New Netflix drama Adolescence has gripped millions. Some 6.45 million people watched the first episode in its opening week earlier this month. The prime minister, who viewed it with his children, has now called for action on this issue.
The show follows a 13-year-old schoolboy, radicalised by online subcultures, arrested for murdering a classmate. Reviews have raised questions about the portrayal of police procedure and schools’ response, but as the show’s producer and cast explain their production was intended to spark debate and to show that this “could happen to anyone’s child”. “Its theme is today’s reality.” The UK is now certainly seized by the conversation: what is social media doing to young minds?
For years, American psychologist Jonathan Haidt has warned that smartphones are harming our children. In May last year, a Commons debate echoed the same concern. Then Conservative MP Miriam Cates after quoting Haidt’s research stated bluntly: “Our kids are not okay… in just 15 years, childhood has been turned on its head.”
Labour had its own vision: Sir Keir Starmer promised to champion children’s wellbeing. But their flagship Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill doesn’t just fall short, it goes off course entirely and, surprisingly, targets segments of our community, as I will explain.
The Conservatives, proposed an amendment to ban smartphones in schools. Shadow Education Minister Neil O’Brien put it clearly: “We don’t let children drink, drive or gamble. Yet we let them carry devices every day that expose them to violence and addiction… Ban smartphones in schools.”
Shimon Cohen
That amendment was blocked. Labour now says it will introduce a separate Safer Phones Bill, but their original Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill still stands, about to enter the Lords, and is deeply flawed. Most shockingly, it targets the very communities who have already solved the problem.
The Orthodox Jewish (Charedi) community has a long-established model that works. Children attend Yeshiva alongside home schooling. Smartphones are practically absent. Children spend their time playing, studying, socialising, talking to family. It’s the very vision of childhood that Haidt, and millions of anxious parents, want back. So different from the nightmare depicted by Netflix.
Yet the Government Bill, especially Clause 36, explicitly sets its legislative sights squarely against the Charedi community. It aims to reclassify Yeshivas as independent educational institutions. But Yeshivas are not schools. They are religious settings, well safeguarded, rooted in faith and structure, and they provide pastoral care and social engagement many home-schooled children elsewhere don’t receive.
Sir Keir is right: something must be done to protect children. But the Schools Bill punishes the very communities already doing that job well
Even the Government admits who this clause intends to change. Its Human Rights Memorandum concedes Yeshivas are the main target. The Department of Education’s recent Equalities Impact Assessment (March 2025) also states how the Charedi community and their Yeshivas are singled out by the Bill. No other faith group is mentioned in any supporting document. This is not oversight, it is intent. This clauses’ focus is to close Yeshivas as they currently operate and thus are an attempt to change the Charedi community.
The truth is, this is the result of relentless lobbying by groups with an anti-religious agenda. Hiding behind safeguarding argument, their misguided goal is to dismantle faith-based life in Britain. Their problem is not with smartphones. It’s with religion.
We are not the only ones raising the alarm about the Bill. The Education Committee, which scrutinised the Bill, has criticised its rushed timetable, lack of transparency, and failure to allow proper scrutiny since its launch in December. It flagged “deep concern” from home-schooling families across the UK, who said the Bill crushes flexibility and flattens difference.
Sir Keir is right: something must be done to protect children. But this Bill punishes the very communities already doing that job well. The Charedi model isn’t perfect. No culture is. But when it comes to shielding children from the worst effects of social media, it’s far ahead of the curve. Instead of tearing it down, we must learn from it. Their children are doing better than most. Their adolescence, attending Yeshivas alongside home schooling, is certainly not bad. The Bill needs to be amendment and Yeshivas, for those families that want it, must remain open.
- Shimon Cohen of Roath PR Consultants represents the Yeshiva Liaison Committee (YLC), an organisation established to advocate for Yeshivas, particularly those attended by children under 16
