Schoolkids don't need smartphones: A Sydney mum's ban on her teenager having a phone should not baffle educators
A 13-year-old boy is being teased by classmates.
Not for his clothes, his grades, or his hairstyle - but because he doesn't have a smartphone.
Sydney mother of three and primary school teacher, Monica Cura, made the decision years ago to hold off.
No screen time before age five.
An iPad at nine, purely for schoolwork. And phones? That's a firm not yet.
'It wasn't even something we discussed,' Ms Cura told me.
'It just didn't occur to us to give him one. He'll get one when he can afford to buy it himself. Until then, there's no need.'
Her stance is clear, consistent, and deeply rational: her son doesn't need a phone, she can't adequately monitor one, and frankly, he's still a child.
But apparently, that makes Ms Cura, and her son, a target.
'He does get comments from other kids' she said. 'His friends call him 'iPad boy' because that's what he uses at home to talk to them.'
What's more disturbing is that the comments aren't just coming from other kids.
'Teachers have made comments to him suggesting it was odd that he didn't have a phone," she told me.
'His sporting coach pulled my husband aside to ask why he wasn't on the team group chat with the other children'.
This is where the story stops being quirky and starts being concerning.
Because when adults are reinforcing the idea that every child should have a smartphone, and subtly shaming those who don't, we've lost our way.
As a child psychologist, I hear stories like hers far too often.
What used to be a considered parenting decision - to delay giving a child a phone - has now become something a parent feels they must defend.
Ms Cura's son isn't isolated or unsafe.
He trains at an elite level in soccer, catches public transport independently, and communicates with friends at home via his iPad - with appropriate boundaries in place.
And yet, he's being made to feel like an outsider, not just by his peers, but by the very adults meant to support his wellbeing.
'He doesn't even nag us about it,' Ms Cura said.
'He knows where we stand. He did try to make a case - he said he needs it for training updates or because he catches the bus. But we get the emails too.
'And he can actually walk to school if he wants. He just thought maybe that excuse would convince us.'
But she and her husband held firm.
'We've had parents come up to us and say, 'Wow, that's amazing, I wish I'd done that.' Others have said they gave their kids phones and now regret it.'
I see the clinical consequences of early, unrestricted smartphone access every week.
Kids who are anxious, distracted, emotionally volatile.
Children as young as 10 exposed to violent pornographic content.
Pre-teens addicted to dopamine-driven social media feedback loops.
And parents bewildered at how fast they lost control.
As of 2023, 37 per cent of Australian children under the age of 12 own a smartphone, an increase from 22 per cent in 2018.
According to a global OECD report, Australian teenagers average 49 hours a week on digital devices, placing them among the heaviest users worldwide.
Notably, 12 per cent of Australian teenagers spend over 80 hours weekly on screens.
That's the equivalent of a full-time job - plus overtime - spent staring at a screen.
For a generation still forming its identity, attention span, and social skills, this level of exposure isn't just excessive; it's developmentally catastrophic.
Smartphones aren't neutral tools.
They're highly sophisticated devices designed to hold adult attention - let alone that of a still-developing brain.
From a neurological standpoint, the prefrontal cortex, responsible for impulse control, planning, and risk assessment, continues developing into the mid-20s. Children and early teens are simply not equipped to self-regulate their usage, navigate social comparison, or resist the pull of addictive algorithms. Giving them unfiltered access to that kind of power is, quite literally, developmentally mismatched.
And yet culturally, we're doing exactly that - en masse.
The problem isn't just that kids want phones.
It's that adults have normalised this want as a need.
Teachers ask why a child doesn't have a phone, instead of asking why so many do.
Coaches expect group chats with 13-year-olds, instead of communicating with parents.
We act like having a device is a developmental milestone, rather than a lifestyle choice.
Ms Cura, to her credit, has stood her ground.
'We just don't see why he needs one,' she said. 'They're on screens all the time at school. Homework's online. That's already enough. Outside of that, they need to be looking around, being present. But instead you see kids and adults walking around with their heads down, staring at screens.'
She's right. The presence of a phone changes the entire ecology of a child's world.
It alters how they interact with peers, with parents, with boredom, with the physical world itself.
And often, it robs them of things that are developmentally essential - creativity, stillness, resilience, even real friendship.
Some parents justify early phone use for safety. Ms Cura doesn't buy it.
'People say, 'Oh, they need it to get picked up from school.' But there are phones that just receive calls,' she said.
'There are other ways to manage that. You don't need a smartphone with access to everything.'
She's right again. The real reason most kids have phones isn't necessity.
It's convenience. It's conformity. It's because the rest of us gave in.
But Ms Cura's story shows something powerful: you cansay no.
You can delay.
And your child will not combust.
They may, in fact, turn out better for it.
We need more parents like her, not fewer.
Parents who don't outsource boundaries to the crowd.
Who understand that development doesn't speed up just because society has.
And who are willing to put up with the teasing, the eye-rolls, and the awkward silences because they care more about raising a whole child than a popular one.
And if you're a parent holding out, or wanting to, let this story be your reminder: you're not crazy.
You're just ahead of the curve.
Clare Rowe is a Sky News contributor.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

9 News
an hour ago
- 9 News
Woman charged for allegedly luring people to Australia from Papua New Guinea
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Australian Federal Police (AFP) have charged a woman over what's described as a "disturbing" human trafficking operation between Queensland and Papua New Guinea . They claim victims were promised fake scholarships then forced to work as fruit pickers, accommodated in shipping containers and alarmingly, transported in car boots. Authorities say Binta Abubakar left Australia two years ago but when she returned to Brisbane International Airport yesterday, AFP officers were waiting. A Queensland woman has been charged over an alleged human trafficking operation targeting people from Papua New Guinea. (9News) "Police will allege the woman lured Papua New Guinea nationals to Australia with the promise of fully funded scholarships," Adria Elfer from the AFP said. Abubakar is described as the CEO of BIN Educational Services and Consulting on its website. The business acted as an agent for Central Queensland University until 2023 and lists a rundown Victorian property as its office address. Abubakar, a dual Australian and Nigerian citizen, is accused of exploiting fifteen victims, as young as 19 years old, over a two-year period. Authorities say Binta Abubakar left Australia two years ago but when she returned to Brisbane International Airport yesterday, AFP officers were waiting. (9News) "When those persons arrived into Australia, they were instead forced to work on farms to pay off debts that they had not previously been told about," Telfer claimed. Fruit picking in the Moreton Bay and Lockyer Valley regions for up to 70 hours a week, as she allegedly pocketed their wages, unbeknownst to the farmers employing them. "Some of them at times were living in fairly oppressive conditions, some in the boot of a car," Telfer claims. The 56-year-old (in white) is facing 31 charges and if convicted could spend up to 12 years behind bars. (9News) The 56-year-old is facing 31 charges and if convicted could spend up to 12 years behind bars. She appeared in court yesterday, and was granted bail. Police believe there may be more victims, and they're appealing for them to come forward. Australia queensland trafficking police Brisbane papua new guinea CONTACT US

Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
How Juanita Nielsen sparked reforms that transformed city landscapes
Iconic Australian anti-development activist Juanita Nielsen left behind far more than a deeply disturbing whodunnit mystery when she disappeared, presumed murdered, 50 years ago, next month. Her death also sparked a huge range of planning and policy changes that transformed the landscapes of our cities, and are now back under the spotlight, a new book to be released on Saturday argues. Some say the reforms that sprang from the urban warfare that erupted on Sydney's streets between developers and conservationists in the 1970s over plans for high-density housing in the city's east helped precipitate today's current national housing crisis; others argue they need to be further strengthened to protect our cities. 'I don't think there's any doubt that Juanita Nielsen's death made the environment for developing land much tougher for many years, if not decades,' said Mark Skelsey, author of Views To Die For: Murder, Anarchy and the Battle for Sydney's Future. 'It initiated popular movies, plays and books which cast developers as villains and which really had a long-term influence on housing and development levels. 'She was also a strong advocate for public participation in planning decisions which increased people's influence and put heritage protection on the agenda, which both have the power to inhibit development. And she campaigned too for affordable housing and for developers to retain portions of projects for affordable housing, which still rings true today.' Loading Skelsey, a communications consultant and former NSW Department of Planning staffer, was determined to take a fresh look at Nielsen's activism through the prism of housing planning, rather than about the circumstances of her death. While he charts her role as a publisher of the newspaper NOW, campaigning against developers' plans to demolish the historic terraces on Kings Cross's Victoria Street for high-rise towers of luxury apartments – which eventually led to her death – he looks closely at her legacy.

The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
How Juanita Nielsen sparked reforms that transformed city landscapes
Iconic Australian anti-development activist Juanita Nielsen left behind far more than a deeply disturbing whodunnit mystery when she disappeared, presumed murdered, 50 years ago, next month. Her death also sparked a huge range of planning and policy changes that transformed the landscapes of our cities, and are now back under the spotlight, a new book to be released on Saturday argues. Some say the reforms that sprang from the urban warfare that erupted on Sydney's streets between developers and conservationists in the 1970s over plans for high-density housing in the city's east helped precipitate today's current national housing crisis; others argue they need to be further strengthened to protect our cities. 'I don't think there's any doubt that Juanita Nielsen's death made the environment for developing land much tougher for many years, if not decades,' said Mark Skelsey, author of Views To Die For: Murder, Anarchy and the Battle for Sydney's Future. 'It initiated popular movies, plays and books which cast developers as villains and which really had a long-term influence on housing and development levels. 'She was also a strong advocate for public participation in planning decisions which increased people's influence and put heritage protection on the agenda, which both have the power to inhibit development. And she campaigned too for affordable housing and for developers to retain portions of projects for affordable housing, which still rings true today.' Loading Skelsey, a communications consultant and former NSW Department of Planning staffer, was determined to take a fresh look at Nielsen's activism through the prism of housing planning, rather than about the circumstances of her death. While he charts her role as a publisher of the newspaper NOW, campaigning against developers' plans to demolish the historic terraces on Kings Cross's Victoria Street for high-rise towers of luxury apartments – which eventually led to her death – he looks closely at her legacy.