When I was a 6th grader, I played Diablo II online. A player named "I-Dupe" told me he'd duplicate my items and give them to me. I thought he had a program to do this.
I gave him my items, and he left the game. My items were not duped; I was. I bawled, and ran downstairs and yelled to my parents. They offered consolation and advice ("be careful online"). But you can tell my parents couldn't ameliorate my hurt feelings.
If I could wave a magic wand, I'd turn this situation--wherein parents have to cope with the relationship between their kids and the web--to one where parents can do something about it. The ridicule I've seen in HN's comments just now demonstrates that age requirements don't work and appear disingenuous. I'm also skeptical of what someone from UK Safer Internet Centre said, "It's so important that we show children what other things they can do using digital technology that are engaging, creative and age-appropriate. It's about showing them what else it could be and inspiring them with that." When we make things for people "less" than us (young, less-tech-literate, etc), we often make something crappy[0].
[0] http://paulgraham.com/javacover.html relevant excerpt: Like the creators of sitcoms or junk food or package tours, Java's designers were consciously designing a product for people not as smart as them.
This "smart people creating for people less than them" problem is exacerbated with students. You can convince almost any unemployed adult to learn Java by telling them it's profitable, even if they can detect condescension. But students are just as good at detecting condescension, and these "engaging, creative, and age-appropriate" tools are probably made to occupy students' time, not make them money.