Education Matters explores what Australia’s new social media age restrictions really mean for teachers, school leaders, and the everyday rhythms of classrooms.
The social media minimum age legislation, which came into effect on 10 December 2025, was billed as a national intervention for children and families. The timing was jarring, dropping into the final fortnight of Term 4, when some senior students had already finished for the year.
Then came the six-week break. When teachers returned for Term 1, 2026, the ecosystems students inhabited socially had changed. What wasn’t known was how this would ripple through the staffroom and into daily pedagogical decision making.
In the lead up to the ban, Education Matters spoke to three experts – a principal, a senior researcher and a psychologist – about what potentially lay ahead.
Schools prepare for social media shift
As new age-based social media restrictions begin, Beaconhills College Executive Principal Mr Steve McGinley outlines how schools, families and educators are responding to reduce distraction and refocus learning.
With new social media age restrictions coming into effect on 10 December, schools across Australia are preparing for the impact on students, families and staff. At Beaconhills College in Victoria, executive principal Mr Steve McGinley says the issue has been on the school’s radar well before the legislation was finalised.
Mr McGinley says Beaconhills began examining the impact of mobile phones and social media on learning as early as 2022. The school undertook significant consultation with its community, surveying students, staff and families to understand concerns and experiences.
“When we surveyed parents specifically on mobile phones, the level of engagement was enormous,” he says. “That told us this was already front of mind for families.”
Beaconhills College educates around 3,000 students across two campuses. Mr McGinley describes it as a large, mid-fee school with a highly engaged, hard-working parent community. He says keeping families informed has been a priority as the legislation approaches implementation.
His recent communication to parents was designed to explain what the legislation means, when it starts, and where families can find reliable information. “The purpose was simply to make sure our community was aware of what’s coming and understood it,” he says.
From a school perspective, Mr McGinley says the most immediate impact will be in how online behaviour is addressed when it affects students at school. While schools are not responsible for enforcing the legislation, it will influence student conduct discussions.
“If we’re dealing with an online issue between two Year 5 students on Instagram, our first question will be why they were on the platform in the first place,” he says. “They shouldn’t be there to start with.”
He explains that many conflicts between students begin online outside school hours but quickly spill back into the school environment. Teachers and leaders are then required to respond, often at significant time and emotional cost.
“Our preference is to remove those issues so we can focus on our core business,” Mr McGinley says. “Teaching, learning and supporting student wellbeing.”
Mr McGinley acknowledges that many students will attempt to bypass restrictions but believes education remains essential. He says schools have an important role in helping students reflect on how social media affects them.
“We talk with students about whether being online actually makes them happy,” he says. “Many will say they don’t like the constant checking, but feel they have to because everyone else is on it.”
He also describes the level of distraction social media creates as a growing challenge for educators. Even when phones are not physically present, he says students’ attention is often divided.
“It’s not about blaming young people,” Mr McGinley says. “If this was our environment when we were growing up, we’d be exactly the same.”
Beaconhills already bans mobile phones during the school day, but Mr McGinley says the pull of constant connection remains strong. As both an educator and a parent, he sees similar struggles at home, where devices can interfere with homework, concentration and family routines.
Ultimately, Mr McGinley believes the success of the new restrictions will depend on schools and families working together. He says a shared, whole-community approach is essential.
“Our role as a school is to bring these issues to families’ attention because they affect education and wellbeing,” he says. “Parents then make decisions in the home, and we support them to do that.”
He hopes the legislation will empower families to draw clearer boundaries, supported by schools, and reduce the hidden nature of online harm.
“The best outcomes happen when adults work together in the interests of young people,” Mr McGinley says. “That’s when we can draw a line together and support each other.”
Researcher warns of digital literacy gaps
Deakin University researcher Dr Luci Pangrazio says Australia’s social media age ban provides new opportunities to reinvigorate digital literacies programs for students and pre-service teachers.
As Australia prepares for the introduction of new social media age restrictions, educators are confronting practical and ethical questions about how the legislation will play out in schools.
Senior Research Fellow at Deakin University, Dr Luci Pangrazio, has spent years researching digital literacies, data use and the role of technology in education. Her work spans secondary schools and early childhood contexts, as well as family experiences of digital platforms.
Dr Pangrazio is also a chief investigator with the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child, an international research collaboration focused on children from birth to eight years. Together with her research into datafication and edtech in schools, her work provides insight into how digital policies intersect with everyday educational practice.
While many Australian states already have mobile phone bans in schools, Dr Pangrazio says the social media age restriction introduces new complexities rather than simply reinforcing existing rules.
“I think initially, because many states and schools already have a mobile phone ban, in some ways it might help to enforce that,” she says, noting that students primarily access social media through their phones.
However, she points to research showing mixed evidence on the effectiveness of phone bans, with studies suggesting they neither clearly reduce distraction nor definitively improve school climate.
Beyond device use, Dr Pangrazio highlights the role social media already plays in learning and communication. Platforms are sometimes used informally to support collaboration, while messaging services such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger are excluded from the ban.
“That could send a mixed message,” she says, particularly if schools shift away from some platforms while continuing to use others linked to the same companies.
School communication practices are another area affected. Many schools rely on social media to share news, celebrate achievements and communicate with families.
“I think this could be problematic if they’re posting about children under the age of 16, because those students are not legally able to have accounts on those platforms, which means they cannot engage with the post or contribute to the discussion,” Dr Pangrazio says.
She describes this as raising questions about student voice and agency, and suggests schools may need to rethink how they use social media as a communication channel.
In the classroom, commonly used tools such as YouTube are also part of the discussion. Dr Pangrazio notes that while YouTube can be accessed without an account, platforms are increasingly able to identify child users through data patterns. Schools, she says, are likely to be working closely with parents as the legislation takes effect, adding to existing workloads.
Digital literacy remains a significant challenge. Dr Pangrazio’s research into pre-service teacher education found limited training on edtech, data privacy and digital systems.
“Teachers come out of university with very little experience of learning management systems or how data is used, and then they’re thrown into a very datafied system,” she says.
She adds that digital literacies in the curriculum are inconsistent and often framed through safety and risk, rather than understanding how platforms function as media and commercial systems.Her earlier research with Year 7 students focused on algorithms and interface design, showing strong student engagement and interest.
“They loved the opportunity to learn more and talk more about it, because there are very few spaces where they can learn about these platforms and share their concerns,” Dr Pangrazio says.
She also points to schools as trusted sources of guidance for families navigating digital parenting, based on research from the Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child. As the ban comes into effect, Dr Pangrazio says schools may face pressure from parents seeking advice, as well as complex situations where families choose to bypass restrictions.Despite the challenges, she emphasises the educational opportunity presented by the policy shift.
“Once young people have an awareness of how these platforms are designed and why they work the way they do, that knowledge can be really empowering,” she says.
Psychologist urges wellbeing-first response in schools
Monash University psychologist Professor Marie Yap says social media age laws do not change schools’ core role, urging educators to prioritise student wellbeing and parent communication.
As Australia’s social media age legislation comes into force, educators are preparing for how the changes may affect students, families and schools, particularly across the secondary years.
Professor Marie Yap, a psychologist and researcher in child and youth mental health at Monash University, says the legislation applies across both primary and secondary settings, but the most visible impact is expected among students aged in their early teens.
“People generally expect the most affected young people would be those who are between the 13 to the 16 age band, those who are expecting to have access,” Professor Yap says.
She notes that younger children may already be using social media, but access is more commonly monitored by parents and often limited by device ownership.
For schools, Professor Yap emphasises that the legislation does not make educators responsible for enforcing or policing students’ social media use. This position, she says, aligns with guidance from the eSafety Commission.
“It is not their role to be policing, but it still remains the same. Their role is to look after their students’ wellbeing,” she says.
Issues such as cyberbullying and online harm, which contributed to the introduction of the legislation, are already familiar to schools. Professor Yap says existing wellbeing responses and support strategies remain relevant, including monitoring student welfare, responding to distress and providing education about respectful behaviour.
“The concern about student wellbeing remains the same, the strategies that have been used to support that would remain the same,” she says.
Professor Yap acknowledges that some students may continue to access social media despite the restrictions, potentially through alternative or less regulated platforms. In those cases, she says, schools’ responses would not change significantly and would continue to focus on wellbeing and support rather than enforcement.
She also suggests the legislation provides a prompt for schools to review whether they have sufficient policies in place around online safety, digital behaviour and student support.
“If schools are now forced to consider whether they even have sufficient policies in place, then this is a good prompt,” she says.
In terms of curriculum and school practices, Professor Yap says most digital literacy, online safety and respectful behaviour policies should already align with the new laws. Rather than rewriting policies, schools may need to reinforce existing expectations and clarify what the legislation means for students.
“By and large, I would think that those policies still apply,” she says. “If anything, it would be an emphasis on a few of these additional points.”
She adds that schools may also need to help students identify alternative ways to meet social and connection needs previously fulfilled through social media, both online and offline.
Parent communication will also play a key role. Professor Yap says schools are likely to support families by sharing information and directing them to external resources, including those provided by the eSafety Commission.
“At the very least there will be communications around ‘This is what the school’s position is, these are the steps that we are taking to support your child’,” she says.
Addressing concerns about teacher workload, Professor Yap says the legislation should not significantly increase administrative demands, as educators are not required to monitor compliance. Where issues arise, she says responses would mirror existing approaches to student distress and wellbeing.
“The focus for educators, for schools, is on what still remains the same,” Professor Yap says. “Their main agenda is still the same. This [social media ban] is a nuance that is new, but by and large, what educators still do on a day-to-day basis is hopefully still the same.”
