Schools across the world are fast implementing mobile phone restrictions, from outright bans to curbing usage to certain areas or times of the day, all in an effort to encourage students to be more sociable or to prevent cyber bullying or to ensure that lessons can proceed without the unwanted disruptions that mobile phones can cause. According to the UNESCO Global Monitoring report which focuses on technology in education, almost one in 4 countries has adopted some kind of ban on mobile phones. Whilst the specific details remain unclear about how these bans are both implemented and adopted, this move reveals growing concerns about the ubiquity of these devices in school and the issues they potentially bring.
Indeed, schools across the UK quickly adopted bans. The DFE (UK Department For Education) even went as far as to produce a white paper providing schools with guidance on how they can develop, implement and maintain a mobile phone ban. Along with this paper came a suite of other guidance documents ranging from toolkits, to mobile phone free cultures and case studies which all can be found here. Clearly, the issue is significant for school leaders.
But why are schools in such a rush to ban mobile phones? Whilst this might seem like an obvious question, the answer might not be equally conspicuous. I think it’s worth lingering on this question for a moment, and whilst we do, taking a moment to consider the evidence. Being sufficiently informed about the argument is beneficial for several reasons: 1) school leaders can present clear rationales to parents, staff and students from an evidence informed basis, and 2) they can then measure the impact of their actions by focusing on specific outcomes as opposed to drawing vague and general conclusions like “I think it’s worked really well in our school”. Furthermore, researchers Bottger and Zierer (2023) state that “when smartphones are banned in schools by education policy, this is often based on subjective beliefs and not on scientific evidence”. This suggests that school leaders should think more carefully about what reasons are driving the ban. For the purposes of exploring the evidence base, I think it’s helpful to divide the argument into two teams: Team A is the academic performance argument i.e. mobile phone use in schools hinders students’ academic progress, and Team B is the social wellbeing argument, which suggests that phone use negatively impacts students’ friendships and their overall experience as a citizen in the school community.
Team A – the academic progress argument
In my own experience, I’ve heard this argument many times before. If only the kids didn’t have the bloody phones, they’d focus on their work. Or, they cheat like bandits (one of my colleagues actually said this verbatim), and the only way to stop it is to completely ban phones! From anecdotal evidence, it seems like phone use in schools is making kids dumber.
But hang on, is it really? According to some of the evidence, this might not be the case. In a meta-analysis of the impact of mobile phone bans, researchers found a d=0.05 effect on academic progress. If we are to subscribe to Hattie’s philosophy of interventions worth pursuing, this level of impact would fall far short. By the way, Hattie suggests anything with d=0.4 impact on pupil learning is worth considering (in case you were wondering). Considering the time, resources and energy required to implement a mobile phone ban, it’d be worth considering whether the expenditure:reward ratio makes sense for such small gains in learning.
Team B – the social wellbeing argument
As a senior leader for pastoral care, I’ve had to deal with several incidents of cyber-bullying, social exclusion and sharing of age-inappropriate content through misuse of smartphones. My argument for banning mobile phones has primarily been based in these contexts. But perhaps I am biased. This is where we should naturally turn to the evidence. In the same meta-analysis cited earlier, after scouring a significant quantity of research studies on mobile phone bans, the authors concluded “the results suggest that a smartphone ban can be expected to have positive effects, particularly in the social sphere”. By social sphere, this can be taken to mean the positive relationships between pupils, a sense of belonging and feeling connected to one’s peers and environment. Furthermore, the effect of the ban on social wellbeing was measured at d=0.22, this is almost four times greater than the impact on academic performance! When considered in the light of Jonathan Haidt’s campaign to improve adolescent mental health through the reduction in smartphone use, the social wellbeing argument becomes even more compelling.
A nuanced argument – not black and white.
Right now it feels like everyone is jumping on the mobile phone ban bandwagon without fully understanding the rationale behind their decisions. Different contexts require different approaches. For example, The Ministry of Education in Singapore has promoted the use of smart devices for learning purposes whilst implementing security measures to curb misuse, which suggests there are academic and digital literacy benefits to be gained from using smartphones. Conversely, the banning of phones has been shown to have a positive impact on the academic outcomes of disadvantaged students (Rahali, Kidron and Livingstone 2024). This raises all sorts of questions about mobile phone use amongst different groups of students in different countries which we do not have time to explore here. School leaders would do well to think about their specific contexts and communities they serve before investing time and energy in detailed policies.
With growing concerns around student mental health, particularly amongst teenage girls, I think there is a strong argument for not only instituting restrictions but educating communities about some of the risks and benefits. After all, having an evidenced based approach is likely to have far more of a long-lasting impact than following a herd mentality and getting swept up in the hype.