If Teens Break the Rules, Who Breaks Their Silence?

Following the recent ban on social media, Assistant Head, Mrs Laura Evans-Jones, explores the impact of this landmark decision and shares her key reflections from our first few weeks navigating this major shift.

The government’s intention to prioritise the online safety of young people is something almost every sector welcomes. Few would dispute that the digital world exposes children to risks that previous generations never had to navigate – the analogy is sometimes used about planting a colony on Mars: it would be meticulously planned, from governance to policing to support. It would start small and grow in a controlled manner to make sure it was safe and everything worked according to plan, but that isn’t what happened with social media and now we are living with the consequences of a generation of young people who exist in a space that is out of control. In some ways, it feels far too late to try to row it back, but there is absolutely no question that we need to. The question is, how on earth do we do it? The proposal for a full social media ban for under‑16s raises serious questions about how practical it is and whether it reflects the lived reality of young people. A policy designed to protect them must also consider how they actually behave, what they need and how they experience the online world. At the moment, that balance feels incomplete. 

One truth stands out: teenagers break rules. They always have; they always will. Any policy that assumes perfect compliance is destined to fall short, and this causes an instant issue for adults whose job it is to protect young people. If a 15‑year‑old uses a VPN to access a banned platform and then encounters something harmful or distressing, they must feel able to tell a trusted adult. Safeguarding depends on honesty. It cannot function if young people fear that speaking up will expose them to punishment for how they came across the content in the first place. We cannot create a situation where safety becomes secondary to legality. This is why accountability for tech companies must sit alongside any restrictions placed on young people. Platforms have the resources, the data and the technological capability to design safer systems. Families and schools do not. Measures such as algorithmic transparency, limits on autoplay and tighter control over content recommendations would target the mechanisms that amplify harm. These ideas, already discussed publicly by Keir Starmer, focus on the systems that shape what young people see rather than simply removing access altogether - it is imperative that these are returned to the table for discussion by his successorrather than being something that leave office with him. 

Another question that lingers in amongst this is that of where the voice of the young person was in this decision? It is stated that 14,000 young people responded to the Government research, ‘Growing Up In The Online World’, but that equates to less than 1% of under-16s in the UK. The government’s proposals have led to a huge volume of discussion between parents, young people and educators as well as campaigners on both sides of the issue – surely now is the time to listen to that? The Children’s Commissioner’s ‘The Big Future’ survey with the goal of hearing from 1 million children and young people about what life is like for them and what they think a good childhood should look like now and in the future, but that does not close until mid-October. Having already announced a blanket ban on young people using social media, how do the Government propose to ensure that those children and young people do indeed feel listened to as Dame Rachel de Souza has pledged? 

Many teenagers are broadly supportive of measures that help them manage their online lives. They understand the pressures better than any adult. They know the impact of constant comparison, the pull of endless scrolling and the difficulty of switching off,but support for guidance is not the same as support for prohibition. Young people deserve to be part of the conversation about policies that reshape their social world. Concurrent to the debate about banning social media is a debate about lowering the voting age from 18 to 16, and whilst their opinions on this have (quite correctly) been sought widely, there has been very little input from young people on a social media ban. 

The difference between being 15 years and 364 days old and being 16 is a single day. Under a blanket ban, that day becomes a dividing line between what is legal and what is not. In Year 11, this would create a strange mix of students who are allowed on social media and students who are not. It would happen at the exact moment when the focus should be on GCSEs rather than on who is permitted to be in which group chat. The social dynamics would shift overnight, every night, and not necessarily in ways that support learning or wellbeing. 

Education must, therefore, remain central. No ban can replace the need for ongoing digital literacy. Young people need to understand how algorithms work, how to recognise manipulation and how to navigate online spaces with confidence. Parents and teachers need support as well. We are guiding the first generation to grow up fully online and doing so while the landscape changes at speed. A ban without education is a temporary barrier. Education without platform responsibility is an uphill struggle. 

Whilst a blanket ban certainly feels like significant action has been taken, there are alternative models worth considering. The government’s proposed tobacco policy, which introduces a yearly age increase to the ban so that today’s 16‑year‑olds will never legally buy cigarettes, offers a more gradual approach. A similar model for social media could avoid the sudden shock of a universal ban. It would give platforms time to adapt, schools time to prepare and families time to adjust. It would also avoid penalising current teenagers who have grown up with social media as a normal part of their friendships and identity. Any policy must also address VPN access. If young people can bypass restrictions within seconds, a ban becomes symbolic rather than effective. This is not about criminalising teenagers - it is about ensuring that if they do break the rules, they are not placed in greater danger because of it. Safeguarding must always come first. 

Ultimately, the goal should be a system that protects young people while also empowering them. A system where tech companies take responsibility for the environments they create. A system where education equips teenagers to navigate the digital world with confidence. A system where policy reflects the reality of young people’s lives rather than an idealised version of them. A full ban may appear decisive but that does not make it effective. Realistic, thoughtful and collaborative solutions will always serve young people better than sweeping prohibitions. The government is right to act, but it must act in a way that keeps young people’s voices at the centre of the conversation.

Mrs Laura Evans-Jones, Assistant Head - Operations / Pastoral