The Selfie Generation

During a time when social media is talked about daily in the news, Edrys Barkham, experienced tutor and former hsm, discusses the impact of these digital channels on children and offers some guidance on how to manage your child's screen time...

Our children are living in a time of radical social and technological change, and perhaps one of the most iconic symbols of this is the ‘selfie’. This is the image of ourselves that we present to the world using social media through our smart phones. Social media was designed to broaden and deepen connections between people, and make loneliness a thing of the past, but increasingly research is showing that it does the opposite and can actually make us feel more isolated and depressed the more time we spend using it.

Social media is having a major impact on how our children see themselves and live their lives and, as our adolescents are growing up better connected, there is a greater potential for them to be more depressed than previous generations.

Children who are ‘digital natives’ have always lived with social media, smart phones and electronic tablets. They have been called the ‘iGen’ by American psychologist, Jean Twenge, who considers them to be more compliant and less prepared for adulthood than any other generation. It was thought that access to social media and the world of information would make children grow up more quickly, but paradoxically it seems to be having the opposite effect and teenagers are in fact taking longer to grow up than ever before. This may be because they do not spend as much time with friends face-to-face as teens did 10 or 20 years ago. They are less likely to leave their home without their parents, meet up with friends or go to the shops or parties. They are less likely to do the things that adults do and children don’t: they are less likely to get their driving licence at 17 or 18 years, to drink alcohol, to have a paid job, or to have sex - childhood seems to have extended into adolescence.

There are benefits to growing up slowly and it has been a long-term trend in the Western world since the Victorian era. In evolutionary terms, a slow-life strategy for having fewer children means it is more likely that offspring survive because they can be nurtured more carefully, with a longer period for education. This means that children take longer to grow up because they are being more carefully protected for a longer and longer period of time.

How does social media affect sense of self?

Possibly the biggest negative effect of social media is that adolescents can spend even more time comparing themselves to increasing numbers of their peers. It is not surprising that our teenagers ‘see’ that their friends are leading more glamorous lives, having more fun and are better looking than they are. What they don’t seem to realise is that each photo displayed on their phones is carefully selected or even staged to present the perfect image. Their friends may have had a terrible day, but posted a picture of the one good thing that happened where they looked good and everyone around them looked happy. Social media is heavily curated so it doesn’t give anything like a real picture of other people’s lives, just the highlights of the good things. When adolescents believe that these images reflect real life then depression can develop as they aren’t able to reproduce this type of ‘reality’ in their own lives.

Despite there being a better understanding of how the brain works and greater insight into psychology than ever before, iGeners appear to be mentally fragile teenagers. They are the most physically safe and carefully protected generation, and they are exposed to fewer difficulties and they take fewer risks. And yet they report greater levels of anxiety, are more likely to self-harm and levels of depression are on the rise. Is there a connection, I wonder?

Increasingly schools are developing their social media policies to help their pupils understand how they negotiate the minefield of postings through their adolescence. Bryanston ensures that younger pupils have more controlled access to social media by limiting the times when they are allowed to use their electronic devices. Charging lockers ensure their phone and tablet are secure but inaccessible for most of the day and overnight. After classes, a wide range of activities mean that pupils have to talk to and work with each other face-to-face to solve problems and engage in the real world rather than virtual reality. As pupils get older they are given more access to their phones, but they also follow a programme of education about the benefits and dangers of social media. Social clubs, the café and house common rooms all give pupils the space to be with each other, to talk and to realise that no one really lives an ideal life. 

The weekly opportunity to speak openly and on a one-to-one basis with their tutor is strongly valued by pupils, and in the annual Pupil Voice feedback they always tell us how much they appreciate the advice and direction they receive from their tutor. Mobiles are not acceptable in the classroom and staff are themselves encouraged to model responsible behaviour with their own mobile devices and talk to the pupils about sensible use of social media.

However, children often see their parents posting on Instagram and Facebook, modelling in effect the behaviour they want their children to avoid. Allowing children to binge watch YouTube or Netflix is a temptation for parents as it enables them to “get things done”. Children often have unfettered use of mobile phones in the car for a peaceful journey, or to keep them amused, so that parents can talk to their friends at social events.

There is no doubt that parents and schools have a role to play in teaching children how to use social media, but the aim must be for adolescents to learn to use it responsibly and to be more astute about what they see posted.

Here are some simple rules to introduce when you give your child their first mobile phone:

• Establish when the child will have access to the phone and when they don’t
• Don’t allow the phone in the bedroom overnight
• There should be no use of the phone by any member of the family during meal times
• Talk to your child about the best way to communicate with their friends – you set the expectations rather than have your child learn from experience
• Model the behaviour you expect from your child through your own use of your phone.

A face-to-face place

This week we welcome our Deputy Head (Academic), Dr David James, who reflects on the importance of face-to-face relationships.
Evidence seems to grow each week that mobile technology could be playing a significant role in the rise of mental health issues among young people. Of course, being online is not in itself a bad thing: you could be on Google Art Project researching Caravaggio, while listening to Handel’s Messiah on Spotify. There are endless opportunities to be educated and uplifted on an iPad or mobile phone, and it should not be forgotten, in the rush to ban technology from our schools, that, as one teacher puts it, not all screen time is equal. This is complicated enough when one is an adult: we should know when to close the lid of the laptop, or to switch our phones to airplane mode in order to get some rest, or to read a book. Having said that, many parents are as guilty of modern social faux pas, such as phubbing, as their children. How many meals have been ruined because Mum or Dad simply has to reply to that email? But teenagers may be under more pressure to keep Snapstreaks going, or to move to the next mission in GTA without letting their friends down, than adults are to keep email correspondence alive. To adolescents, friendships and being accepted by others have always been of profound importance. And, like much of the world today, a lot of that has moved online, which in turn has made it - and the possible concomitant shaming - more public.

Such things shouldn’t surprise us. But what should alarm all parents and teachers (and indeed anyone with any interest in the wellbeing of young people) is that social media companies have deliberately made their sites as addictive as possible. When Sean Parker, an early investor in Facebook, claims that the company is deliberately “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology” then the laid-back West Coast mask that Mark Zuckerberg wears begins to slip a little; and when Parker admits that Facebook’s effect on children “literally changes your relationship with society, with each other...God only knows what it’s doing to our children’s brains,” then the reality dawns that these new companies may be just as ruthless at exploiting human frailty, and addictive tendencies, as Marlboro, McDonald’s, and Jack Daniels. As Roger Daltrey once famously sang: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Where do schools fit into this? Well, we could go to one extreme and ban all technology from our site (just as a junior school popular with Palo Alto CEOs has done, which in itself raises some disturbing questions), but we suspect that teenagers, being teenagers, will find a way around that. In addition, parents understandably want to keep in touch with their children when they’re at boarding school, and so even asking pupils to hand over their devices for long periods of time (as is becoming popular in some US schools) presents certain problems as well. Plus, to reiterate what I said before, there is so much wonderful stuff out there that actively aids learning that only the most retrogressive and anti-intellectual educational establishment would contemplate switching it off at source.

But perhaps the solution to the challenges that technology is presenting us with now is, literally, staring us in the face. And what we’re looking at is another human face. An anecdote that might illuminate my point. When I was interviewing a pupil who wanted to join Bryanston from her day school last term, I asked her why she wanted to give up the 4.15pm finishes, and have lessons on a Saturday. Her answer has stayed with me ever since. She said: “I’m a face-to-face person, and I guess this is a face-to-face place.” She went on to say that the many arguments that teenagers have via WhatsApp and Snapchat tend to escalate after school. By the time the pupils return to school the next day, or on Monday, grievances have deepened because correspondence has occurred via text, not voice. We all know that a simple statement like “I hate you” can be spoken with venom and with humour, and how we modulate our tone makes all the difference. But as a flat, written text, it can be destructive. For my interviewee the answer was simple: she wanted to talk to people, and in doing so form bonds and friendships that are robustly independent of Zuckerberg’s nefarious network. For her, Bryanston would provide her with more opportunity to make real and lasting friendships. Through articulating our ideas to others we make sense of our thoughts to them, and to our own self, at the same time. For young people this is an essential part of establishing their own identities. In time, I have no doubt, the miracle that is the human voice will win out over cold digital dialogue. Ideally, both will add richness to our lives. But it is perhaps only in a boarding school that the time and space, and the opportunities, are so varied, and allow for such ongoing interaction, that our young people develop in a more fully human way.

Connecting effectively

At the start of the year Bryanston introduced a new mobile phone policy. Here Dr Preetpal Bachra, Head of Pastoral, explains the thinking behind the policy.

Amongst the great challenges for schools is the ability to guide and foster every aspect of a child’s development whilst coping with the dynamic world that we all live in. There are balances and counter-balances to any strategy or resource used as part of processes to meet those challenges. For example, if understanding the individual is at the heart of what Bryanston proposes, then that could be interpreted as having an educational environment designed specifically for each pupil – 680 different classrooms, teachers, etc. Rather we work with pupils as individuals to help them better utilise the structures on offer and to help children make decisions for themselves – as Nanny McPhee would say, “When you need me but do not want me, then I must stay. When you want me but no longer need me, then I have to go. It’s rather sad, really, but there it is.” The challenge for teachers and parents, therefore, is to work with pupils and, as a parent of two boys approaching their teens, I am well versed in the oft played record of, “Why won’t you listen/do/not do?*” (*delete as applicable) which after bed is replaced by, “What am I doing wrong/not doing/done to deserve?*” (*ibid) record. Perhaps M. Scott Peck’s opening assertion of The Road Less Travelled of “Life is difficult. This is a great truth. One of the greatest truths” is never more relevant than when dealing with children (though there will be many a work place manager that would say “adults ain’t so easy either”).

At the start of the academic year 2016/17 I was given a brief by Sarah Thomas of devising a strategy for mobile phone usage at Bryanston and I embarked on an eight-month exploration of investigating other schools, talking to pupils, examining the classroom usage and wading through the litany of literature from divergent philosophies. There were some surprising outcomes and I should share some of them here.

Some independent schools gained favourable media coverage by banning mobile phones altogether. However, at the chalk face, teachers still struggled with the distractions provided by other electronic equipment and the ability to use social media and distraction therein. Some pupils went underground with phone usage and this had to be detected. In short, a ban didn’t always mean they weren’t used. Phones can become the moonshine of the modern boarding school under those restrictions.

Some pupils here stated adults as having the ‘problem’ (and who is reading this on their phone or tablet right now?). The hypocrisy of banning phones to reduce negative impact on well being and increase social interaction was not lost on some of our pupils.

Some pupils evidenced their positive usage of phones – sending messages of support to friends, organising lessons or work or checking the portal. Some share data, ask questions, offer or receive peer support, collaborate. In some ways they ‘connect’ with each other too and Johann Hari provides a thought-provoking plea for the importance of socially connecting, albeit not virtually.

We know there are now issues of cyber bullying, self-criticism, media persuasion, peer abuse, and every school will, at some stage, deal with at least one of these. The easy solution to these issues is to ban phones if they are proved to be the most impactful medium for these behaviours, although authors such as Arik Sigman suggest that some of the effects of screen time have already had an impact on pupils well before they are of secondary school age.

The more challenging model is to work with pupils, to integrate, regulate and teach. In effect, to take a Bryanstonian view of the problem. This has meant a policy that focusses on courtesy, i.e. when phones can and can’t be used and robust responses for being discourteous. It will lead to an understanding of when phones should and shouldn’t be used. It has meant having ‘staged’ access to phones, as the younger the pupil the less likely they will be to have developed good social skills.

The D year group have just experienced an excellent day led by HumanUtopia, which focussed on building hope, resilience, confidence and happiness. The PSRE programme is being developed to nurture those skills. We are looking now at the wholesale use of technology too.

If we are brave we should consider teaching pupils to use technology positively – appropriate social media profiles, how to use virtual working, how to connect effectively, but never at the expense of human contact. The old adage goes that qualifications will get you the job interview but qualities will get you the job. Our goal is to develop both in the child, so that ultimately they won’t need us. If we achieve that, then that really would be nurturing the individual.

Take a digital pause

This week we welcome Dr Preetpal Bachra, who reminds of the need to take a break from our digital devices. 

The iPhone recently celebrated its tenth birthday and in those ten years many of us have become dependent on our smartphones. They help us stay in touch, organise our day, capture and share memories, remember things, generally, manage our lives. But are we in danger of allowing technology to dictate our lives too?

I can see all the positives of digital technology; the increased ability to reach out to people, interact with family members and friends who are further away, learn something new and buy things quickly and conveniently. The downside to this is that organisations collect your data and can work out your preferences. They can sell you products or tempt you with things you never realised you needed. In short, it can seem that technology is using us, rather than the other way around.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t use technology, BUT it should be on our terms. We should all be able to do the things we want to do and that means we have to take responsibility for ourselves. How many times can pupils get distracted because someone has messaged them, or a notification has popped up? It seems like we are allowing other people to have an impact on our lives, that they are always calling our name through messages and notifications, and we are letting them.

Why do we let digital communication take control of us, though? It’s reminiscent of something from my childhood – stickers. I grew up wanting stickers to ensure I completed my Panini 1984 Division 1 Football Sticker Album. It still applies with my FitBit and achieving badges. You may see others walking around constantly checking their wrists thinking, “How many more until I reach 10,000 steps?” For pupils, the equivalent might be getting likes on Facebook or maintaining streaks on Snapchat.

It is all about approval. What would you do for a sticker? Well, the result is increasing levels of anxiety, mental health issues and social tension not social cohesion. A sense of competitiveness can emerge to have the most likes, followers or shares, or even the most picture-perfect online presence. The pictures and messages posted on Snapchat, Instagram or any other social network don’t always tell the whole story – they tend to be the ‘best bits’ that have been edited and filtered to portray a particular image. Quite often we see what appear to be the perfect lives of others online and compare these to our own lives without the same positive filter. The result? A poor comparison in most cases.

So, my advice to pupils, and indeed us all, is our phones or laptops should not adversely affect our learning or our lives, but enhance them. Leave it in the house, turn it off, but let go of it for a while. Write things out if you can, but if you use a laptop then use it just for that.

Read … slowly.

Go for a walk … slowly.

And take the time to interact face to face.

Soft rules

This week we welcome Bryanston's Head of Pastoral, Dr Preetpal Bachra, as he examines the 'soft rules' of social interaction.

The Head recently blogged about the core school rules. I always consider these to be the ‘hard rules’, i.e. those which tell you where you stand. In this blog I want to examine some of what might be termed the ‘soft rules’, especially those relating to social interaction and how these are evolving and changing.

As a general rule of thumb, I try not to forget what it was like to be a teenager and perhaps I should share a few observations from my own teenage years because, as Maya Angelou observed, 'we are more alike than we are unalike.'

At the age of 14, I became attracted to Eastern philosophy, but that may have been because I thought the yin and yang symbol was ‘cool’. John Bellaimy gives a simplistic view of it as the yin being the dark swirl and the yang being the light swirl, and each side has a dot of the opposite colour illustrating the concept that everything contains the seed of its opposite. I used to think the symbol was about balance in life but it is more to do with things not being complete opposites. Rather, things are relative to each other. We can act in certain ways but there is always the seed of the opposite that can extend from it. 

My life and how I saw the world at 14 may not be so different from how pupils see the world today, but there is a difference in how they interact with it. In my teenage years, I had one key aim, one key aspiration, and that was to be Bruce Lee. He starred in one of my favourite films of all time, Enter The Dragon, and there was one particular scene that I wanted to replicate. I would practise with my nunchakus and there were plenty of accidents. In fact, if people had videoed me then my outcomes may have found their way into the litany of ‘YouTube fails’.

The important difference is that my life was private and all those stages that I went through, I explored on my own. There are records of these stages, of course, housed in family photo albums, but none of them are in the public domain. I didn’t, and still don’t, honestly think anyone else would be interested in the goings-on in my life. Banksy, in an interview for Time Out in 2010, summed it up well, “I don't know why people are so keen to put the details of their private life in public; they forget that invisibility is a superpower.”

Today so much more of young people’s lives is on public display, and this isn’t without consequences. For example, in 2015 ChildLine conducted over 11,000 counselling sessions nationally with young people regarding online issues. And in a 2013 study for Northwestern University 29% of Facebook users surveyed reported ‘losing face’ from embarrassing content posted by friends. As a school we alert pupils to the dangers of putting themselves and their friends on public display through PSRE lessons, reminders of the support available, lectures about protecting themselves and so on.

This use of digital communication can lead to embarrassment and humiliation. The distinction between embarrassment and humiliation is that the former we bring on ourselves and the latter is brought on us by others. In 1998 a scandal broke in the US when Monica Lewinsky admitted relations with Bill Clinton, the then president. She did something that embarrassed her, but the response was intense because of how people commented.

From a psychological point of view, the comments Monica Lewinsky endured can be partly understood by the process of disassociation, i.e. the person commenting is separated from the victim and understanding the implications of their comments: they cease to remember that those people have feelings. And here is our soft rule: don’t put yourself out there. If pupils (or any of us) choose to share things that others do not want to be shared then it will humiliate them, and we take a very dim view of that.

Of course there are positives to the use of social media: the messages of support to each other; ensuring people are not left out; sharing happy times with loved ones; contact with family; the sharing of ideas to make us think and broaden our horizons, and we should remember that this is why technology has a place in our lives. It can be an incredible force for good and it should be used as such when appropriate.

However, we should all be careful what we post, be careful with other people’s privacy and not put ourselves in a position where we or our feelings, or those of others, might be abused. It is these soft, unspoken rules, along with the hard rules, that go some way to ensuring we can flourish and thrive within our own communities and the wider society in which we find ourselves.