Safeguarding the digital generation - finding the balance

Debate about children and social media has intensified sharply in the UK over the past two years. Rising concerns about adolescent mental health, online misogyny, self-harm content and addictive design have led to renewed calls for an outright ban on social media for under 16s. In January 2026, the House of Lords voted in favour of an amendment that would raise the minimum age for social media use to 16, inspired by Australia’s recent ban, while the UK Government launched a consultation on restrictions, curfews and design changes instead.  

At the same time, researchers, children’s organisations and regulators have cautioned that bans alone may be ineffective or even counterproductive, arguing that the focus should be on education, regulation and safer design rather than exclusion. The evidence suggests the question is not simply ‘ban or don’t ban’, but how best to reduce harm while preparing young people for life in a digital world. 

As Pastoral Deputy Head in a school where mobile phones are not permitted during the school day, I see first-hand both the benefits and the limitations of restricting young people’s access to technology. At Blackheath High, our Yondr Pouch policy has been one of the most positive changes we have made: students are more focused in lessons, and social interactions at break and lunch are noticeably healthier. (The Yondr pouch is an innovative and secure system which requires students from Years 7 to 11 to lock their phones into pouches, which they keep with them through the school day, unlocking them as they leave.)

However, while this experience informs my thinking, it also reinforces a key point in the wider debate about banning social media for children in the UK: what works within the structured environment of a school does not automatically translate to life beyond the school gates. 

Those who argue for banning social media for under-16s often do so with children’s well-being firmly in mind, and from my professional experience, these concerns are understandable. 

In schools, we deal with the fallout from online activity: anxiety linked to online comparison, sleep deprivation caused by late-night scrolling, and friendship conflicts that begin online and spill into the school day. Safeguarding issues such as cyberbullying, exposure to inappropriate content, and harmful online challenges place a growing strain on pastoral systems. 

A ban could, in theory, reduce these pressures. It would offer clearer boundaries for families and schools, reinforcing the message that childhood should include space away from constant online scrutiny. Many compare this approach to age restrictions on alcohol or gambling - a recognition that children are still developing emotionally and may not yet have the resilience to navigate social media safely. 

There is also the issue of addictive design. Social media platforms are engineered to capture attention, and young people are particularly vulnerable to this. From an educational standpoint, anything that consistently undermines concentration, reading stamina, and sleep must be taken seriously. 

However, from the same school-based perspective, I remain sceptical that an outright ban would be effective. Teenagers are adept at finding ways around restrictions. In practice, bans are likely to be unevenly enforced and easily circumvented, potentially pushing young people into less regulated online spaces. Schools would still face the consequences of online behaviour, but with less visibility and fewer opportunities for guidance. 

Moreover, social media is now a significant part of how young people communicate and form identity. Many students use it positively: maintaining friendships, expressing creativity, accessing peer support, and engaging with social and cultural issues. Removing access entirely risks excluding them from the very digital world they will be expected to navigate responsibly as adults. 

There is also an important issue of student agency. As educators, we aim to prepare young people for life, not simply shield them from it. A blanket ban may protect in the short term, but it does little to build long-term resilience or critical judgement. 

At Blackheath High, we already play a vital role in teaching online safety.  We treat digital literacy with the same seriousness as financial literacy and careers education. We recognise the need for students to understand how algorithms shape what they see, how online content is monetised, and how to recognise manipulation, misinformation, and unhealthy comparison.  

Equally important is partnership with parents. We cannot regulate children’s online lives alone. Clear expectations, shared language, and consistent boundaries between home and school make a significant difference. 

Education also allows us to address behaviour when things go wrong. When students make mistakes online - and they will - these moments can become powerful learning opportunities if handled with guidance rather than punishment alone. 

Educating children does not mean letting social media companies off the hook. Stronger regulation, age-appropriate design, effective reporting tools, and meaningful consequences for platforms that fail to protect young users are essential. Schools and families should not be left to manage the consequences of weak corporate responsibility. 

From the perspective of someone working daily with young people, the debate is not simply “ban or no ban”. The real challenge is balance. 

Children need protection, but they also need preparation. They need limits, but they also need trust and guidance. Ultimately, our role as educators is not just to keep students safe today, but to help them become thoughtful, responsible digital citizens tomorrow. 

Written by Mrs Leamon, Deputy Head - Pastoral, Senior School