Parents Call for Ban on Student Smartwatches, Shenzhen Officials Propose Tiered Management Policy

The bureau’s reply clarified that there is no city‑​wide ban on smart watches. Instead, it advocates a “classified management, combining regulation with facilitation” approach. Schools may decide on a case‑by‑case basis how to handle devices that only offer basic call and positioning features – for example, by collecting the watches at the gate and storing them centrally for the day, while prohibiting any use inside the classroom. Watches that also contain games, video playback or social‑media apps would be treated like regular mobile phones, subject to the same “limited entry and unified safekeeping” rules already laid out in national policy.

Those rules stem from Article 70 of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Minors, which states that minors may not bring mobile phones or other “smart terminal products” into the classroom without permission, and that any devices on campus must be managed uniformly. The Ministry of Education has issued complementary regulations that require schools to limit campus entry of phones and to store them centrally when not in use. While the bureau acknowledged that smart watches are technically distinct from smartphones, it emphasized that any model with entertainment or social functions falls under the spirit of these regulations because of the same potential for distraction and vision problems.

Looking ahead, the Longhua Education Bureau outlined three concrete steps. First, it will refine campus‑wide guidelines for smart terminals, carving out clear classification standards for watches that are purely communicative versus those that are entertainment‑oriented. Second, the bureau plans to tighten supervision of schools’ enforcement, ensuring that practices such as “unified safekeeping and prohibition of in‑class use” are actually followed. Third, it will reach out to industry regulators and manufacturers, urging them to redesign products for the school environment – for instance, by stripping out games and video playback or adding a “disabled mode” that activates during school hours.

The public reaction has been anything but uniform. On one side, many netizens echo the parent’s concerns, pointing to the obvious hazards: a ringing watch can interrupt a lesson, bright screens can strain young eyes, and the lure of games can erode study habits. Some have even raised alarms about electromagnetic radiation, arguing that the tiny chips in a watch may need to emit more power during calls than a conventional phone, potentially exposing children to higher levels of radiofrequency energy.

Opponents of an outright ban stress the safety benefits that smart watches provide. In a city as sprawling and densely populated as Shenzhen, children often travel to school on their own, and a watch that can call or locate a “parent‑to‑child” line can be a lifeline in emergencies. Several parents suggested a practical compromise: schools could collect the devices at arrival and return them after classes, preserving the communication channel while keeping the classroom free of distractions. A few commenters warned that a blanket prohibition could push the issue underground, leading to uneven enforcement and widening the gap between families that can afford private arrangements and those that cannot.

The debate also touches on broader social questions. A segment of the discourse views school bans as a convenient way for parents to shift the responsibility of disciplining children’s device use onto teachers, thereby avoiding direct confrontation at home. Others argue that any restriction should respect parental autonomy – if a parent does not want their child to own a watch, they simply should not purchase one, rather than imposing a policy that affects every student.

Industry observers note that the outcome could have far‑reaching economic implications. Children’s smart watches account for a sizable slice of the Chinese consumer electronics market, with domestic brands dominating sales. A policy that limits or bans school‑time usage would likely drive manufacturers to pivot toward devices aimed at older users or to focus on health‑monitoring features that are less likely to be prohibited. Upstream suppliers – chipmakers, component producers – and downstream service providers may also feel the ripple effect, as developers of apps and content for these watches reassess their market strategies.

Beyond the immediate issue of watches, the controversy is forcing educators and policymakers to confront the larger question of how technology should be integrated into schooling. Should the goal be total exclusion, selective allowance, or a graduated “digital‑literacy” curriculum that teaches students self‑regulation? The Longhua bureau’s emphasis on “how to use them correctly” rather than a simple “ban or not” reflects a growing consensus that nuanced, school‑level policies – possibly supported by technical controls like “class‑mode” settings that automatically mute non‑essential functions – may be the most workable path forward.

As the discussion unfolds on social media, the sentiment appears to be coalescing around a middle ground: strict management of entertainment‑laden features, unified safekeeping of devices during school hours, and retention of basic communication tools for safety. Whether this balance will translate into formal regulation across other districts, or remain a localized experiment in Shenzhen, remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the flash of a smart watch on a child’s wrist has become a flashpoint for a broader societal negotiation – one that pits the conveniences of modern connectivity against the timeless desire for an undisturbed learning environment. The outcome will likely shape not only school policies but also the next generation’s relationship with the ever‑more‑ubiquitous digital companion that is the smartwatch.