avoid

The amount of time children in England spend on screens at school could be harming their “physical and developmental health”, a group of more than 150 clinicians has warned.

GPs, paediatricians and other specialists said in an open letter to Education Secretary Lucy Powell and Health Secretary Yvette Cooper that tablets and laptops are being used without a full understanding of their long-term health impacts, including on eye health.

The clinicians said they are prescribing glasses, hearing aids and speech therapy to children “for a problem that is unintentionally being made worse in our schools”.

The government said it was consulting on screen time guidance for children aged five to 18 but that technology could be a powerful learning tool if used properly.

The group of clinicians said nearly one million children are using screens in most lessons, despite studies suggesting a rise in short-sightedness.

They pointed to an analysis of 276 studies covering 5.4 million participants around the world.

That analysis, they claimed, found a rise in short-sightedness among children and adolescents from around 24% in 1990 to almost 36% by 2023, warning the condition is associated with an increased risk of a range of eye health problems.

Many children now spend longer on screens in the classroom than is recommended in a 24-hour period, the letter said, adding: “As a country, we need to wake up to this now, and start rolling back screen use in schools before the damage compounds further.”

One of its signatories was, Dr Becky Foljambe NHS GP and founder of Health Professionals for Safer Screens. She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme parents had not been given the chance to “opt out” of the “excessive” use of screens in schools, which risks children “just not thriving” in education.

She said an “explosion” in short-sightedness “cannot be put down to genetics alone”.

Foljambe said it was a “lazy argument” to advocate for screen use to prepare children for a digital work, adding: “They also need their sleep, their eyesight, they need rest, they need ability to critically think and appraise.”

“We are conscious that some of this evidence is still surfacing but the direction of travel is consistent across multiple, independent, and in some cases very large, bodies of research,” the letter continued.

It also warned that children with special educational needs are “disproportionately” directed to screen-based learning.

A Department for Education spokesperson said the government was developing new screen-time guidance for children aged five to 18, and will consult on the safety of artificial intelligence and educational technology in schools.

They said: “Used well, technology can be a powerful tool to support learners who need it and free up teachers to deliver the excellent education every child deserves.”

It comes after a ban on smartphones in schools in England came into force in June, making individual schools and trusts legally responsible for being phone-free throughout the day.

Not everyone has to pay – and there’s a simple and legal way to avoid paying this £180 annual fee

People with a Netflix subscription – regardless of their tier – may need to pay a fee of £180, depending on what they watch.

UK households currently pay £180 a year for a colour TV Licence, or £60.50 for a black-and-white set, after the fee increased on April 1, 2026. Failure to pay when needed could land people in hot water, and a fine of £1,000.

Although many people assume a TV Licence only applies to watching the BBC, that is not true. A TV Licence covers far more than BBC content, including:

• All TV channels like BBC, ITV, Channel 4, U&Dave and international channels
• Pay TV services like Sky, Virgin Media and EE TV
• Live TV on streaming services – like YouTube, Netflix, and Amazon Prime Video
• Everything on BBC iPlayer
• Watching, recording and downloading on any device

Do I need a TV Licence to watch Netflix?

It depends. Officials note: “If you are watching a TV programme that is being broadcast live on Netflix, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. You don’t need a TV Licence to watch on-demand programmes on Netflix.”

If you want to keep watching Netflix and avoid paying the Licence fee, simply do not watch any live TV or events on the platform and watch your usual on-demand content. This means you can watch classics like Gilmore Girls, Manifest, Breaking Bad, and the latest competition series, Wonka’s The Golden Ticket – without the need for a TV Licence.

If you live in a shared household, the UK Government confirms: “You need your own TV Licence if you have separate tenancy agreements and you watch TV in your own room.”

You can have one TV Licence for the whole household if you either:

• watch TV in a single shared area
• have a joint tenancy agreement

I have a Netflix subscription – so why do I need a TV Licence?

TV Licensing explains: “Paying for a Netflix subscription grants you access to a large and varied catalogue of movies, series, documentaries and more. Paying for a TV Licence lets you legally watch and record TV on any channel via a range of TV services, including Sky, Freeview, Virgin and Freesat.

“With a TV Licence, you can also watch live on streaming services (e.g. Amazon Prime and Channel 4) and access the full suite of award-winning movies, series and documentaries on BBC iPlayer.

“Some households enjoy having access to Netflix as well as being covered by a licence. Other households prefer to only pay for a TV Licence to watch live on TV and streaming services, including iPlayer, on any device.”

Netflix isn’t the only streaming service you may need to buy a TV Licence for, on top of the subscription fee. TV Licensing further states: “If you’re watching TV showing live on Amazon Prime, you need to be covered by a TV Licence. You don’t need a TV Licence if you’re only watching on-demand programmes on Amazon Prime.”

You could be fined £1,000

You can be fined up to £1,000 if you watch or record live TV without a Licence. TV Licensing warns: “You could be prosecuted if we find that you have been watching, recording or downloading programmes illegally.

“The maximum penalty is a £1,000 fine plus any legal costs and/or compensation you may be ordered to pay. The maximum fine is £2,000 in Guernsey.”

Schools in England are to get around £500 million in extra funding towards the teachers’ pay award this school year, reducing the risk of a strike ballot by the largest education union.

Schools had been expected to fund some of the 3.5% teachers pay increase for the current school year out of their existing budgets, which National Education Union (NEU) leaders had strongly objected to.

Daniel Kebede, the General Secretary of the NEU, said the offer of more funding was a “significant” step in negotiations.

In a letter to the union on Wednesday, which has been seen by the BBC, the government said the increase would be funded by savings in employers’ contributions to the local government pension scheme.

The letter said the 4.9 percentage point drop in what employers are expected to contribute will deliver “significant savings” on the pay bill for support staff, which will not be clawed back by central government.

The National Education Union said it expected the extra money to be around £500m, which schools can now use towards teachers pay this year.

In July, ministers accepted the recommendation of the independent pay review body for teachers and agreed a 3.5% increase from September 2026 would be followed by 3% the following year.

The pay increase had been partly funded by an additional £700m for 2026-27 and £1.1bn for the following year.

Independent economists at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said that left schools facing a shortfall of around 1% between rising costs and funding this year.

Luke Sibieta, IFS research fellow, said the extra money would mean the pay increase this year was fully funded – and on top of other funding increases, schools would be £1.6bn better off by next year than they had expected this summer.

The additional money could potentially bring the uplift for this year into line with next year.

Kebede said schools has been “running on empty” and the funding signalled “a welcome return to reality, and a message of hope for the entire school community”.

Paul Whiteman, General Secretary of the National Association of Headteachers, said the decision is “certainly welcome”, putting schools in a “better position”.

He said his union would look carefully at the detail “to determine whether this means the pay uplift is genuinely fully funded” for schools.

Pepe Di’Iasio, General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said he was “pleased” at the announcement of additional funding but “the wider pressure on school and college budgets remains intense”.

Similarly, the NASUWT union welcomed the news. General Secretary Matt Wrack added schools needed “a sustainable, long-term injection of extra funding” to meet the needs of young people.

In an indicative ballot by the NEU in April, 90% of teachers who voted said they would be prepared to take industrial action over funding and pay, on a turnout of 48%.

A formal ballot was due to begin on 3 October and close 15 December, raising the prospects of teachers pay strikes early in 2027.

The national executive of the NEU will meet on 24 September to consider whether to call that off following the additional funding on offer from the government.

A spokesperson for Education Secretary Lucy Powell said the government was “confident schools can now meet the costs of the award at a national level”.

“The Secretary of State has been clear from day one that supporting teacher recruitment, retention and wellbeing, and rebuilding the relationship with the profession, are among her top priorities.”