CELPIP Listening Part 6 Practice Test: Smartphones for Children

NARRATOR: For many parents, the moment a child first asks for a smartphone arrives sooner than expected, often around the age of nine or ten, and usually accompanied by the argument that everyone else already has one. In several Canadian cities, groups of parents have begun signing collective pledges to delay smartphones until their children finish elementary school, reasoning that the pressure is easier to withstand when no family has to withstand it alone. Critics contend that such pledges answer a complicated question far too simply.

NARRATOR: Developmental psychologist Helen Moreau is among the pledges' most vocal supporters. She points to research associating heavy smartphone use in late childhood with disrupted sleep, diminished concentration and rising anxiety. In her view, the problem is not the device itself but what it delivers: endless scrolling, constant comparison with peers, and notifications deliberately engineered to be irresistible. A basic phone that only calls and texts, she suggests, provides the reassurance parents want without the distractions they fear. Moreau also dismisses the claim that children without smartphones will be excluded, noting that when entire classrooms wait together, nobody is left out. She adds that the age at which Canadian children receive their first smartphone has fallen steadily over the past decade.

NARRATOR: Marcus Bell, a father of three and a former school technology coordinator, considers this approach well-intentioned but unrealistic. Children, he argues, will encounter smartphones at friends' houses and on school buses regardless of what their parents decide, and a child who discovers social media at fourteen, without guidance, is arguably more vulnerable than one who learned gradually at eleven with a parent looking over their shoulder. Bell also observes that for children who travel between two households, or who ride public transit alone, a phone with maps and location sharing is less a luxury than a lifeline. He also worries that outright bans can backfire, encouraging children to borrow devices secretly, beyond any parental supervision whatsoever.

NARRATOR: Interestingly, the two agree on more than their debate suggests. Both favour firm limits at bedtime, and both are sharply critical of technology companies that design apps to maximize children's screen time. Their disagreement is ultimately about timing and trust. Perhaps the more pressing question is why parents are left to settle this family by family, while the corporations profiting from children's attention face remarkably little scrutiny. Until that changes, families will keep negotiating, one dinner-table argument at a time.