# data[].attributes.body
This blog addresses the topic The Digital Age of Consent. It addresses the age at witch youth are entitled to sigh up for social media and internet services without specific authorization from their parents. The age range is around 13-16.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
About the author Blog Administrator Posted In: Children and the Media | Data Protection | LSE Media Policy Project | Privacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This Saturday, 25 May, will be the one year anniversary of Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) coming into force. Alex Cooney, CEO of CyberSafeIreland, a non-profit working to empowe…

# data[].attributes.body
The blog I read was about the challenges educators face when implementing educational technology into classrooms. The research highlights difficulties in ensuring that the tools are effective for children's learning and foster the curriculum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Aligning and consolidating approaches to quality EdTech selection and procurement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Natalia I. Kucirkova of the University of Stavanger, Norway and The Open University, UK, and Dan Lin of The Education University of Hong Kong, both on the advisory board of education certification …

# data[].attributes.body
This blog discusses the topic of restricting student phone use in schools. It concludes that implementing these restrictions help with student engagement and emphasizes student learning, but that there should also be a balance with allowing phone use in positive ways. I found this interesting as I do see both sides to this issue and I do believe that there is a way to incorporate phone use into the classroom while still having guidelines in place to ensure that education is the main focus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An international dilemma

Remarkably few studies have examined the effects of school smartphone policies on students' academic performance or other outcomes.

Several studies show moderate benefits for students' academic performance when smartphone use is restricted, especially for less advantaged children. However, the results are mixed, with methods being contested and some studies showing no or even contrary. With so few studies the evidence is not sufficiently nuanced to say which policies works best for the student body as a whole, or for children of different ages.

Policies for using smartphones in (and out of) class for educational purposes can also bring academic benefits, where they are carefully incorporated into the curriculum and supported by educators. Arguably this can and should be possible even if use of personal devices is restricted, now that school-provided laptops or tablets for learning increasingly take precedence over "bring your own device" policies.

Many teachers, parents and students favour restrictions on school smartphone access and use at school, to support learning and reduce distraction. "Phone-free" schools need to set out the purpose and context of the policies so that devices can support medical needs or learning and so individuals with good reason to access their phones have flexibility built in.

What should be done?

Identify the problem Do students have difficulties with concentration, learning, mental health or social relationships because of smartphone use or misuse? Would greater limits on student access to their phones at school bring likely benefits to all or specific segments of the student population?

Find the right words Schools need a clear lexicon to talk about devices, genres of products and services, criteria for learning outcomes and levels of restriction/use that better reflect the complexity of the student experience at school.

Develop a holistic approach Smartphone policies should be underpinned by a digital literacy curriculum that encompasses privacy, safety, genre, learning outcomes and monitoring, and embedded in wider EdTech policies to bridge school and home use.

Be inclusive Children have diverse needs and cultural circumstances. Policies should address whether (some) children need access to their smartphone during the school day, for reasons of health, disability, caring responsibilities or other needs.

Consult the school community Children's voices are heard in some research and policy development, yet not sufficiently. School smartphone policies will likely be more effective when the views of students, teachers, parents and school leaders have been heard and the policy formulated with them rather than over their heads.

This post was originally published on LSE's British Politics and Policy blog and is reposted with thanks. This article gives the views of the authors and does not represent the position of the Media@LSE blog, of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image: Photo by Andrey Matveev on Unsplash

About the author

Miriam Rahali

Dr. Miriam Rahali is a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Her research focuses on the intersection of children and media, with a specific interest in advertising, consumer behaviour, digital literacy, and skills development. Dr. Rahali has more than three years of teaching experience at the Undergraduate and Master's level, and has lectured at Columbia, Cambridge, and LSE. She is a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy.

Beeban Kidron

Beeban Kidron is a leading voice on children's rights in the digital environment and a global authority on digital regulation and accountability. She has played a determinative role in establishing standards for online safety and privacy across the world. Baroness Kidron sits as a crossbench peer in the UK's House of Lords. She is an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford, a Commissioner on the UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, expert advisor to the UN Secretary-General's High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence, and Founder and Chair of 5Rights Foundation. She is a visiting Professor of Practice at LSE where she Chairs the research centre, Digital Futures for Children, led by Professor Sonia Livingstone and a Fellow in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford. Before being appointed to the Lords she was an award-winning film director and co-founder of the charity Filmclub (now Into Film).

Sonia Livingstone

Sonia Livingstone OBE is Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Taking a comparative, critical and contextual approach, her research examines how the changing conditions of mediation are reshaping everyday practices and possibilities for action. She has published twenty books on media audiences, media literacy and media regulation, with a particular focus on the opportunities and risks of digital media use in the everyday lives of children and young people.

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does the evidence support a school ban on smartphones?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK Government has advised schools to restrict the use of smartphones by students. This seems to be supported by the current evidence which suggests that restrictions of phone use can benefit st...

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post explores how digital platforms are transforming family life by shaping communication, relationships, and behaviours, while raising concerns about power dynamics, privacy and autonomy.

This interested us because it highlights how digital platforms are quietly shaping family dynamics, from communication to decision making, and raises important questions about what the future of family life might look like.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From parenting with baby apps to coordinating dinner plans via WhatsApp, families are increasingly living their lives through digital platforms. But this is not just about convenience, it is also about power. Platforms shape family life, often invisibly, by setting the rules, gathering data, and influencing behaviours. Deakin University's Kate Mannell outlines key arguments from a new open-access book by a group of researchers across Europe and Australia ahead of its launch on 20 January. She shows how these everyday interactions - so often overlooked - are transforming family relationships and asks what this means for the future of family life in a platformized world.

The rise of platformization

Digital platforms now structure almost every domain of society. Scholars have tracked this shift, using concepts like " platform society" or " platform capitalism" to capture the wide-reaching implications of the growing power and influence of digital platforms. While platforms like to pose as neutral facilitators, they actively (often aggressively) set the terms of engagement: determining what can be said, what actions can be taken, what data must be disclosed, and what profit can be made by whom. They have increasingly come to serve civic functions despite often being profit-led, and while government and non-profit platforms exist, it is the concentration of power in the hands of a few corporate platforms that has been of greatest concern.

But what about family life? It is not just the functions of capitalism that have changed shape amid all this 'platformization'. Communicating with loved ones through Facebook Messenger, checking the kids' soccer schedule on Stack Team, ordering takeaways via DoorDash, managing home security with Google Nest, lazing on the couch watching Netflix, even turning on the lights using Alexa - so much of the everyday lives of families is now lived through and alongside digital platforms. The overriding aim of our book is to call attention to these easily overlooked 'micro' sites of platformization. What does platformization look like from the perspective of families, in all their diversity and complexity?

How is family life being 'platformized'?

A family is not a static object - it's a dynamic set of relationships and is constantly being made and remade through the practices of ' doing family'. The form these practices take and the meanings that emerge vary widely: for example, families can live together or separately and can provide support and care but can alsobe destructive or harmful.

Whatever they look like, the practices through which families are enacted are increasingly ' platformized'. We can think about this in two ways. Firstly, we can look to the role of platforms in the internal dynamics of the family -that is, how family members relate to one another by communicating, coordinating, managing resources, extending care and so on. One example that we discuss in our book is ' baby apps', which are used by new parents to track their baby's behaviours and can become important sources of information, reassurance, and communication. Another example is fitness tracking apps, which some families use not only to track runs but communicate, offer mutual support, and connect through shared interests.

Secondly, we can look at families' outward interactions with the world beyond - that is, how families interface with communities, institutions, businesses, governments, and so on. Actions like communicating with schools or applying for government services are also increasingly 'platformized'. One example we discuss in the book is healthcare settings where new parents are encouraged to adopt specific baby apps so that they can more accurately report their baby's behaviour to healthcare providers.
An online book launch for 'The Platformization of the Family' is being held on 20t January 2025. Register This work was supported by This post was originally published on LSE's Parenting for a Digital Future blog and is reposted with thanks. The post represents the views of the author and not the position of the Parenting for a Digital Future blog, nor of the Media@LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. and the Australian Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child. .
Why does this matter?

Platforms, like families, vary widely - not all platforms matter in the same way. But there are some common features that make the platformization of family life worthy of attention.

Platforms are typically marked by unequal power relations: they set the terms of use while giving users little say, and they often know a lot about their users while being impenetrable themselves. This means that while families adopt platforms for many useful, creative, enriching purposes, the terms on which they do so are often unknown or even unknowable. What kind of value do platforms derive from the activities of families? How might platforms seek to influence or structure family life and to what ends? This could include, for example, the way that platforms translate family life into data to be bought, sold, traded, and mined for insights.

At the same time, because platforms are so embedded in the practices through which families make themselves, their use also matters because of how it might be reshaping family life. Like many technologies before them, also ask families to reconsider their norms. When can a family member track another's location? Is it okay for the kids to spend Christmas day video-calling their friends? We know very little about how family practices might be reconfigured through the use of platforms and what this means for the nature of the family itself. To understand this better, we need to ask: what opportunities and challenges do platforms provide for families? And how do families navigate these in pursuit of their own interests?

A new way of asking an old question

In many ways, these are new versions of an old question: to what extent are people's lives determined by the systems in which they live and to what extent do they have autonomy to resist, co-opt, adapt, and leverage these systems to their own ends? This is a question that scholars have been asking for decades and one that - while impossible to answer -remains crucial to keep posing.

Yet, despite the long history, asking this question in the context of platformization raises unique theoretical and methodological challenges. In the book, we recommend methods that might help capture the rich, personal, everyday lives of families and offer a theoretical lens for bridging between the macro scale of societal platformization and the microcontexts of everyday family life. Our hope is that these inspire new projects, and new insights, into the changing experiences of family life.

Featured image: Photo by Alexander Dummer on Unsplash

About the author

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How is family life being 'platformized' and why does it matter?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From parenting with baby apps to coordinating dinner plans via WhatsApp, families are increasingly living their lives through digital platforms. But this is not just about convenience, it is also a...

# data[].attributes.body
This post analyzes the influence of young student's dependency on technology in their learning throughout the pandemic. Advantages were mentioned, such as accessibility during lockdowns as well as their developed navigation of online programs. However, the post also discusses dangers, such as loss of childhood and extreme dependency.

# data[].attributes.body
The Blog I looked at discussed that with the increased incorporation of digital platforms such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) in learning environments, it is important to take into account one's human rights and how that can affect a child. It discusses how it needs to be ensured that AI successfully does its job of creating an inclusive empowering future for every child that engages with the program. As well as ensuring its promise to educators such as reducing teachers marking loads in educational settings. However, there must also be awareness of the potential negatives of AI.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shaping the future of AI in education: a call for a children’s rights-based approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ahead of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit which France will host early next month, Ayça Atabey explains why it is essential to adopt a children’s rights-based approach to AI use…

# data[].attributes.body
This blog was about how fundamental it is for children to develop critical media skills at a young age. This is a way to maximize the childs online opportunities and minimize their online risks.

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post explains the impact of AI education can that if children are going to be using AI as a resource for they need to have an understanding of the risks of AI as well as the benefits. There is also a concern that child will lose their right to privacy with the use of AI, as child's right are what come first.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shaping the future of AI in education: a call for a children’s rights-based approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ahead of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit which France will host early next month, Ayça Atabey explains why it is essential to adopt a children’s rights-based approach to AI use…

# data[].attributes.body
The main idea of this blog is to shape how AI can be used to benefit children with learning as a tool. It mentioned how effective it is to regulate the use of AI so it can be manageable in providing students with representative knowledge. It makes sure that children's rights and ethics are being taken into consideration when using AI for learning. What was interesting to me was that AI can be used as a good option to retaining knowledge. Since it will be around and students will find a way to use it making sure to embed it in a safe way is key.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shaping the future of AI in education: a call for a children’s rights-based approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ahead of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit which France will host early next month, Ayça Atabey explains why it is essential to adopt a children’s rights-based approach to AI use…

# data[].attributes.body
Main Idea: how digital platforms are increasingly shaping family life and why this matters. the author argues that families are more often living their lives through digital platforms and highlights the power of platforms to set rules, gather data, and influence behaviours.

I find this interesting because i have never heard of the term "pjatformization". it is now on the rise and something we have never seen before, affecting many aspects of family interactions such as using parenting apps.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From parenting with baby apps to coordinating dinner plans via WhatsApp, families are increasingly living their lives through digital platforms. But this is not just about convenience, it is also about power. Platforms shape family life, often invisibly, by setting the rules, gathering data, and influencing behaviours. Deakin University's Kate Mannell outlines key arguments from a new open-access book by a group of researchers across Europe and Australia ahead of its launch on 20 January. She shows how these everyday interactions - so often overlooked - are transforming family relationships and asks what this means for the future of family life in a platformized world.

The rise of platformization

Digital platforms now structure almost every domain of society. Scholars have tracked this shift, using concepts like " platform society" or " platform capitalism" to capture the wide-reaching implications of the growing power and influence of digital platforms. While platforms like to pose as neutral facilitators, they actively (often aggressively) set the terms of engagement: determining what can be said, what actions can be taken, what data must be disclosed, and what profit can be made by whom. They have increasingly come to serve civic functions despite often being profit-led, and while government and non-profit platforms exist, it is the concentration of power in the hands of a few corporate platforms that has been of greatest concern.

But what about family life? It is not just the functions of capitalism that have changed shape amid all this 'platformization'. Communicating with loved ones through Facebook Messenger, checking the kids' soccer schedule on Stack Team, ordering takeaways via DoorDash, managing home security with Google Nest, lazing on the couch watching Netflix, even turning on the lights using Alexa - so much of the everyday lives of families is now lived through and alongside digital platforms. The overriding aim of our book is to call attention to these easily overlooked 'micro' sites of platformization. What does platformization look like from the perspective of families, in all their diversity and complexity?

How is family life being 'platformized'?

A family is not a static object - it's a dynamic set of relationships and is constantly being made and remade through the practices of ' doing family'. The form these practices take and the meanings that emerge vary widely: for example, families can live together or separately and can provide support and care but can alsobe destructive or harmful.

Whatever they look like, the practices through which families are enacted are increasingly ' platformized'. We can think about this in two ways. Firstly, we can look to the role of platforms in the internal dynamics of the family -that is, how family members relate to one another by communicating, coordinating, managing resources, extending care and so on. One example that we discuss in our book is ' baby apps', which are used by new parents to track their baby's behaviours and can become important sources of information, reassurance, and communication. Another example is fitness tracking apps, which some families use not only to track runs but communicate, offer mutual support, and connect through shared interests.

Secondly, we can look at families' outward interactions with the world beyond - that is, how families interface with communities, institutions, businesses, governments, and so on. Actions like communicating with schools or applying for government services are also increasingly 'platformized'. One example we discuss in the book is healthcare settings where new parents are encouraged to adopt specific baby apps so that they can more accurately report their baby's behaviour to healthcare providers.
An online book launch for 'The Platformization of the Family' is being held on 20t January 2025. Register This work was supported by This post was originally published on LSE's Parenting for a Digital Future blog and is reposted with thanks. The post represents the views of the author and not the position of the Parenting for a Digital Future blog, nor of the Media@LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. and the Australian Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child. .
Why does this matter?

Platforms, like families, vary widely - not all platforms matter in the same way. But there are some common features that make the platformization of family life worthy of attention.

Platforms are typically marked by unequal power relations: they set the terms of use while giving users little say, and they often know a lot about their users while being impenetrable themselves. This means that while families adopt platforms for many useful, creative, enriching purposes, the terms on which they do so are often unknown or even unknowable. What kind of value do platforms derive from the activities of families? How might platforms seek to influence or structure family life and to what ends? This could include, for example, the way that platforms translate family life into data to be bought, sold, traded, and mined for insights.

At the same time, because platforms are so embedded in the practices through which families make themselves, their use also matters because of how it might be reshaping family life. Like many technologies before them, also ask families to reconsider their norms. When can a family member track another's location? Is it okay for the kids to spend Christmas day video-calling their friends? We know very little about how family practices might be reconfigured through the use of platforms and what this means for the nature of the family itself. To understand this better, we need to ask: what opportunities and challenges do platforms provide for families? And how do families navigate these in pursuit of their own interests?

A new way of asking an old question

In many ways, these are new versions of an old question: to what extent are people's lives determined by the systems in which they live and to what extent do they have autonomy to resist, co-opt, adapt, and leverage these systems to their own ends? This is a question that scholars have been asking for decades and one that - while impossible to answer -remains crucial to keep posing.

Yet, despite the long history, asking this question in the context of platformization raises unique theoretical and methodological challenges. In the book, we recommend methods that might help capture the rich, personal, everyday lives of families and offer a theoretical lens for bridging between the macro scale of societal platformization and the microcontexts of everyday family life. Our hope is that these inspire new projects, and new insights, into the changing experiences of family life.

Featured image: Photo by Alexander Dummer on Unsplash

About the author

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How is family life being 'platformized' and why does it matter?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From parenting with baby apps to coordinating dinner plans via WhatsApp, families are increasingly living their lives through digital platforms. But this is not just about convenience, it is also a...

# data[].attributes.body
The blog "Tech Tantrums" discusses the growing concerns surrounding the unchecked influence of the tech industry, particularly artificial intelligence. It critiques the idea of "tech exceptionalism" and stresses the importance of regulating technology to protect privacy, democracy, and public health. This is interesting to me as a future educator, as it highlights the impact of technology on society and the necessity for responsible tech integration in educational environments. Educators must consider how tech policies shape students' lives and learning, making discussions around tech ethics vital in the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Tech tantrums – when tech meets humanity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In advance of her LSE public lecture “Tech tantrums – when tech meets humanity,” Baroness Kidron outlines some of the themes she will expand upon in her talk, arguing that in the face o…

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post discusses the very unfortunate reality that kids in many countries are at an increased risk for sexual exploitation through online platforms. I was interested in this because given how often kids are using technology and the younger the kids are when given access to these devices, it is crucial that we are working at ways to protect kids from these risks.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sexually exploitative practices against children in the digital environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UN Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children recently invited stakeholders to contribute to a report exploring the existing and emerging sexually exploitative practices…

# data[].attributes.body
The article discusses how the principle of the best interests of the child is applied in the digital world, referencing legal frameworks. It critiques corporate efforts, questioning whether tech companies can truly uphold children's rights. The authors introduce the Digital Futures for Children Centre, which aims to ensure evidence-based advocacy and proper interpretation of children's rights in digital spaces. They stress the need for clear guidance to prevent the misuse of this principle and to protect children's broader rights online.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2024/02/06/identifying-the-best-interests-of-the-child-in-relation-to-the-digital-environment/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Identifying the “best interests of the child” in relation to the digital environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Safer Internet Day, which aims to raise awareness of a safer and better internet for all, and especially for children and young people, LSE’s Sonia Livingstone and Didem Özkul explain the …

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post highlights the idea of parents using baby apps to "parent" their child. These platforms are shaping family life, influencing children's behaviour as well as transforming family relationships. I chose this blog because I was interested to see if there is an actual value in using baby apps & toys to teach you children things. Looking to see if baby apps/toys could be actually beneficial or cause more harm than good.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From parenting with baby apps to coordinating dinner plans via WhatsApp, families are increasingly living their lives through digital platforms. But this is not just about convenience, it is also about power. Platforms shape family life, often invisibly, by setting the rules, gathering data, and influencing behaviours. Deakin University's Kate Mannell outlines key arguments from a new open-access book by a group of researchers across Europe and Australia ahead of its launch on 20 January. She shows how these everyday interactions - so often overlooked - are transforming family relationships and asks what this means for the future of family life in a platformized world.

The rise of platformization

Digital platforms now structure almost every domain of society. Scholars have tracked this shift, using concepts like " platform society" or " platform capitalism" to capture the wide-reaching implications of the growing power and influence of digital platforms. While platforms like to pose as neutral facilitators, they actively (often aggressively) set the terms of engagement: determining what can be said, what actions can be taken, what data must be disclosed, and what profit can be made by whom. They have increasingly come to serve civic functions despite often being profit-led, and while government and non-profit platforms exist, it is the concentration of power in the hands of a few corporate platforms that has been of greatest concern.

But what about family life? It is not just the functions of capitalism that have changed shape amid all this 'platformization'. Communicating with loved ones through Facebook Messenger, checking the kids' soccer schedule on Stack Team, ordering takeaways via DoorDash, managing home security with Google Nest, lazing on the couch watching Netflix, even turning on the lights using Alexa - so much of the everyday lives of families is now lived through and alongside digital platforms. The overriding aim of our book is to call attention to these easily overlooked 'micro' sites of platformization. What does platformization look like from the perspective of families, in all their diversity and complexity?

How is family life being 'platformized'?

A family is not a static object - it's a dynamic set of relationships and is constantly being made and remade through the practices of ' doing family'. The form these practices take and the meanings that emerge vary widely: for example, families can live together or separately and can provide support and care but can alsobe destructive or harmful.

Whatever they look like, the practices through which families are enacted are increasingly ' platformized'. We can think about this in two ways. Firstly, we can look to the role of platforms in the internal dynamics of the family -that is, how family members relate to one another by communicating, coordinating, managing resources, extending care and so on. One example that we discuss in our book is ' baby apps', which are used by new parents to track their baby's behaviours and can become important sources of information, reassurance, and communication. Another example is fitness tracking apps, which some families use not only to track runs but communicate, offer mutual support, and connect through shared interests.

Secondly, we can look at families' outward interactions with the world beyond - that is, how families interface with communities, institutions, businesses, governments, and so on. Actions like communicating with schools or applying for government services are also increasingly 'platformized'. One example we discuss in the book is healthcare settings where new parents are encouraged to adopt specific baby apps so that they can more accurately report their baby's behaviour to healthcare providers.
An online book launch for 'The Platformization of the Family' is being held on 20t January 2025. Register This work was supported by This post was originally published on LSE's Parenting for a Digital Future blog and is reposted with thanks. The post represents the views of the author and not the position of the Parenting for a Digital Future blog, nor of the Media@LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. and the Australian Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child. .
Why does this matter?

Platforms, like families, vary widely - not all platforms matter in the same way. But there are some common features that make the platformization of family life worthy of attention.

Platforms are typically marked by unequal power relations: they set the terms of use while giving users little say, and they often know a lot about their users while being impenetrable themselves. This means that while families adopt platforms for many useful, creative, enriching purposes, the terms on which they do so are often unknown or even unknowable. What kind of value do platforms derive from the activities of families? How might platforms seek to influence or structure family life and to what ends? This could include, for example, the way that platforms translate family life into data to be bought, sold, traded, and mined for insights.

At the same time, because platforms are so embedded in the practices through which families make themselves, their use also matters because of how it might be reshaping family life. Like many technologies before them, also ask families to reconsider their norms. When can a family member track another's location? Is it okay for the kids to spend Christmas day video-calling their friends? We know very little about how family practices might be reconfigured through the use of platforms and what this means for the nature of the family itself. To understand this better, we need to ask: what opportunities and challenges do platforms provide for families? And how do families navigate these in pursuit of their own interests?

A new way of asking an old question

In many ways, these are new versions of an old question: to what extent are people's lives determined by the systems in which they live and to what extent do they have autonomy to resist, co-opt, adapt, and leverage these systems to their own ends? This is a question that scholars have been asking for decades and one that - while impossible to answer -remains crucial to keep posing.

Yet, despite the long history, asking this question in the context of platformization raises unique theoretical and methodological challenges. In the book, we recommend methods that might help capture the rich, personal, everyday lives of families and offer a theoretical lens for bridging between the macro scale of societal platformization and the microcontexts of everyday family life. Our hope is that these inspire new projects, and new insights, into the changing experiences of family life.

Featured image: Photo by Alexander Dummer on Unsplash

About the author

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How is family life being 'platformized' and why does it matter?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From parenting with baby apps to coordinating dinner plans via WhatsApp, families are increasingly living their lives through digital platforms. But this is not just about convenience, it is also a...

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post is about how banning smartphones is resulting in students doing better in their academics and learning. This is especially true for students who are struggling most, and how the school's goal is to have the best interest of the child. This is being discussed to help protect students from the damaging aspects of digital technology, with the hopes of creating a safer and more beneficial world online and in school environments.

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post discusses the UK government's (and countries globally) recommendation to restrict students' smartphone usage. The blog post highlights different responses; from parents confusion due to the increase of technology necessity in the real world, to teachers frustrations as the policy only extends across the school, yet does not control students' usage at home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An international dilemma

Remarkably few studies have examined the effects of school smartphone policies on students' academic performance or other outcomes.

Several studies show moderate benefits for students' academic performance when smartphone use is restricted, especially for less advantaged children. However, the results are mixed, with methods being contested and some studies showing no or even contrary. With so few studies the evidence is not sufficiently nuanced to say which policies works best for the student body as a whole, or for children of different ages.

Policies for using smartphones in (and out of) class for educational purposes can also bring academic benefits, where they are carefully incorporated into the curriculum and supported by educators. Arguably this can and should be possible even if use of personal devices is restricted, now that school-provided laptops or tablets for learning increasingly take precedence over "bring your own device" policies.

Many teachers, parents and students favour restrictions on school smartphone access and use at school, to support learning and reduce distraction. "Phone-free" schools need to set out the purpose and context of the policies so that devices can support medical needs or learning and so individuals with good reason to access their phones have flexibility built in.

What should be done?

Identify the problem Do students have difficulties with concentration, learning, mental health or social relationships because of smartphone use or misuse? Would greater limits on student access to their phones at school bring likely benefits to all or specific segments of the student population?

Find the right words Schools need a clear lexicon to talk about devices, genres of products and services, criteria for learning outcomes and levels of restriction/use that better reflect the complexity of the student experience at school.

Develop a holistic approach Smartphone policies should be underpinned by a digital literacy curriculum that encompasses privacy, safety, genre, learning outcomes and monitoring, and embedded in wider EdTech policies to bridge school and home use.

Be inclusive Children have diverse needs and cultural circumstances. Policies should address whether (some) children need access to their smartphone during the school day, for reasons of health, disability, caring responsibilities or other needs.

Consult the school community Children's voices are heard in some research and policy development, yet not sufficiently. School smartphone policies will likely be more effective when the views of students, teachers, parents and school leaders have been heard and the policy formulated with them rather than over their heads.

This post was originally published on LSE's British Politics and Policy blog and is reposted with thanks. This article gives the views of the authors and does not represent the position of the Media@LSE blog, of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image: Photo by Andrey Matveev on Unsplash

About the author

Miriam Rahali

Dr. Miriam Rahali is a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Her research focuses on the intersection of children and media, with a specific interest in advertising, consumer behaviour, digital literacy, and skills development. Dr. Rahali has more than three years of teaching experience at the Undergraduate and Master's level, and has lectured at Columbia, Cambridge, and LSE. She is a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy.

Beeban Kidron

Beeban Kidron is a leading voice on children's rights in the digital environment and a global authority on digital regulation and accountability. She has played a determinative role in establishing standards for online safety and privacy across the world. Baroness Kidron sits as a crossbench peer in the UK's House of Lords. She is an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford, a Commissioner on the UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, expert advisor to the UN Secretary-General's High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence, and Founder and Chair of 5Rights Foundation. She is a visiting Professor of Practice at LSE where she Chairs the research centre, Digital Futures for Children, led by Professor Sonia Livingstone and a Fellow in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford. Before being appointed to the Lords she was an award-winning film director and co-founder of the charity Filmclub (now Into Film).

Sonia Livingstone

Sonia Livingstone OBE is Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Taking a comparative, critical and contextual approach, her research examines how the changing conditions of mediation are reshaping everyday practices and possibilities for action. She has published twenty books on media audiences, media literacy and media regulation, with a particular focus on the opportunities and risks of digital media use in the everyday lives of children and young people.

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does the evidence support a school ban on smartphones?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK Government has advised schools to restrict the use of smartphones by students. This seems to be supported by the current evidence which suggests that restrictions of phone use can benefit st...

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post discusses how children frequently confuse advertisements and entertainment. Specifically, it noted how many influencers fail to properly label sponsored content, making it difficult for children to spot advertisement's. I found this to be interesting as so many children have access to the internet these days.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legal, honest and truthful: Advertising to children in the age of influencers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK Parliament’s Digital, Culture Media and Sport Select Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into ‘Influencer culture’ on social media. A new policy brief from LSE’s Miriam Rahali and S…

# data[].attributes.body
The ySKILLS project highlights the importance of digital literacy in promoting children's wellbeing and rights in the digital age, showing that it is essential for navigating the online environment safely and effectively. The research emphasizes the need for a collaborative effort to ensure all children develop these skills, as unequal access or lack of digital education can hinder their rights and oppportunities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Unlocking tomorrow: the intersection of digital literacy with regulation, children’s wellbeing and rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To thrive in the ever-evolving digital environment children and young people must gain digital literacy. But what difference does digital literacy make to children’s wellbeing and rights? Over the …

# data[].attributes.body
It is discussed how how families are constantly being platformaized. With so many new apps, families are dependent on apps as a form of communication, check to see where one another along coordinating plans. I found this to be interesting as there is so much power embedded in this and families are so dependent on these apps now. These apps control parents and ultimately reshape how they live and parent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From parenting with baby apps to coordinating dinner plans via WhatsApp, families are increasingly living their lives through digital platforms. But this is not just about convenience, it is also about power. Platforms shape family life, often invisibly, by setting the rules, gathering data, and influencing behaviours. Deakin University's Kate Mannell outlines key arguments from a new open-access book by a group of researchers across Europe and Australia ahead of its launch on 20 January. She shows how these everyday interactions - so often overlooked - are transforming family relationships and asks what this means for the future of family life in a platformized world.

The rise of platformization

Digital platforms now structure almost every domain of society. Scholars have tracked this shift, using concepts like " platform society" or " platform capitalism" to capture the wide-reaching implications of the growing power and influence of digital platforms. While platforms like to pose as neutral facilitators, they actively (often aggressively) set the terms of engagement: determining what can be said, what actions can be taken, what data must be disclosed, and what profit can be made by whom. They have increasingly come to serve civic functions despite often being profit-led, and while government and non-profit platforms exist, it is the concentration of power in the hands of a few corporate platforms that has been of greatest concern.

But what about family life? It is not just the functions of capitalism that have changed shape amid all this 'platformization'. Communicating with loved ones through Facebook Messenger, checking the kids' soccer schedule on Stack Team, ordering takeaways via DoorDash, managing home security with Google Nest, lazing on the couch watching Netflix, even turning on the lights using Alexa - so much of the everyday lives of families is now lived through and alongside digital platforms. The overriding aim of our book is to call attention to these easily overlooked 'micro' sites of platformization. What does platformization look like from the perspective of families, in all their diversity and complexity?

How is family life being 'platformized'?

A family is not a static object - it's a dynamic set of relationships and is constantly being made and remade through the practices of ' doing family'. The form these practices take and the meanings that emerge vary widely: for example, families can live together or separately and can provide support and care but can alsobe destructive or harmful.

Whatever they look like, the practices through which families are enacted are increasingly ' platformized'. We can think about this in two ways. Firstly, we can look to the role of platforms in the internal dynamics of the family -that is, how family members relate to one another by communicating, coordinating, managing resources, extending care and so on. One example that we discuss in our book is ' baby apps', which are used by new parents to track their baby's behaviours and can become important sources of information, reassurance, and communication. Another example is fitness tracking apps, which some families use not only to track runs but communicate, offer mutual support, and connect through shared interests.

Secondly, we can look at families' outward interactions with the world beyond - that is, how families interface with communities, institutions, businesses, governments, and so on. Actions like communicating with schools or applying for government services are also increasingly 'platformized'. One example we discuss in the book is healthcare settings where new parents are encouraged to adopt specific baby apps so that they can more accurately report their baby's behaviour to healthcare providers.
An online book launch for 'The Platformization of the Family' is being held on 20t January 2025. Register This work was supported by This post was originally published on LSE's Parenting for a Digital Future blog and is reposted with thanks. The post represents the views of the author and not the position of the Parenting for a Digital Future blog, nor of the Media@LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. and the Australian Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child. .
Why does this matter?

Platforms, like families, vary widely - not all platforms matter in the same way. But there are some common features that make the platformization of family life worthy of attention.

Platforms are typically marked by unequal power relations: they set the terms of use while giving users little say, and they often know a lot about their users while being impenetrable themselves. This means that while families adopt platforms for many useful, creative, enriching purposes, the terms on which they do so are often unknown or even unknowable. What kind of value do platforms derive from the activities of families? How might platforms seek to influence or structure family life and to what ends? This could include, for example, the way that platforms translate family life into data to be bought, sold, traded, and mined for insights.

At the same time, because platforms are so embedded in the practices through which families make themselves, their use also matters because of how it might be reshaping family life. Like many technologies before them, also ask families to reconsider their norms. When can a family member track another's location? Is it okay for the kids to spend Christmas day video-calling their friends? We know very little about how family practices might be reconfigured through the use of platforms and what this means for the nature of the family itself. To understand this better, we need to ask: what opportunities and challenges do platforms provide for families? And how do families navigate these in pursuit of their own interests?

A new way of asking an old question

In many ways, these are new versions of an old question: to what extent are people's lives determined by the systems in which they live and to what extent do they have autonomy to resist, co-opt, adapt, and leverage these systems to their own ends? This is a question that scholars have been asking for decades and one that - while impossible to answer -remains crucial to keep posing.

Yet, despite the long history, asking this question in the context of platformization raises unique theoretical and methodological challenges. In the book, we recommend methods that might help capture the rich, personal, everyday lives of families and offer a theoretical lens for bridging between the macro scale of societal platformization and the microcontexts of everyday family life. Our hope is that these inspire new projects, and new insights, into the changing experiences of family life.

Featured image: Photo by Alexander Dummer on Unsplash

About the author

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How is family life being 'platformized' and why does it matter?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From parenting with baby apps to coordinating dinner plans via WhatsApp, families are increasingly living their lives through digital platforms. But this is not just about convenience, it is also a...

# data[].attributes.body
The UK government has recommended that teachers and administrators ban smartphones in schools. However, this blog article states that this perspective oversimplifies this nuanced issue. While restrictions can help improve learning, policies should identify the problem, find the right words, develop a holistic approach, be inclusive and consult the school community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An international dilemma

Remarkably few studies have examined the effects of school smartphone policies on students' academic performance or other outcomes.

Several studies show moderate benefits for students' academic performance when smartphone use is restricted, especially for less advantaged children. However, the results are mixed, with methods being contested and some studies showing no or even contrary. With so few studies the evidence is not sufficiently nuanced to say which policies works best for the student body as a whole, or for children of different ages.

Policies for using smartphones in (and out of) class for educational purposes can also bring academic benefits, where they are carefully incorporated into the curriculum and supported by educators. Arguably this can and should be possible even if use of personal devices is restricted, now that school-provided laptops or tablets for learning increasingly take precedence over "bring your own device" policies.

Many teachers, parents and students favour restrictions on school smartphone access and use at school, to support learning and reduce distraction. "Phone-free" schools need to set out the purpose and context of the policies so that devices can support medical needs or learning and so individuals with good reason to access their phones have flexibility built in.

What should be done?

Identify the problem Do students have difficulties with concentration, learning, mental health or social relationships because of smartphone use or misuse? Would greater limits on student access to their phones at school bring likely benefits to all or specific segments of the student population?

Find the right words Schools need a clear lexicon to talk about devices, genres of products and services, criteria for learning outcomes and levels of restriction/use that better reflect the complexity of the student experience at school.

Develop a holistic approach Smartphone policies should be underpinned by a digital literacy curriculum that encompasses privacy, safety, genre, learning outcomes and monitoring, and embedded in wider EdTech policies to bridge school and home use.

Be inclusive Children have diverse needs and cultural circumstances. Policies should address whether (some) children need access to their smartphone during the school day, for reasons of health, disability, caring responsibilities or other needs.

Consult the school community Children's voices are heard in some research and policy development, yet not sufficiently. School smartphone policies will likely be more effective when the views of students, teachers, parents and school leaders have been heard and the policy formulated with them rather than over their heads.

This post was originally published on LSE's British Politics and Policy blog and is reposted with thanks. This article gives the views of the authors and does not represent the position of the Media@LSE blog, of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image: Photo by Andrey Matveev on Unsplash

About the author

Miriam Rahali

Dr. Miriam Rahali is a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Her research focuses on the intersection of children and media, with a specific interest in advertising, consumer behaviour, digital literacy, and skills development. Dr. Rahali has more than three years of teaching experience at the Undergraduate and Master's level, and has lectured at Columbia, Cambridge, and LSE. She is a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy.

Beeban Kidron

Beeban Kidron is a leading voice on children's rights in the digital environment and a global authority on digital regulation and accountability. She has played a determinative role in establishing standards for online safety and privacy across the world. Baroness Kidron sits as a crossbench peer in the UK's House of Lords. She is an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford, a Commissioner on the UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, expert advisor to the UN Secretary-General's High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence, and Founder and Chair of 5Rights Foundation. She is a visiting Professor of Practice at LSE where she Chairs the research centre, Digital Futures for Children, led by Professor Sonia Livingstone and a Fellow in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford. Before being appointed to the Lords she was an award-winning film director and co-founder of the charity Filmclub (now Into Film).

Sonia Livingstone

Sonia Livingstone OBE is Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Taking a comparative, critical and contextual approach, her research examines how the changing conditions of mediation are reshaping everyday practices and possibilities for action. She has published twenty books on media audiences, media literacy and media regulation, with a particular focus on the opportunities and risks of digital media use in the everyday lives of children and young people.

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does the evidence support a school ban on smartphones?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK Government has advised schools to restrict the use of smartphones by students. This seems to be supported by the current evidence which suggests that restrictions of phone use can benefit st...

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post discusses the need for child empowerment in relation to the growing digital landscape that they are getting sucked in to at earlier ages. The author describes the positive aspects of empowering children and the change they can bring about in our society. The blog then goes on to discuss strategies that educators can use in their classrooms to help build children's sense of empowerment in the digital world they now live in.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jun Yu, Assistant Professor in the Department of Communications and New Media at the National University of Singapore (NUS), and a former policy analyst at the OECD's Directorate for Education and Skills, explains the implications of a recent OECD report for understanding the notion of child empowerment in the digital world.
Undoubtedly, today's digital landscape has increased risks for children, including misinformation, cyberbullying , hate speech, and online sexual abuse and exploitation. Consequently, "child empowerment" has become a central focus of many educational policies and practices. Empowering children is more crucial-and complex-than ever. What does "child empowerment" really mean in 2024, and how can we achieve it?

A recently published OECD report, based on the 21st Century Children questionnaire with 23 OECD countries and systems,[1] challenges conventional wisdom, suggesting that shielding kids from all online risks may not be the answer. While numerous efforts have been made to reduce online risks, eliminating all risks may not always be beneficial. EU Kids Online 2020, for instance, finds more risk to children online, but not always more harm. This is because risks and harms are conceptually different, and benefits can be accrued if a child is properly equipped to respond to risks. Children's exposure to certain manageable risks may actually help them become more " resilient", learning how to recognise, manage, and recover from risky online experiences. Conversely, over-protection may undermine their empowerment.

The report instead emphasises that empowering children requires supporting them to understand their own experiences and construct their own meanings, rather than simply limiting social media use and "screen time". Digital space is now an essential arena for children's learning, growth, and discussing their thoughts and feelings, developing a sense of purpose and pro-social behaviours. It calls for more complex understandings of the attitudes and values children need when interacting with the digital environment. Of course, over-engagement may cause addiction and mental health issues. But as evidenced by research, screen time alone is not a meaningful indicator of media engagement's effects on child empowerment or well-being, as it doesn't consider who is engaging and what they're engaging with.

Understanding Child Empowerment

So, what does it mean to empower children? The aforementioned OECD policy questionnaire revealed that "child empowerment" still lacks clear definition and implementation strategies across countries, and the concept is often used as a poorly defined policy vision. To address this, the report seeks to build the concept on a pivotal premise: Children are rights holders and competent social actors "already". This means children are not simply "adults in the making", but independent social actors capable of making decisions about their lives, acting on important and relevant issues, and helping shape our shared future.

Recognising children as capable social agents, the report specifies that child empowerment means providing children with "opportunities"-to act on important issues, encouraging their participation and contributions to educational, social, and democratic processes. Empowering children is necessary not only from a human rights perspective but also because it is associated with positive outcomes, such as higher levels of child well-being, positive school climates, motivation and achievement, and civic participation.

Various countries have implemented diverse strategies to foster child empowerment. These include civic education initiatives and policies promoting children's participation in educational and societal processes. Examples range from establishing dedicated public authorities (e.g. Estonia's Chancellor of Justice) and youth panels (e.g. Italy), to enacting laws mandating student influence in educational matters (e.g. Sweden's Education Act). Countries have also adopted school-level participatory approaches, involving children in planning and decision-making processes.

Considered an essential element of child empowerment, children's emotional well-being is also promoted, through legislation (e.g. Iceland's 2021 Act on the Integration of Services in the Interest of Children's Prosperity) or targeted programmes addressing cyberbullying, stress, and anxiety (e.g., Mexico's Construye T programme, and KiVa in Finland and the Netherlands). Some nations have partnered with external actors to enhance mental health provision in schools (e.g. New Zealand's ) and create inclusive environments (e.g. Warme scholen in the Flemish Community of Belgium). Moreover, recognising the potential benefits of digital technologies for participatory activism, debate, and peer communities, several countries have developed strategies and action plans (e.g. Denmark, Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Norway, and Québec in Canada), initiatives for relevant teacher education (e.g. Australia, Finland, Luxembourg, and Saskatchewan in Canada), and extracurricular activities (e.g. Denmark, Israel, Luxembourg).

More Than Access, More Than Digitally Literate

However, the report also reveals that only three out of 23 surveyed countries and systems reported having a dedicated system-wide media and digital literacy policy or strategy. This is partially because education is often a devolved matter. Nonetheless, integrating digital and critical media literacy into school curricula is needed to equip children with essential skills to critically assess online information and engage responsibly in digital environments. Importantly, children should also be included in this process, as they are keen to be consulted about the digital skills they want to develop.

Addressing inequalities is also particularly crucial, as disparities across children's digital skills and well-being can seriously undermine child empowerment. Offline disadvantage also has profound implications for digital disadvantage (and vice versa). Even in affluent and technologically advanced countries, differences in the quality of access persist, such as device quality, quantity, or suitability for individual child, resulting in under-connectedness. Inequalities are thus more nuanced than simple "have vs. have-not" distinctions; factors like social backgrounds, gender, and age can act as potential barriers to leveraging digital skills and opportunities. In addition, continuous professional development for educators is crucial in helping children seize digital opportunities and supporting child empowerment. These training programmes should focus on child rights, participatory teaching methods, and digital literacy, enabling teachers to become effective facilitators of child empowerment.

Implementing Effective Strategies and Practices

Ultimately, child empowerment is not only about building digital literacy and coping mechanisms, but about supporting children to fulfil their dreams and flourish. The report outlines several actionable strategies for educators and policymakers, including:

1. Developing specific and actionable definitions of "child empowerment", considering contextual specificities (such as varying social norms and cultural values);

2. Devising system-wide strategies and programmes to support and guide children, and allowing children to learn by taking risks and making mistakes;

3. Providing capacity-building for teachers and parents to support children's digital skill and media literacy development, ensuring child empowerment extends beyond classroom;

4. Coordinating approaches to ensure consistency within and between schools;

5. Creating educational policies that champion child participation and involvement, and integrate their perspectives into education system avoiding "tokenistic, tick-the-box" approaches;

6. Forming cross-sectoral collaborations and partnerships across public sector, technology firms, and non-profit organisations to provide a diversity of resources and learning opportunities;

7. Designing digital environments (including algorithms) with children's needs and rights in mind, promoting "opportunity by design".

In conclusion, this OECD report calls for systemic changes in education systems to support child empowerment, including integrating children's rights and voices in decision-making processes. Educational policies must focus on creating inclusive environments that foster a sense of belonging and enable all children to participate fully. Empowering children is not just an educational goal, but a societal imperative that calls for concerted effort and innovative thinking.
This post represents the views of the author and not the position of the Media@LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
[1] Australia, Belgium (Flemish Community and French Community), Canada, Denmark, England (United Kingdom), Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Türkiye.

About the author

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What does child empowerment mean today, and what can education systems do to help achieve it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jun Yu, Assistant Professor in the Department of Communications and New Media at the National University of Singapore (NUS), and a former policy analyst at the OECD's Directorate for Education and ...

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post shares the impact digital platforms have on children, specifically being sexually exploitative. It shared how many children are more likely to be targeted for sexual exploitation through social media than in prison. This was seen as a direct result of over-sharing and over-reliance on posting photos rapidly and without parental control or knowledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sexually exploitative practices against children in the digital environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UN Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children recently invited stakeholders to contribute to a report exploring the existing and emerging sexually exploitative practices…

# data[].attributes.body
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/medialse/2024/10/03/does-the-evidence-support-a-school-ban-on-smartphones/

This blog touches on the push for a smart phone ban being put in place in many school in the UK. This interested me as I know I will have to deal with similar issues regarding safety and cell phone usage in my future as a teacher, and wanted to read up on what the possible struggles of issuing a ban or not issuing a ban might look like.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An international dilemma

Remarkably few studies have examined the effects of school smartphone policies on students' academic performance or other outcomes.

Several studies show moderate benefits for students' academic performance when smartphone use is restricted, especially for less advantaged children. However, the results are mixed, with methods being contested and some studies showing no or even contrary. With so few studies the evidence is not sufficiently nuanced to say which policies works best for the student body as a whole, or for children of different ages.

Policies for using smartphones in (and out of) class for educational purposes can also bring academic benefits, where they are carefully incorporated into the curriculum and supported by educators. Arguably this can and should be possible even if use of personal devices is restricted, now that school-provided laptops or tablets for learning increasingly take precedence over "bring your own device" policies.

Many teachers, parents and students favour restrictions on school smartphone access and use at school, to support learning and reduce distraction. "Phone-free" schools need to set out the purpose and context of the policies so that devices can support medical needs or learning and so individuals with good reason to access their phones have flexibility built in.

What should be done?

Identify the problem Do students have difficulties with concentration, learning, mental health or social relationships because of smartphone use or misuse? Would greater limits on student access to their phones at school bring likely benefits to all or specific segments of the student population?

Find the right words Schools need a clear lexicon to talk about devices, genres of products and services, criteria for learning outcomes and levels of restriction/use that better reflect the complexity of the student experience at school.

Develop a holistic approach Smartphone policies should be underpinned by a digital literacy curriculum that encompasses privacy, safety, genre, learning outcomes and monitoring, and embedded in wider EdTech policies to bridge school and home use.

Be inclusive Children have diverse needs and cultural circumstances. Policies should address whether (some) children need access to their smartphone during the school day, for reasons of health, disability, caring responsibilities or other needs.

Consult the school community Children's voices are heard in some research and policy development, yet not sufficiently. School smartphone policies will likely be more effective when the views of students, teachers, parents and school leaders have been heard and the policy formulated with them rather than over their heads.

This post was originally published on LSE's British Politics and Policy blog and is reposted with thanks. This article gives the views of the authors and does not represent the position of the Media@LSE blog, of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image: Photo by Andrey Matveev on Unsplash

About the author

Miriam Rahali

Dr. Miriam Rahali is a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Her research focuses on the intersection of children and media, with a specific interest in advertising, consumer behaviour, digital literacy, and skills development. Dr. Rahali has more than three years of teaching experience at the Undergraduate and Master's level, and has lectured at Columbia, Cambridge, and LSE. She is a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy.

Beeban Kidron

Beeban Kidron is a leading voice on children's rights in the digital environment and a global authority on digital regulation and accountability. She has played a determinative role in establishing standards for online safety and privacy across the world. Baroness Kidron sits as a crossbench peer in the UK's House of Lords. She is an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford, a Commissioner on the UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, expert advisor to the UN Secretary-General's High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence, and Founder and Chair of 5Rights Foundation. She is a visiting Professor of Practice at LSE where she Chairs the research centre, Digital Futures for Children, led by Professor Sonia Livingstone and a Fellow in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford. Before being appointed to the Lords she was an award-winning film director and co-founder of the charity Filmclub (now Into Film).

Sonia Livingstone

Sonia Livingstone OBE is Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Taking a comparative, critical and contextual approach, her research examines how the changing conditions of mediation are reshaping everyday practices and possibilities for action. She has published twenty books on media audiences, media literacy and media regulation, with a particular focus on the opportunities and risks of digital media use in the everyday lives of children and young people.

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does the evidence support a school ban on smartphones?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK Government has advised schools to restrict the use of smartphones by students. This seems to be supported by the current evidence which suggests that restrictions of phone use can benefit st...

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about the ways children cannot recognize the difference between entertainment and advertisements through influencers online presence. This is interesting to me because the whole topic of influencers and social media's impacts on children is very intriguing and important in today's society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legal, honest and truthful: Advertising to children in the age of influencers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK Parliament’s Digital, Culture Media and Sport Select Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into ‘Influencer culture’ on social media. A new policy brief from LSE’s Miriam Rahali and S…

# data[].attributes.body
The UK's Online Safety Act and Ofcom's guidelines are criticized in the article for failing to adequately protect children online by putting corporate interests ahead of smaller platform risks. The article sparked my interest because it demonstrated how weak online safety regulations may be, and it got me thinking about how large tech companies shape laws meant to safeguard children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Child online safety – next steps for regulation, policy and practice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Following the Online Safety Act, Ofcom has published its guide for tackling harms and risks online. But critics argue that these guidelines don’t go far enough. Sonia Livingstone analyses the conce…

# data[].attributes.body
The blog I read was about if the phone ban is a good idea. They found it can be helpful for less advantaged students but need to be flexible depending on the situation, they need to take views of parents, students, and teachers into account. I found this interesting because the phone ban is something my younger siblings are being influenced by.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An international dilemma

Remarkably few studies have examined the effects of school smartphone policies on students' academic performance or other outcomes.

Several studies show moderate benefits for students' academic performance when smartphone use is restricted, especially for less advantaged children. However, the results are mixed, with methods being contested and some studies showing no or even contrary. With so few studies the evidence is not sufficiently nuanced to say which policies works best for the student body as a whole, or for children of different ages.

Policies for using smartphones in (and out of) class for educational purposes can also bring academic benefits, where they are carefully incorporated into the curriculum and supported by educators. Arguably this can and should be possible even if use of personal devices is restricted, now that school-provided laptops or tablets for learning increasingly take precedence over "bring your own device" policies.

Many teachers, parents and students favour restrictions on school smartphone access and use at school, to support learning and reduce distraction. "Phone-free" schools need to set out the purpose and context of the policies so that devices can support medical needs or learning and so individuals with good reason to access their phones have flexibility built in.

What should be done?

Identify the problem Do students have difficulties with concentration, learning, mental health or social relationships because of smartphone use or misuse? Would greater limits on student access to their phones at school bring likely benefits to all or specific segments of the student population?

Find the right words Schools need a clear lexicon to talk about devices, genres of products and services, criteria for learning outcomes and levels of restriction/use that better reflect the complexity of the student experience at school.

Develop a holistic approach Smartphone policies should be underpinned by a digital literacy curriculum that encompasses privacy, safety, genre, learning outcomes and monitoring, and embedded in wider EdTech policies to bridge school and home use.

Be inclusive Children have diverse needs and cultural circumstances. Policies should address whether (some) children need access to their smartphone during the school day, for reasons of health, disability, caring responsibilities or other needs.

Consult the school community Children's voices are heard in some research and policy development, yet not sufficiently. School smartphone policies will likely be more effective when the views of students, teachers, parents and school leaders have been heard and the policy formulated with them rather than over their heads.

This post was originally published on LSE's British Politics and Policy blog and is reposted with thanks. This article gives the views of the authors and does not represent the position of the Media@LSE blog, of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image: Photo by Andrey Matveev on Unsplash

About the author

Miriam Rahali

Dr. Miriam Rahali is a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Her research focuses on the intersection of children and media, with a specific interest in advertising, consumer behaviour, digital literacy, and skills development. Dr. Rahali has more than three years of teaching experience at the Undergraduate and Master's level, and has lectured at Columbia, Cambridge, and LSE. She is a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy.

Beeban Kidron

Beeban Kidron is a leading voice on children's rights in the digital environment and a global authority on digital regulation and accountability. She has played a determinative role in establishing standards for online safety and privacy across the world. Baroness Kidron sits as a crossbench peer in the UK's House of Lords. She is an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford, a Commissioner on the UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, expert advisor to the UN Secretary-General's High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence, and Founder and Chair of 5Rights Foundation. She is a visiting Professor of Practice at LSE where she Chairs the research centre, Digital Futures for Children, led by Professor Sonia Livingstone and a Fellow in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford. Before being appointed to the Lords she was an award-winning film director and co-founder of the charity Filmclub (now Into Film).

Sonia Livingstone

Sonia Livingstone OBE is Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Taking a comparative, critical and contextual approach, her research examines how the changing conditions of mediation are reshaping everyday practices and possibilities for action. She has published twenty books on media audiences, media literacy and media regulation, with a particular focus on the opportunities and risks of digital media use in the everyday lives of children and young people.

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does the evidence support a school ban on smartphones?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK Government has advised schools to restrict the use of smartphones by students. This seems to be supported by the current evidence which suggests that restrictions of phone use can benefit st...

# data[].attributes.body
This has been a long debate, and although many might argue phones should be banned in classrooms, it would be very difficult. Incorporating technology into the curriculum also has many benefits. The most effective measure would be to get the voices of students, parents, and teachers on the matter and what they think are acceptable policies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An international dilemma

Remarkably few studies have examined the effects of school smartphone policies on students' academic performance or other outcomes.

Several studies show moderate benefits for students' academic performance when smartphone use is restricted, especially for less advantaged children. However, the results are mixed, with methods being contested and some studies showing no or even contrary. With so few studies the evidence is not sufficiently nuanced to say which policies works best for the student body as a whole, or for children of different ages.

Policies for using smartphones in (and out of) class for educational purposes can also bring academic benefits, where they are carefully incorporated into the curriculum and supported by educators. Arguably this can and should be possible even if use of personal devices is restricted, now that school-provided laptops or tablets for learning increasingly take precedence over "bring your own device" policies.

Many teachers, parents and students favour restrictions on school smartphone access and use at school, to support learning and reduce distraction. "Phone-free" schools need to set out the purpose and context of the policies so that devices can support medical needs or learning and so individuals with good reason to access their phones have flexibility built in.

What should be done?

Identify the problem Do students have difficulties with concentration, learning, mental health or social relationships because of smartphone use or misuse? Would greater limits on student access to their phones at school bring likely benefits to all or specific segments of the student population?

Find the right words Schools need a clear lexicon to talk about devices, genres of products and services, criteria for learning outcomes and levels of restriction/use that better reflect the complexity of the student experience at school.

Develop a holistic approach Smartphone policies should be underpinned by a digital literacy curriculum that encompasses privacy, safety, genre, learning outcomes and monitoring, and embedded in wider EdTech policies to bridge school and home use.

Be inclusive Children have diverse needs and cultural circumstances. Policies should address whether (some) children need access to their smartphone during the school day, for reasons of health, disability, caring responsibilities or other needs.

Consult the school community Children's voices are heard in some research and policy development, yet not sufficiently. School smartphone policies will likely be more effective when the views of students, teachers, parents and school leaders have been heard and the policy formulated with them rather than over their heads.

This post was originally published on LSE's British Politics and Policy blog and is reposted with thanks. This article gives the views of the authors and does not represent the position of the Media@LSE blog, of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image: Photo by Andrey Matveev on Unsplash

About the author

Miriam Rahali

Dr. Miriam Rahali is a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Her research focuses on the intersection of children and media, with a specific interest in advertising, consumer behaviour, digital literacy, and skills development. Dr. Rahali has more than three years of teaching experience at the Undergraduate and Master's level, and has lectured at Columbia, Cambridge, and LSE. She is a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy.

Beeban Kidron

Beeban Kidron is a leading voice on children's rights in the digital environment and a global authority on digital regulation and accountability. She has played a determinative role in establishing standards for online safety and privacy across the world. Baroness Kidron sits as a crossbench peer in the UK's House of Lords. She is an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford, a Commissioner on the UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, expert advisor to the UN Secretary-General's High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence, and Founder and Chair of 5Rights Foundation. She is a visiting Professor of Practice at LSE where she Chairs the research centre, Digital Futures for Children, led by Professor Sonia Livingstone and a Fellow in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford. Before being appointed to the Lords she was an award-winning film director and co-founder of the charity Filmclub (now Into Film).

Sonia Livingstone

Sonia Livingstone OBE is Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Taking a comparative, critical and contextual approach, her research examines how the changing conditions of mediation are reshaping everyday practices and possibilities for action. She has published twenty books on media audiences, media literacy and media regulation, with a particular focus on the opportunities and risks of digital media use in the everyday lives of children and young people.

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does the evidence support a school ban on smartphones?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK Government has advised schools to restrict the use of smartphones by students. This seems to be supported by the current evidence which suggests that restrictions of phone use can benefit st...

# data[].attributes.body
It's possible that exposing kids to some controlled dangers makes them more "resilient," enabling them to identify, control, and bounce back from dangerous online situations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jun Yu, Assistant Professor in the Department of Communications and New Media at the National University of Singapore (NUS), and a former policy analyst at the OECD's Directorate for Education and Skills, explains the implications of a recent OECD report for understanding the notion of child empowerment in the digital world.
Undoubtedly, today's digital landscape has increased risks for children, including misinformation, cyberbullying , hate speech, and online sexual abuse and exploitation. Consequently, "child empowerment" has become a central focus of many educational policies and practices. Empowering children is more crucial-and complex-than ever. What does "child empowerment" really mean in 2024, and how can we achieve it?

A recently published OECD report, based on the 21st Century Children questionnaire with 23 OECD countries and systems,[1] challenges conventional wisdom, suggesting that shielding kids from all online risks may not be the answer. While numerous efforts have been made to reduce online risks, eliminating all risks may not always be beneficial. EU Kids Online 2020, for instance, finds more risk to children online, but not always more harm. This is because risks and harms are conceptually different, and benefits can be accrued if a child is properly equipped to respond to risks. Children's exposure to certain manageable risks may actually help them become more " resilient", learning how to recognise, manage, and recover from risky online experiences. Conversely, over-protection may undermine their empowerment.

The report instead emphasises that empowering children requires supporting them to understand their own experiences and construct their own meanings, rather than simply limiting social media use and "screen time". Digital space is now an essential arena for children's learning, growth, and discussing their thoughts and feelings, developing a sense of purpose and pro-social behaviours. It calls for more complex understandings of the attitudes and values children need when interacting with the digital environment. Of course, over-engagement may cause addiction and mental health issues. But as evidenced by research, screen time alone is not a meaningful indicator of media engagement's effects on child empowerment or well-being, as it doesn't consider who is engaging and what they're engaging with.

Understanding Child Empowerment

So, what does it mean to empower children? The aforementioned OECD policy questionnaire revealed that "child empowerment" still lacks clear definition and implementation strategies across countries, and the concept is often used as a poorly defined policy vision. To address this, the report seeks to build the concept on a pivotal premise: Children are rights holders and competent social actors "already". This means children are not simply "adults in the making", but independent social actors capable of making decisions about their lives, acting on important and relevant issues, and helping shape our shared future.

Recognising children as capable social agents, the report specifies that child empowerment means providing children with "opportunities"-to act on important issues, encouraging their participation and contributions to educational, social, and democratic processes. Empowering children is necessary not only from a human rights perspective but also because it is associated with positive outcomes, such as higher levels of child well-being, positive school climates, motivation and achievement, and civic participation.

Various countries have implemented diverse strategies to foster child empowerment. These include civic education initiatives and policies promoting children's participation in educational and societal processes. Examples range from establishing dedicated public authorities (e.g. Estonia's Chancellor of Justice) and youth panels (e.g. Italy), to enacting laws mandating student influence in educational matters (e.g. Sweden's Education Act). Countries have also adopted school-level participatory approaches, involving children in planning and decision-making processes.

Considered an essential element of child empowerment, children's emotional well-being is also promoted, through legislation (e.g. Iceland's 2021 Act on the Integration of Services in the Interest of Children's Prosperity) or targeted programmes addressing cyberbullying, stress, and anxiety (e.g., Mexico's Construye T programme, and KiVa in Finland and the Netherlands). Some nations have partnered with external actors to enhance mental health provision in schools (e.g. New Zealand's ) and create inclusive environments (e.g. Warme scholen in the Flemish Community of Belgium). Moreover, recognising the potential benefits of digital technologies for participatory activism, debate, and peer communities, several countries have developed strategies and action plans (e.g. Denmark, Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Norway, and Québec in Canada), initiatives for relevant teacher education (e.g. Australia, Finland, Luxembourg, and Saskatchewan in Canada), and extracurricular activities (e.g. Denmark, Israel, Luxembourg).

More Than Access, More Than Digitally Literate

However, the report also reveals that only three out of 23 surveyed countries and systems reported having a dedicated system-wide media and digital literacy policy or strategy. This is partially because education is often a devolved matter. Nonetheless, integrating digital and critical media literacy into school curricula is needed to equip children with essential skills to critically assess online information and engage responsibly in digital environments. Importantly, children should also be included in this process, as they are keen to be consulted about the digital skills they want to develop.

Addressing inequalities is also particularly crucial, as disparities across children's digital skills and well-being can seriously undermine child empowerment. Offline disadvantage also has profound implications for digital disadvantage (and vice versa). Even in affluent and technologically advanced countries, differences in the quality of access persist, such as device quality, quantity, or suitability for individual child, resulting in under-connectedness. Inequalities are thus more nuanced than simple "have vs. have-not" distinctions; factors like social backgrounds, gender, and age can act as potential barriers to leveraging digital skills and opportunities. In addition, continuous professional development for educators is crucial in helping children seize digital opportunities and supporting child empowerment. These training programmes should focus on child rights, participatory teaching methods, and digital literacy, enabling teachers to become effective facilitators of child empowerment.

Implementing Effective Strategies and Practices

Ultimately, child empowerment is not only about building digital literacy and coping mechanisms, but about supporting children to fulfil their dreams and flourish. The report outlines several actionable strategies for educators and policymakers, including:

1. Developing specific and actionable definitions of "child empowerment", considering contextual specificities (such as varying social norms and cultural values);

2. Devising system-wide strategies and programmes to support and guide children, and allowing children to learn by taking risks and making mistakes;

3. Providing capacity-building for teachers and parents to support children's digital skill and media literacy development, ensuring child empowerment extends beyond classroom;

4. Coordinating approaches to ensure consistency within and between schools;

5. Creating educational policies that champion child participation and involvement, and integrate their perspectives into education system avoiding "tokenistic, tick-the-box" approaches;

6. Forming cross-sectoral collaborations and partnerships across public sector, technology firms, and non-profit organisations to provide a diversity of resources and learning opportunities;

7. Designing digital environments (including algorithms) with children's needs and rights in mind, promoting "opportunity by design".

In conclusion, this OECD report calls for systemic changes in education systems to support child empowerment, including integrating children's rights and voices in decision-making processes. Educational policies must focus on creating inclusive environments that foster a sense of belonging and enable all children to participate fully. Empowering children is not just an educational goal, but a societal imperative that calls for concerted effort and innovative thinking.
This post represents the views of the author and not the position of the Media@LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
[1] Australia, Belgium (Flemish Community and French Community), Canada, Denmark, England (United Kingdom), Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Türkiye.

About the author

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What does child empowerment mean today, and what can education systems do to help achieve it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jun Yu, Assistant Professor in the Department of Communications and New Media at the National University of Singapore (NUS), and a former policy analyst at the OECD's Directorate for Education and ...

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post discusses concepts relating to social meida safety and the ever growing relationship between mental health and social media use. The blog touches on the response from various social media platforms after learning that social media, and negative use of it, contributed to a 14-year old's death. For example, self-harm videos were then banned on instagram to continue to deepen the message surrounding mental health and social media usage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coroner finds social media contributed to 14-year-old Molly Russell’s death. How should parents and platforms react?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The conclusion by a London coroner that the negative effects of online content contributed to the death of a child has put increased pressure on UK policy makers to regulate social media and other …

# data[].attributes.body
The blog post advocates for a balanced approach to smartphone use in schools, suggesting that policies promoting responsible use may be more beneficial than bans. I was interested in this because my school never had a phone ban or considered one. So I was interested to read about the benefits and challenges phones bring to the classroom.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An international dilemma

Remarkably few studies have examined the effects of school smartphone policies on students' academic performance or other outcomes.

Several studies show moderate benefits for students' academic performance when smartphone use is restricted, especially for less advantaged children. However, the results are mixed, with methods being contested and some studies showing no or even contrary. With so few studies the evidence is not sufficiently nuanced to say which policies works best for the student body as a whole, or for children of different ages.

Policies for using smartphones in (and out of) class for educational purposes can also bring academic benefits, where they are carefully incorporated into the curriculum and supported by educators. Arguably this can and should be possible even if use of personal devices is restricted, now that school-provided laptops or tablets for learning increasingly take precedence over "bring your own device" policies.

Many teachers, parents and students favour restrictions on school smartphone access and use at school, to support learning and reduce distraction. "Phone-free" schools need to set out the purpose and context of the policies so that devices can support medical needs or learning and so individuals with good reason to access their phones have flexibility built in.

What should be done?

Identify the problem Do students have difficulties with concentration, learning, mental health or social relationships because of smartphone use or misuse? Would greater limits on student access to their phones at school bring likely benefits to all or specific segments of the student population?

Find the right words Schools need a clear lexicon to talk about devices, genres of products and services, criteria for learning outcomes and levels of restriction/use that better reflect the complexity of the student experience at school.

Develop a holistic approach Smartphone policies should be underpinned by a digital literacy curriculum that encompasses privacy, safety, genre, learning outcomes and monitoring, and embedded in wider EdTech policies to bridge school and home use.

Be inclusive Children have diverse needs and cultural circumstances. Policies should address whether (some) children need access to their smartphone during the school day, for reasons of health, disability, caring responsibilities or other needs.

Consult the school community Children's voices are heard in some research and policy development, yet not sufficiently. School smartphone policies will likely be more effective when the views of students, teachers, parents and school leaders have been heard and the policy formulated with them rather than over their heads.

This post was originally published on LSE's British Politics and Policy blog and is reposted with thanks. This article gives the views of the authors and does not represent the position of the Media@LSE blog, of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image: Photo by Andrey Matveev on Unsplash

About the author

Miriam Rahali

Dr. Miriam Rahali is a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Her research focuses on the intersection of children and media, with a specific interest in advertising, consumer behaviour, digital literacy, and skills development. Dr. Rahali has more than three years of teaching experience at the Undergraduate and Master's level, and has lectured at Columbia, Cambridge, and LSE. She is a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy.

Beeban Kidron

Beeban Kidron is a leading voice on children's rights in the digital environment and a global authority on digital regulation and accountability. She has played a determinative role in establishing standards for online safety and privacy across the world. Baroness Kidron sits as a crossbench peer in the UK's House of Lords. She is an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford, a Commissioner on the UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, expert advisor to the UN Secretary-General's High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence, and Founder and Chair of 5Rights Foundation. She is a visiting Professor of Practice at LSE where she Chairs the research centre, Digital Futures for Children, led by Professor Sonia Livingstone and a Fellow in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford. Before being appointed to the Lords she was an award-winning film director and co-founder of the charity Filmclub (now Into Film).

Sonia Livingstone

Sonia Livingstone OBE is Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Taking a comparative, critical and contextual approach, her research examines how the changing conditions of mediation are reshaping everyday practices and possibilities for action. She has published twenty books on media audiences, media literacy and media regulation, with a particular focus on the opportunities and risks of digital media use in the everyday lives of children and young people.

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does the evidence support a school ban on smartphones?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK Government has advised schools to restrict the use of smartphones by students. This seems to be supported by the current evidence which suggests that restrictions of phone use can benefit st...

# data[].attributes.body
The blog highlights that while children face online risks, not all lead to harm, advocating for policies that minimize harm while balancing safety and digital opportunities.

This blog was interesting because it challenges the belief that all online risks harm children, emphasizing resilience and the need to reduce harm without limiting valuable opportunities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
More online risks to children, but not necessarily more harm: EU Kids Online 2020 survey

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Today is Safer Internet Day 2020, which aims to raise awareness of the risks of going online, particularly for children, while not denying the world of possibilities that the internet offers. LSE&#…

# data[].attributes.body
The article emphasizes the necessity of adopting a children's rights-based approach to integrating AI in education, highlighting both the potential benefits—such as personalized learning and improved accessibility—and the significant risks, including data-related harms and exacerbation of existing inequalities. It calls for effective regulation and robust evaluation frameworks to ensure that AI tools enhance learning experiences without compromising children's rights. This topic is interesting because it explores the balance between innovation and ethical responsibility in education. AI has the potential to revolutionize learning by offering personalized experiences and greater accessibility, but without proper safeguards, it could also reinforce existing inequalities and pose serious risks to children's data privacy. The discussion of a children's rights-based approach adds a compelling dimension, emphasizing the need for regulations that prioritize student well-being rather than just technological advancement. This raises important questions about how we can harness AI's benefits while ensuring that it serves all students fairly and equitably.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shaping the future of AI in education: a call for a children’s rights-based approach

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ahead of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Summit which France will host early next month, Ayça Atabey explains why it is essential to adopt a children’s rights-based approach to AI use…

# data[].attributes.body
The blog examines how regulations shape children's online experiences, comparing protection against limiting opportunities. It raises concerns about privacy laws, content restrictions, and how platforms influence young users. This topic is interesting because it highlights the challenge of balancing digital safety with access to learning, creativity, and socialization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The impact of regulation on children’s digital lives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Steve Wood, founder of PrivacyX Consulting and ex-ICO Deputy Commissioner who recently collaborated with the Digital Futures for Children centre (DFC) at LSE, reveals evidence that regulation focus…

# data[].attributes.body
Main idea: social media has the ability to show negative/harmful content to youth, so parents should keep open lines of communication with their kids, recognize that social media has both good and bad sides, and create boundaries with their child. Social media platforms also need to realize that preventing harm means being proactive not reactive.

This interested me because there are so many deaths by suicide due to social media, especially for teens and youth, so I wanted to see the tactics parents are using to keep their kids safe online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Coroner finds social media contributed to 14-year-old Molly Russell’s death. How should parents and platforms react?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The conclusion by a London coroner that the negative effects of online content contributed to the death of a child has put increased pressure on UK policy makers to regulate social media and other …

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post explores how education systems can foster child empowerment by doing things such as recognizing children as active rights holders, using digital literacy, addressing inequalities, and creating inclusive environments!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Jun Yu, Assistant Professor in the Department of Communications and New Media at the National University of Singapore (NUS), and a former policy analyst at the OECD's Directorate for Education and Skills, explains the implications of a recent OECD report for understanding the notion of child empowerment in the digital world.
Undoubtedly, today's digital landscape has increased risks for children, including misinformation, cyberbullying , hate speech, and online sexual abuse and exploitation. Consequently, "child empowerment" has become a central focus of many educational policies and practices. Empowering children is more crucial-and complex-than ever. What does "child empowerment" really mean in 2024, and how can we achieve it?

A recently published OECD report, based on the 21st Century Children questionnaire with 23 OECD countries and systems,[1] challenges conventional wisdom, suggesting that shielding kids from all online risks may not be the answer. While numerous efforts have been made to reduce online risks, eliminating all risks may not always be beneficial. EU Kids Online 2020, for instance, finds more risk to children online, but not always more harm. This is because risks and harms are conceptually different, and benefits can be accrued if a child is properly equipped to respond to risks. Children's exposure to certain manageable risks may actually help them become more " resilient", learning how to recognise, manage, and recover from risky online experiences. Conversely, over-protection may undermine their empowerment.

The report instead emphasises that empowering children requires supporting them to understand their own experiences and construct their own meanings, rather than simply limiting social media use and "screen time". Digital space is now an essential arena for children's learning, growth, and discussing their thoughts and feelings, developing a sense of purpose and pro-social behaviours. It calls for more complex understandings of the attitudes and values children need when interacting with the digital environment. Of course, over-engagement may cause addiction and mental health issues. But as evidenced by research, screen time alone is not a meaningful indicator of media engagement's effects on child empowerment or well-being, as it doesn't consider who is engaging and what they're engaging with.

Understanding Child Empowerment

So, what does it mean to empower children? The aforementioned OECD policy questionnaire revealed that "child empowerment" still lacks clear definition and implementation strategies across countries, and the concept is often used as a poorly defined policy vision. To address this, the report seeks to build the concept on a pivotal premise: Children are rights holders and competent social actors "already". This means children are not simply "adults in the making", but independent social actors capable of making decisions about their lives, acting on important and relevant issues, and helping shape our shared future.

Recognising children as capable social agents, the report specifies that child empowerment means providing children with "opportunities"-to act on important issues, encouraging their participation and contributions to educational, social, and democratic processes. Empowering children is necessary not only from a human rights perspective but also because it is associated with positive outcomes, such as higher levels of child well-being, positive school climates, motivation and achievement, and civic participation.

Various countries have implemented diverse strategies to foster child empowerment. These include civic education initiatives and policies promoting children's participation in educational and societal processes. Examples range from establishing dedicated public authorities (e.g. Estonia's Chancellor of Justice) and youth panels (e.g. Italy), to enacting laws mandating student influence in educational matters (e.g. Sweden's Education Act). Countries have also adopted school-level participatory approaches, involving children in planning and decision-making processes.

Considered an essential element of child empowerment, children's emotional well-being is also promoted, through legislation (e.g. Iceland's 2021 Act on the Integration of Services in the Interest of Children's Prosperity) or targeted programmes addressing cyberbullying, stress, and anxiety (e.g., Mexico's Construye T programme, and KiVa in Finland and the Netherlands). Some nations have partnered with external actors to enhance mental health provision in schools (e.g. New Zealand's ) and create inclusive environments (e.g. Warme scholen in the Flemish Community of Belgium). Moreover, recognising the potential benefits of digital technologies for participatory activism, debate, and peer communities, several countries have developed strategies and action plans (e.g. Denmark, Flemish Community of Belgium, Ireland, Italy, Norway, and Québec in Canada), initiatives for relevant teacher education (e.g. Australia, Finland, Luxembourg, and Saskatchewan in Canada), and extracurricular activities (e.g. Denmark, Israel, Luxembourg).

More Than Access, More Than Digitally Literate

However, the report also reveals that only three out of 23 surveyed countries and systems reported having a dedicated system-wide media and digital literacy policy or strategy. This is partially because education is often a devolved matter. Nonetheless, integrating digital and critical media literacy into school curricula is needed to equip children with essential skills to critically assess online information and engage responsibly in digital environments. Importantly, children should also be included in this process, as they are keen to be consulted about the digital skills they want to develop.

Addressing inequalities is also particularly crucial, as disparities across children's digital skills and well-being can seriously undermine child empowerment. Offline disadvantage also has profound implications for digital disadvantage (and vice versa). Even in affluent and technologically advanced countries, differences in the quality of access persist, such as device quality, quantity, or suitability for individual child, resulting in under-connectedness. Inequalities are thus more nuanced than simple "have vs. have-not" distinctions; factors like social backgrounds, gender, and age can act as potential barriers to leveraging digital skills and opportunities. In addition, continuous professional development for educators is crucial in helping children seize digital opportunities and supporting child empowerment. These training programmes should focus on child rights, participatory teaching methods, and digital literacy, enabling teachers to become effective facilitators of child empowerment.

Implementing Effective Strategies and Practices

Ultimately, child empowerment is not only about building digital literacy and coping mechanisms, but about supporting children to fulfil their dreams and flourish. The report outlines several actionable strategies for educators and policymakers, including:

1. Developing specific and actionable definitions of "child empowerment", considering contextual specificities (such as varying social norms and cultural values);

2. Devising system-wide strategies and programmes to support and guide children, and allowing children to learn by taking risks and making mistakes;

3. Providing capacity-building for teachers and parents to support children's digital skill and media literacy development, ensuring child empowerment extends beyond classroom;

4. Coordinating approaches to ensure consistency within and between schools;

5. Creating educational policies that champion child participation and involvement, and integrate their perspectives into education system avoiding "tokenistic, tick-the-box" approaches;

6. Forming cross-sectoral collaborations and partnerships across public sector, technology firms, and non-profit organisations to provide a diversity of resources and learning opportunities;

7. Designing digital environments (including algorithms) with children's needs and rights in mind, promoting "opportunity by design".

In conclusion, this OECD report calls for systemic changes in education systems to support child empowerment, including integrating children's rights and voices in decision-making processes. Educational policies must focus on creating inclusive environments that foster a sense of belonging and enable all children to participate fully. Empowering children is not just an educational goal, but a societal imperative that calls for concerted effort and innovative thinking.
This post represents the views of the author and not the position of the Media@LSE blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
[1] Australia, Belgium (Flemish Community and French Community), Canada, Denmark, England (United Kingdom), Estonia, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Türkiye.

About the author

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What does child empowerment mean today, and what can education systems do to help achieve it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Jun Yu, Assistant Professor in the Department of Communications and New Media at the National University of Singapore (NUS), and a former policy analyst at the OECD's Directorate for Education and ...

# data[].attributes.body
The main idea of this blog was to address the dire need for deep conversations about the best interests of children, not just jumping to the conclusion of what society thinks would be best simply from an idea. I found this interesting as the talk of bans have only been present for a short time, and I was unaware about the lack of support from the community as well as the lack of openness to hear others' opinions on this matter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An international dilemma

Remarkably few studies have examined the effects of school smartphone policies on students' academic performance or other outcomes.

Several studies show moderate benefits for students' academic performance when smartphone use is restricted, especially for less advantaged children. However, the results are mixed, with methods being contested and some studies showing no or even contrary. With so few studies the evidence is not sufficiently nuanced to say which policies works best for the student body as a whole, or for children of different ages.

Policies for using smartphones in (and out of) class for educational purposes can also bring academic benefits, where they are carefully incorporated into the curriculum and supported by educators. Arguably this can and should be possible even if use of personal devices is restricted, now that school-provided laptops or tablets for learning increasingly take precedence over "bring your own device" policies.

Many teachers, parents and students favour restrictions on school smartphone access and use at school, to support learning and reduce distraction. "Phone-free" schools need to set out the purpose and context of the policies so that devices can support medical needs or learning and so individuals with good reason to access their phones have flexibility built in.

What should be done?

Identify the problem Do students have difficulties with concentration, learning, mental health or social relationships because of smartphone use or misuse? Would greater limits on student access to their phones at school bring likely benefits to all or specific segments of the student population?

Find the right words Schools need a clear lexicon to talk about devices, genres of products and services, criteria for learning outcomes and levels of restriction/use that better reflect the complexity of the student experience at school.

Develop a holistic approach Smartphone policies should be underpinned by a digital literacy curriculum that encompasses privacy, safety, genre, learning outcomes and monitoring, and embedded in wider EdTech policies to bridge school and home use.

Be inclusive Children have diverse needs and cultural circumstances. Policies should address whether (some) children need access to their smartphone during the school day, for reasons of health, disability, caring responsibilities or other needs.

Consult the school community Children's voices are heard in some research and policy development, yet not sufficiently. School smartphone policies will likely be more effective when the views of students, teachers, parents and school leaders have been heard and the policy formulated with them rather than over their heads.

This post was originally published on LSE's British Politics and Policy blog and is reposted with thanks. This article gives the views of the authors and does not represent the position of the Media@LSE blog, of the British Politics and Policy blog, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image: Photo by Andrey Matveev on Unsplash

About the author

Miriam Rahali

Dr. Miriam Rahali is a Visiting Fellow in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Her research focuses on the intersection of children and media, with a specific interest in advertising, consumer behaviour, digital literacy, and skills development. Dr. Rahali has more than three years of teaching experience at the Undergraduate and Master's level, and has lectured at Columbia, Cambridge, and LSE. She is a Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy.

Beeban Kidron

Beeban Kidron is a leading voice on children's rights in the digital environment and a global authority on digital regulation and accountability. She has played a determinative role in establishing standards for online safety and privacy across the world. Baroness Kidron sits as a crossbench peer in the UK's House of Lords. She is an advisor to the Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford, a Commissioner on the UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, expert advisor to the UN Secretary-General's High-Level Advisory Body on Artificial Intelligence, and Founder and Chair of 5Rights Foundation. She is a visiting Professor of Practice at LSE where she Chairs the research centre, Digital Futures for Children, led by Professor Sonia Livingstone and a Fellow in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Oxford. Before being appointed to the Lords she was an award-winning film director and co-founder of the charity Filmclub (now Into Film).

Sonia Livingstone

Sonia Livingstone OBE is Professor of Social Psychology in the Department of Media and Communications at LSE. Taking a comparative, critical and contextual approach, her research examines how the changing conditions of mediation are reshaping everyday practices and possibilities for action. She has published twenty books on media audiences, media literacy and media regulation, with a particular focus on the opportunities and risks of digital media use in the everyday lives of children and young people.

Posted In: Children and the Media

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does the evidence support a school ban on smartphones?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK Government has advised schools to restrict the use of smartphones by students. This seems to be supported by the current evidence which suggests that restrictions of phone use can benefit st...

# data[].attributes.body
This blog post discusses how legislation in different countries and how companies are figuring out what "in the best interests of the child" means for them. I found this interesting because we need to protect children and ensure that technology is not causing them harm. So I was pleased to see both countries and companies beginning to deal with these issues.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Identifying the “best interests of the child” in relation to the digital environment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Safer Internet Day, which aims to raise awareness of a safer and better internet for all, and especially for children and young people, LSE’s Sonia Livingstone and Didem Özkul explain the …