibility-focused will support the blanket ban approach. 

But neither course of action addresses fast-evolving smart technology.

Pester power and tech company advertising are storming ahead of any emotional or psychological advice and in turn creating more and more pressure on parents to give their children what they want. 

However, as parents, we are also responsible for providing them with what they need, which includes the space to be children.

I have not provided an answer to the smartphone ownership debate because there isn’t one.

Young children’s access to smartphones and social media is growing so fast that the Government needs to rethink its strategy to limit its negative impact.

We need to consider ways to protect children in the world they inhabit, instead of insisting on a technology-free world that no longer exists.

The days of recommending keeping the PC in the sitting room are long gone.

• Dr Colman Noctor is a child psychotherapist