I’m a headteacher – this is why we need an under-16 social media ban | Politics | News

Teachers have spent years trying to stem the tide of harm spreading into children’s lives through their phones. It’s a daily battle fought in classrooms, hallways and playgrounds as the world’s biggest tech companies continue to profit from products and platforms designed to keep young people hooked.

The government’s decision to officially support telephone-free schools is welcome. We have decided to ban smartphones at the John Wallis Church of England Academy. When students now arrive at school, they put their phones in lockable pouches that won’t be opened until the final bell rings. It has been two and a half years now, the consequences of the ban have become clear. Lessons are calmer, behavior improves and staff can focus on educating and supporting students rather than confiscating devices.

However, although the ban undoubtedly has an impact, it is not enough on its own. We can set clear boundaries throughout the school day. But when the bell rings, control passes directly to social media platforms designed to draw kids in and keep them there for as long as possible. This is where the real damage occurs and where government intervention is sorely needed.

Outside the school gates, children are turning to online spaces shaped entirely by commercial interests. Decisions about what they see are made by companies thousands of miles away; These companies use algorithms that highlight more extreme content because it keeps young users scrolling. Their prosperity comes a close second to making profits.

The danger of allowing access to social media before the age of 13 has become clear. In the Algorithm Experiment of the Little Victims of Big Tech campaign, researchers created accounts pretending to be 13 years old, the current legal age for social media. Within minutes, these accounts were shown sexually explicit material, self-harming content, and extreme videos. This was not accidental. The system was working exactly as designed.

No parent would accept a stranger showing this material to their child in the real world. But it is delivered online automatically and at scale, with little consequence for the companies responsible.

Raising the minimum age for access to social media to 16 will not solve everything overnight, but it will give children vital breathing room at a critical stage of development. This will reduce exposure to harmful content and take pressure off parents and schools who are currently expected to manage risks they do not create.

The government’s consultation on children’s online safety is currently exploring measures such as curfews and time limits on scrolling. But the Algorithm Experiment shows why smoothing edges won’t work. Limiting social media to one hour a day or turning off after 9pm offers no real protection when harmful content emerges within an average of three minutes.

Ministers are now starting to signal that the status quo cannot continue and age restrictions may be imposed on social media. This acceptance is important. But warm words and consultations are not the same as action. Until there is a clear commitment to raising the age, children will continue to be exposed to systems that truly harm them every day.

If ministers are serious about protecting children, they should be prepared to stand up to Big Tech and raise the social media access age to 16. Schools cannot do this alone. Childhood should not be shaped by profit-driven algorithms, and now is the time to draw that line.