Colman Noctor: Why are voluntary smartphone codes not working in all schools?

Parents often prioritise being able to contact their children via smartphone over internet access concerns. Picture: iStock

I HAVE talked in primary schools at the request of parent associations that promote voluntary codes to delay the age of smartphone ownership. The enthusiasm at these talks has not always resulted in full support for the voluntary codes, leaving parents’ associations puzzled by the reservations some parents have.

Parents might be reluctant to sign voluntary codes because they believe a smartphone is crucial to their children’s safety.

It’s a persuasive argument: A child can call in an emergency, or the parents can check their child’s location.

A phone offers a parent peace of mind in an uncertain world. However, that argument needs to be balanced against social pressure, safetyism, and an increasing body of research suggesting that early smartphone ownership poses risks to children’s mental health.

Surveys indicate that safety and peace of mind are the primary reasons parents give their children phones.

In a widely cited K-12 poll in the US, 78% of parents said children should have smartphone access during the school day for emergencies, and 58% said they need phones to locate their child. 

Closer to home, a 2025 Eir study found that parents primarily provide children with phones at the age of nine for safety concerns.

Parents try to balance the risk of an accident or the threat of a stranger with the less tangible harms discussed by people like me. A smartphone provides a straightforward, visible solution: Call me, text me, track me.

That immediate reassurance has a strong emotional impact that abstract warnings about screen time or social media often lack.

But safety is not a single, unambiguous outcome. The notion that giving a child a smartphone is purely protective is simplistic. Yes, phones allow rapid contact in real emergencies, but they also introduce new vulnerabilities.

Smartphones can connect children to strangers, algorithmically amplified content, and to peer dynamics that can instantly escalate.

The American Academy of Paediatrics (AAP) offers nuanced guidance for children who get their first phone at the ages of 12 to 13. 

It urges parents to consider the child’s developmental readiness, their needs, and the potential risks associated with unsupervised access to social media and unmoderated internet content.

Growing evidence suggests a link between the age at which children acquire smartphones and adverse outcomes. Large-scale surveys by Irish charity CyberSafeKids have consistently shown that the age of first phone ownership in Ireland has fallen over the past decade.

Recent studies examining cohorts of young adults suggest that owning a smartphone before the age of 13 is associated with increased risk of mental-health issues later, especially among girls.

The landscape of the online world is complex to navigate, as it involves social comparison, cyberbullying, disrupted sleep, and constant social connectivity, which can all contribute to declining mental health, especially in younger children.

When it comes to parental tracking, a paradox exists between the peace of mind offered by surveillance and the potential normalisation of tracking each other, not to mention the cost to relationships, in terms of trust.

Location-sharing apps and parental-control tools are marketed as safety features; however, research in to continuous GPS surveillance suggests that they can erode trust and harm the parent–child relationship. 

A study in Scientific American highlights that constant tracking may reduce a teen’s opportunity to learn independence and thus increase conflict as adolescents rebel at perceived invasions of privacy, an outcome hardly aligned with raising resilient, confident children.

A community on call

The ‘It Takes a Village’ initiative in Greystones, Co Wicklow, is a notable global success story, where parents across multiple primary schools agreed to a voluntary ‘no smartphone’ code, making it easier for families to say ‘no’ without fearing their child would be socially isolated.

The pact created a local norm that reduced peer pressure and simplified enforcement among parents.

However, not all efforts benefit from this sense of community.

When voluntary rules have faltered or become weakened, the same safety concerns that drive smartphone purchases often play a significant role.

Parents working irregular hours, caring for multiple children, or living apart may feel that they require direct communication channels and the ability to check their child’s location via a device.

When parents want phone access for emergencies, it is a significant obstacle to the widespread voluntary adoption of this measure.

In short, safety concerns can hinder community efforts to delay smartphone ownership. Parents don’t reject the idea because they’re uninformed; they are often responding to very real, seemingly logistical and emotional needs.

Extreme approaches, such as unlimited smartphone access or blanket bans, both have their costs, so what do pragmatic parents and schools do?

The ideal option is a collective, community-based agreement, where a whole-school or entire-town pact exists; it reduces peer pressure and normalises delay. The Greystones example demonstrates that norms matter: when most families participate, it becomes much easier for each family to stand firm.

However, if this is not possible, perhaps start with ‘dumb’ phones and wearables. These devices offer calls and basic texting, and child-oriented watches provide location without open internet access. 

They could meet the safety needs of parents without exposing children to apps and feeds. This aligns with a stepping-stone approach to technological introduction, rather than jumping straight to full smartphone ownership.

Agreed norms

When it comes to tracking, establish clear, mutually agreed-upon rules regarding the monitoring of children. Research warns against constant surveillance, due to its detrimental impact on relationships. 

If parents want their children to share their location data, there should be an agreement on when the phone is used, when it’s switched off, and how to discuss its use.

Rules created collaboratively, with age-appropriate explanations, help maintain trust.

If, for whatever reason, delaying isn’t possible, we need to invest in teaching children technological skills at an earlier age. 

By teaching privacy basics, how to spot manipulative content, and coping strategies for online bullying and social comparison, you can, in some way, protect a child from potential harm.

However, this approach demands active parental involvement, rather than passive monitoring.

While I may appear critical of parents who justify early smartphone ownership by citing bodily safety concerns, I understand that parents are making decisions within real constraints, such as work routines, worries, social pressures, and the innate human instinct to protect a child, which means that judgement calls will vary across different households.

However, evidence shows that the most influential factor that communities have in delaying smartphone ownership is solidarity. 

When parents agree on norms — like delaying smartphone use until secondary school, limiting usage during school hours, or using smartphone pouches — it simplifies individual choices and benefits children’s long-term well-being. 

If you’re weighing this decision, consider starting a discussion with other parents at your child’s school, exploring intermediate devices, and evaluating whether location sharing is a short-term solution that could become a long-term relational issue.

The smartphone is a tool that can protect and harm. The key for parents and communities is to remember these dual possibilities and make decisions based on evidence, rather than reacting to perceived fear.

If you need to maintain an open line of communication with your young child and require a way to contact them, a basic ‘dumb phone’ will suffice. 

There is no justification for giving them a portal to the entire world for that purpose. It is not necessary to grant the same access to the world just to communicate with our children.

Ultimately, delaying smartphone ownership isn’t about depriving children of connection, but about protecting their well-being during a critical stage of their development.

Phones may have practical uses, like location tracking or always allowing contact with your child, but the mental health costs of early and unrestricted access far outweigh those conveniences.

By agreeing on a later age for smartphone ownership, we give children the chance to grow, learn, and build resilience before introducing them to the constant pressures of the digital world.

• Dr Colman Noctor is a child psychotherapist