Children and screens (B1/B2)

cover slide

Your childhood

Answer alone, then compare with a partner:

1. How old were you when you got your first phone? First social account?

2. What did you do after school at 12 that a 12-year-old today doesn't?

3. What could you do at 12 that today's parents would never allow?

4. "Compared to a 12-year-old today, I was more _______ and less _______."

picture

Words to steal

Complete with these words:

scroll · log off · screen time · parental controls · glued · limit

1. He's _______ to that phone from breakfast to bed.

2. We set a two-hour _______ on weekdays.

3. I told her to _______ at ten — she just switches devices.

4. The app reports your weekly _______ — mine was horrifying.

5. You can _______ for hours and remember nothing.

6. _______ only work on children too young to google "how to remove them".

A deliberately boring text: an official summary. Read it the way officials write it — then find the two places where something human leaks through.

OFFICIAL SUMMARY · DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN AND MEDIA

Review of childhood screen use: summary of findings

The Review examined 214 studies and heard 96 witnesses. It finds strong correlations between heavy social media use and declines in adolescent sleep, attention and reported wellbeing, concentrated among ages 11–14. On causation, the evidence is contested; the Committee notes that contested evidence was also cited, historically, in respect of tobacco.

The Review recommends: (1) removal of phones from schools during teaching hours; (2) design regulations for under-16 accounts, including the disabling of autoplay, endless scroll and visible like-counts; (3) a statutory minimum age of 15, verified by national ID, subject to a feasibility study.

The Committee acknowledges enforcement challenges. Testimony from platform representatives asserted that age limits are technically difficult; the same platforms currently determine users' ages accurately enough to sell them age-targeted advertising, a point the Committee "notes with interest".

No witnesses under 16 were heard, for safeguarding reasons; written submissions from this group are summarised in Annex F. The Committee records that its own final meeting was interrupted by members' notifications on fourteen occasions.

Fact-check

Discussion

Correct the false statements — two are true, leave those alone:

1. You were asked to find two human leaks. What is the tobacco sentence doing in an official document?

2. Why does "notes with interest" sting more than an accusation would?

3. Annex F: why weren't the children in the room — and what would they have said?

1. The Review proves that social media causes teenage unhappiness.

2. The platforms say they cannot determine users' ages.

3. Children's views were not collected at all.

4. The recommended design rules apply to all users.

picture

Where do you stand?

Mark each: agree / disagree / not sure — then defend:

Bans push children to darker corners with fewer safety tools.

The problem is design, not existence: make the apps boring for minors and the "addiction" evaporates.

Adults check their phones 100+ times a day. Hypocrisy cancels authority.

Every generation panics about the new thing: novels, radio, comics, TV, games — now this. In 30 years, these fears will look silly.

Or: every generation panicked, and one generation, eventually, was right.

Your call

Quick decisions — fine, worrying, or wrong?

1. Your 11-year-old is the only one in class without a phone — and is being left out because of it. Hold the line?

2. A father gives his daughter a phone that secretly reports everything to him. She finds out at 15.

3. A school confiscates phones — then issues laptops with chat apps for "digital skills".

4. Grandparents let the kids scroll unlimited at weekends. "We're the fun house. Take it up with management."

5. A 13-year-old runs a business account with 80,000 followers. Closing it costs her real income and real joy.

The hearing

Fix the Review's mistake — hold the hearing it never held. Roles: a 13-year-old (finally invited), a parent, a platform executive, the minister (chair). The minister must ask the 13-year-old first and let them answer fully. Then debate the age-15 ban and take a vote — the 13-year-old's vote counts double, for twelve years of interest.

After the vote, the executive may offer exactly one concession to reverse the result. The room decides whether to accept it — and says aloud what accepting it would cost.

Homework

Write your own submission to Annex F, as your 12-year-old self — 80 words on what adults get wrong about your screen.

picture

The Committee was interrupted fourteen times by its own notifications. What experiment is currently running on you — and who will write its Annex F?