Schools Dictating Family Life - Why Schools Banning Students From Using Social Media at Home Is an Overreach
- The White Hatter
- 12 minutes ago
- 8 min read
We learned recently from a video posting from another social media safety advocate that we respect, even though some of of our philosophies differ, where they claimed that a Louisiana Catholic elementary and middle school in the United States, starting in the 2026/2027 school year, will face discipline if they have any social media account outside of school hours, even if that use happens privately at home. This same advocate stated that they are aware of two other schools that are doing the same thing. This advocate also clearly stated that he supports such a policy. Here at the White Hatter, we take a different view, especially when it comes to institutions stepping too far into the private decisions of families, whether those institutions are schools or government.
At this school, it is alleged that students will be prohibited by policy from using platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and others outside of school hours, even when off of school property, including in the home of the student. Families must delete existing accounts if they want their child to remain enrolled. If the school discovers a student has created or used a social media account outside of school property, the penalties escalate:
First offence: detention and loss of extracurriculars for the remainder of the school year
Second offence: one day suspension and loss of extracurriculars
Third offence: three day suspension, probation, and loss of extracurriculars
Fourth offence: expulsion
According to this advocate, these penalties follow a child year after year, meaning a single “offence” in grade five will count against them in grade eight. It should be noted that this policy seems to mirror another one we found in the US that is already in place (1)(2) This policy also includes,
"The prohibition against social media accounts includes summers, holidays, nights and weekends."
Parents and students are being told this is necessary because the school is tired of dealing with social media issues during the school day. The reasoning may come from a place of frustration, but it doesn’t make the policy rational, lawful, or fair to families. In fact, it places the school on the wrong side of what appears to be clear U.S. Supreme Court guidance.
The most striking issue is how directly this policy contradicts the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (Pennsylvania) (3)(4) This case dealt with a student who was disciplined for a social media post she made off campus, on her own time, using her own device. The Court ruled in her favour, making it clear that schools have very limited authority to regulate off-campus speech and behaviour.
The Court warned that allowing schools broad power over what students do at home would effectively mean schools could police a child 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, which they explicitly rejected. They also emphasized that parents, not schools, have primary responsibility for guiding children’s behaviour outside of school grounds.
This Louisiana school’s policy appears to do exactly what the US Supreme Court cautioned against. It attempts to impose round the clock control over a child’s lawful, private activity when they are at home and under parental supervision.
Supporters might argue that private religious schools have more flexibility than public ones, which is true to a degree. However, even private schools are expected to respect constitutional principles when enforcing discipline, especially when those rules reach into the private family sphere. When a school requires families to give up lawful rights unrelated to school operations, courts have historically looked closely at whether the policy is reasonable, proportionate, and connected to legitimate educational interests. This one fails on all three.
This Approach Treats All Students as if They Are a Problem
The school’s justification is that social media use outside school creates problems during the school day, and that may be true in isolated cases. We acknowledge that some educators experience fallout from arguments, gossip, or conflicts that begin online. However, punishing every student for the behaviour of a few is not a rational solution.
It removes parental authority.
It penalizes normal childhood behaviour.
The irony is that students who most need guidance on responsible online behaviour will now be denied the opportunity to learn it in a supported way in their home with their parents or caregivers. Instead of being taught how to navigate social media safely, they are simply told they cannot use it. That may remove short term friction for the school, but it’s a Nirvana Fallacy that does not prepare students for the real world.
The Policy Encourages Dishonesty Rather Than Digital Citizenship
A rule this rigid is almost guaranteed to push some students to use social media in secret. Teens will create alternate accounts, use VPNs, or adopt platforms the school is not aware of yet. Instead of addressing the underlying social and emotional issues connected to online behaviour, this approach encourages covert use and erodes trust between schools, students, and families. Kind of reminds us of the Hollywood movie “Footloose”
Parents and caregivers must now become the “enforcers” of a rule that some may not agree with. Families who believe that guided social media use is a normal part of digital literacy are left with a difficult choice, comply with a rule they feel is unreasonable or withdraw their child from the school.
Outsourcing Parental Authority Is Not What Schools Are Designed For
Schools exist to educate, not to govern the private lives of families and how they raise their kids. Once a child leaves the school grounds, it’s the parent or caregiver’s job to guide behaviour and manage technology use based on their values, their child’s maturity, and the realities of modern life.
When a school tells parents and caregivers they must delete their child’s accounts, it signals a belief that the school knows better than the parent. That isn’t partnership, it’s overreach. Parents don’t lose their rights at the school gate, nor should they.
Disciplinary Escalation That Follows Children for Years Is Not Educationally Sound
Punishing a 10 year old for using Instagram by removing all extracurriculars until the end of the school year does not help them learn or grow. Carrying disciplinary “strikes” forward year after year is even more concerning.
A child who makes a mistake in grade five may still be punished for it in grade eight even if their behaviour has significantly changed.
This is not restorative.
It’s not developmental.
It’s not aligned with child psychology or best practice.
Rather than teaching accountability, it teaches fear.
Why This Matters for All Parents, Not Just Those at This School
If one school can do this, others may try. Policies like this shift responsibility away from teaching digital literacy and toward policing family life. They also validate the belief that banning technology is a substitute for education, which does not help children become capable digital citizens.
Parents and caregivers should be aware of what this precedent would mean:
Schools could control what apps your child uses at home
Schools could discipline your child for lawful private activity
Schools could override your parenting choices
Schools could expand monitoring and enforcement into family life
This is not a small policy change, it represents a redefinition of the boundary between school authority and parental rights!
Schools have a responsibility to create a safe environment and manage behaviour during the school day. They do not have the authority to govern a child’s private, lawful activities at home or to replace a parent’s judgment with their own.
In the US, the Supreme Court has already signalled that off campus behaviour belongs primarily to families, not institutions. Policies that attempt to extend school power into the home are out of step with both constitutional guidance and common sense. However, given what is presently happening in the US, maybe there is a belief that the current makeup of their Supreme Court will override the common legal precedent of “stare decisis” if challenged, and overrule their earlier 2021 decision in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
Would a Policy Like This Survive Legal Scrutiny in Canada?
Although the original policy comes from a U.S. school, it raises an important question for Canadian families as well. Could a school in Canada impose a similar rule that bans all social media use at home and disciplines students for private, lawful behaviour outside of school hours?
The answer is almost certainly no. We believe that a policy like this would not survive legal scrutiny in Canada for several reasons.
Schools Cannot Regulate Lawful Off-Campus Behaviour
Canadian courts have been clear that a school’s authority extends to school grounds and school sanctioned activities. Once a student is at home under the care of their parents or caregivers, responsibility rests with the family. Schools may respond to off campus behaviour only when there is a clear, direct, and substantial impact on the school environment. A blanket ban on all social media use, regardless of context, does not meet that threshold.
Public Schools Would Face Charter Challenges
If a Canadian school attempted a similar policy, it would immediately raise issues under several Charter rights:
Freedom of expression (Section 2b) - Social media is a modern communication tool. Prohibiting it entirely is a severe restriction.
Liberty (Section 7) - Canadian courts interpret liberty to include personal autonomy in the home.
Privacy (Section 8) - Enforcing this kind of rule would require monitoring private devices or online activity, which would almost certainly be seen as unreasonable.
To survive a Charter challenge, a school would need to prove that the policy is reasonable, minimally impairing, and proportionate. We would suggest that a rule like this fails each test.
Independent Schools Still Cannot Override Parental Authority
Independent and faith based schools have more flexibility in setting expectations, but even they must comply with:
Provincial education legislation
Administrative fairness requirements
Human rights principles, including the rights of children
Privacy laws, and
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian courts have consistently held that parents and caregivers, not schools, direct the upbringing of children outside school hours. A rule that forces parents or caregivers to delete their child’s social media accounts intrudes into family autonomy in ways Canadian courts rarely tolerate.
We also believe that disproportionate penalties would be struck down. Suspensions, extracurricular bans, and expulsion for a child’s lawful at home digital activity, we believe, would be considered punitive, arbitrary, and educationally unsound. Canadian education law emphasizes corrective and supportive approaches, not rigid punishment for normal behaviour.
Carrying “strikes” from grade to grade would strengthen the argument that the policy is excessive and unreasonable.
Privacy Legislation Would Create Another Barrier
Whether under PIPEDA or provincial privacy statutes, schools cannot collect or demand access to private social media accounts without a legally valid reason. Monitoring or investigating a child’s home technology use raises immediate compliance issues, making enforcement almost impossible without violating privacy law.
Parents should approach any such policy with caution. Not because social media is without challenges, but because raising digitally literate, emotionally resilient kids requires thoughtful guidance, not sweeping bans that overreach into family life. Some have stated that, “We have to get away from the mindset that tech rules have to be perfect to be possible.” However, we would argue, first and foremost, that such rules need to follow the law.
If this school wants to address the problems arising from technology, it should do so through education, partnership, and support, not by claiming control over every hour of a child’s life out of their own frustration.
Whether in the United States or Canada, this type of rule attempts to extend school authority far beyond what courts have historically allowed. At its core, it replaces parental or caregiver judgment with institutional control and treats lawful digital use as misconduct worthy of escalating punishment. Canada’s own history with residential schools serves as a reminder of how harmful it can be when institutions assert control over children’s lives in ways that override families and parental authority.
Families on both sides of the border should understand that although schools can and should set boundaries for what happens on campus, here at the White Hatter, we believe they do not have the right to govern a child’s private life at home. Social media may create challenges, but solving them through overreach is neither legally sound nor developmentally appropriate.
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References
