Global Education Monitoring Report 2023 (UNESCO)

Some who support the introduction of smartphone bans in schools have referenced the Global Education Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2023) claiming that it recommends banning smartphones in schools.

However, a full reading of the report reveals that it does not explicitly recommend banning smartphones from schools. Instead, it does acknowledge that some countries have implemented mobile phone bans or restrictions in schools due to concerns about privacy, safety, classroom disruption, and well-being (UNESCO, 2023, p.158). For instance, some schools in countries such as France, Spain, and the United Kingdom have introduced smartphone bans in the belief that they will improve academic performance and reduce distractions in classrooms.

Rather than advocating for a blanket ban, the report discusses the importance of establishing clear policies for the responsible use of technology. It suggests that effective policies should include transparency, clarity, and evidence-based decisions while ensuring that students are educated on the risks and opportunities of using technology.

The report emphasizes the balance between managing risks associated with technology and preparing students for a digital future, rather than universally banning devices like smartphones in schools.

PISA Data

In the PISA 2022 survey, school administrators were asked to report if there was a smartphone ban in their school [i.e., the use of smartphones is not allowed on school premises] (OECD, 2023). Kemp and colleagues (2024) analysed the responses and found that when the percentage of schools that ban phones in a country is plotted against mean results in science, mathematics and reading for that country, a statistically significant but small negative trend exists (p < .001***, R ² = .13). They found that for every 10 per cent increase in the number of schools in a country banning phones, PISA scores fall by 0.09 of a standard deviation, or 9.4 points. In other words, the higher the percentage of schools in a particular country that have bans in place for phones, the lower that country’s average PISA score.

Additionally, they found that OECD countries appear to perform very differently from non-OECD countries, getting higher science, mathematics and reading results on average, and being less likely to implement bans. Kemp and colleagues (2024) found that when gender, social class, and school behaviour are controlled for, students in schools with smartphone bans have lower achievement across their PISA test scores than those in schools that allow phone use. Based on preliminary analysis of the PISA data, the researchers concluded that when considering a smartphone ban, the relationship between a range of variables – not just student distraction – should be investigated to support policymakers in deciding to implement smartphone bans in schools.

United Kingdom

A recent study by Goodyear and colleagues (2025) undertook a cross-sectional observational study with adolescents from 30 English secondary schools, comprising 20 schools with restrictive and 10 with permissive policies. The study found that restrictive school policies did not lead to lower phone and social media use, nor better mental wellbeing outcomes in adolescents. The researchers concluded that there is no evidence to support that restrictive school phone policies, in their current forms, have a beneficial effect on adolescents’ mental health and wellbeing or related outcomes.
A quantitative study by Beland and Murphy (2016) examined exam scores in post-primary school students and found that in schools that implemented a mobile phone ban, the ban had slightly better results for underachieving students but had no significant effect on high-achieving students. Beland and Murphy (2016) suggested that the most likely explanation for this difference is that low-achieving students may have poorer self-control and become distracted by the presence of mobile phones, whilst high-achievers might be more focused in the classroom regardless of the mobile phone policy.

Another study in the UK involved a large-scale test of the so-called Goldilocks Hypothesis to examine the relationship between digital screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. The findings demonstrated that moderate use of digital technology is not intrinsically harmful and may be advantageous in a connected world (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2017).

In addition, other researchers in the UK presented a critical account of the shortcomings of the literature on screen time (Kaye et al., 2020). The authors highlight that existing research on screen time showed mixed results and there is a lack of longitudinal evidence for casual or long-term effects. Further, the authors outline that a shortcoming of literature on screen time includes poor conceptualisation of what screen time is, as there is no universally accepted definition amongst experts. Thus, it is difficult to determine what is specifically meant by screen time, as it is a quite vast conceptualisation.

It is unsurprising that the authors highlighted that there is a wide variation in self-report measures used to capture screen time (Kaye et al., 2020). For example, some studies have examined ‘total screen time’ in respect to a certain timeframe (e.g., in the last week), whereas other studies ask about estimated amount of screen time on a school day and non-school day. Other studies take a different approach by asking participants about what type of device they use or their activity (e.g., passive use/TV viewing, social media use etc) or focusing on one specific technology use or the use of a specific platform. This wide variety of questions asked to participants may account for the mixed findings on screen time and its impacts, particularly among adolescents. Finally, it is important to note that self-report measures are common practice in social science research, however evidence suggests that they can be particularly ill-fitting for gaining accurate information on an individual’s technology related use (Ellis, 2019; Sewall et al., 2020).

The largest study ever of internet use and wellbeing, which involved 2.4 million participants in 168 countries found that on average, across countries and demographics, individuals (including children) who had internet access, mobile internet access, or actively used the internet, reported greater levels of life satisfaction, positive experiences online, experiences of purpose, and physical, community, and social well-being, and lower levels of negative experiences (Vuorre & Przybylski, 2023). The researchers in this study found that their results did not provide evidence supporting the view that the Internet and technologies enabled by it, such as smartphones, actively promote or harm well-being/mental health.

USA

Researchers from the USA utilised two nationally representative surveys of more than half a million adolescents in the USA to examine screen time on ‘new media’ (including social media and electronic devices, such as smartphones) and mental health impacts (Twenge et al., 2018). The authors concluded that adolescents who report higher levels of screen time were more likely to report mental health issues. However, more recent research and meta-analyses demonstrate that there is conflicting evidence on screen-time, use of technology and mental health impacts amongst adolescent samples.

One major review of existing research in the USA (Ivie et al., 2020) focused on social media and depression among 11–18-year olds concluded that social media is one of the least influential factors predicting adolescents’ mental health. In fact, the most influential factors include family history of mental illness, early exposure to adverse experiences, and family-related stressors.

A more recent study from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2023) on ‘Social Media and Adolescent Mental Health’, found that available research that links social media to mental health shows small effects and weak associations, which may be influenced by a combination of good and bad experiences. The research team concluded that contrary to the current cultural narrative that social media is universally harmful to adolescents, the reality is more complicated than this narrative suggests.

Recently another meta-analysis from researchers in the United States and United Kingdom on 46 studies on adolescent social media use and mental health (Ferguson et al., 2024) found that current research is unable to support claims of harmful effects for social media use on adolescent mental health (e.g., anxiety and depression). The researchers highlighted that there were methodological issues with the current research and recommended that caution should be taken when attributing mental health harm to social media use for adolescents, as the current evidence does not support this.

Further, these researchers highlighted that it is not unreasonable for parents to ask questions or be concerned about their adolescent’s social media use, however, parents are currently being misled by unsupportable rhetoric from some policymakers and professionals to believe that the evidence for harm is greater than it is (Ferguson et al., 2024). Finally, these researchers advocate that policymakers and professionals should adopt more cautious reporting standards when discussing social concerns which the evidence for is weak.

Sweden

Researchers in Sweden replicated Beland and Murphy’s (2016) study by conducting a quantitative study investigating whether smartphone bans had a positive impact on academic performance (Kessel et al., 2020). That study found no impact of smartphone bans, either positive or negative, on student’s academic performance and rejected small-sized gains. Notably, Kessel and colleagues (2020) collected data from the entire country’s population of 15–16-year-olds, unlike Beland and Murphy (2016) who only sampled participants from four UK cities. Echoing Beland and Murphy (2016) in the UK, the authors suggest that on the face of it banning phones looks like a “low-cost” solution and such bans should not be expected to change the basis of students’ performance drastically.

A qualitative study in Sweden on student experiences of smartphone bans found that students were left balancing their phone usage with the teachers’ arbitrary enforcement of policy. The researchers concluded that, despite this, smartphones are increasingly becoming a resource in the students’ infrastructure for learning (Ott et al., 2018).

Australia

Recently, two leading experts from Queensland University of Technology and The University of Queensland in Australia, along with a team of researchers, conducted a scoping review on global evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools (Campbell et al., 2024). The aim of this review was to examine whether student mobile phone use at school is beneficial or disruptive to engagement and learning and investigate the impact of using mobile phones at school on academic outcomes, mental health wellbeing and cyberbullying. Global research on mobile phone bans improving academic performance is conflicting, as the authors cited that reconciling the results was challenging and findings should be treated with caution due to the differences in methods and measures, as well as discrepancies with operational definitions of the bans. Due to this complexity, interpretation of findings that may inform policies requires a nuanced approach.

Further, this review by Campbell and colleagues (2024) found that research examining the relationship between attitudes to mobile phone use (i.e., correlational relationship) and student learning is mixed, as some studies demonstrate that bans help improve learning and other studies do not show any improvement. Interestingly studies, which were conducted in different settings, found that students prefer to have autonomy with their phone use at school regardless of the policy, with many reporting that they use their devices despite the bans (Gao et al., 2017; Howlett & Waemusa, 2019; Walker, 2013).

In this review (Campbell et al., 2024), studies that explored the evidence to support smartphone bans in schools for protecting student mental health and wellbeing were inconclusive. Further, research supporting smartphone bans for reducing bullying and cyberbullying is also divided. The review’s authors stated how crucial it is to recognise that banning mobile phones and not banning other internet connected devices in schools is a simplistic solution that is unlikely to have any meaningful impact.

In addition, if a student wants to cyberbully another student, they could use any tool available to them at school, such as laptops, tablets, smartwatches or library computers. It is also important to note that cyberbullying often happens outside of school hours and off school grounds (Smith et al., 2008) and is usually an online expression of offline bullying (Wolke et al. 2017). In addition, by banning phones there is a risk of driving cyberbullying behaviour underground or making students more underhand (Brewer, 2014). The review by Campbell and colleagues (2024) concludes by recommending that policymakers and school administrators should emphasise the importance of teaching critical digital literacy skills and responsible device use in schools. Without this vital education and support to safely navigate online spaces, providing children and adolescents with unrestricted access to smartphones potentially places them at greater risk of harm from digital predators or harmful content.

Benefits and Drawbacks of Smartphones

During discussions on the role of smartphones in their lives, students expressed a nuanced view. Most of the students stated that a benefit of having a smartphone is the independence and safety it provides, with one student explaining:

Another student echoed this sentiment on safety:

Other students talked about other benefits to smartphones, such as:

For students across all focus groups, smartphones are intrinsically linked with their life and assist in maintaining friendships, providing safety, and learning. Thus, smartphones are not viewed by adolescents as inherently bad or dangerous, instead they understood that smartphones can be used for good or bad activities and/or behaviours.

One student explained how adolescents can see the benefits and risks of social media, whereas adults only have a negative perception of social media:

In another focus group, one student said that they had never seen any adults provide proof of their concerns, which made it difficult to understand adults’ perspectives:

Lack of Student Voice & Agency

Most students indicated that they were not consulted before or after the introduction of a smartphone ban in their school. For example, one group told us that:

In a different focus group, one student discussed how there is a mixed view on the ban in their school, but highlighting how they had not been consulted about the ban:

Other students informed us of the reasons provided to them for the ban being implemented in their school:

Students indicated that they abided by the previous mobile phone policy and would not use their phone during class time. However, they now felt that they were being punished for the bad behaviour of a few others and that this was not fair. Students felt that those who broke the rules should be the ones who are punished. One student explained this position:

Others explained that there had been restrictions in place before the ban, which were adequate, and they also felt that the ban was unrealistic when, similar to adults, smartphones are already blended into their daily life. They were frustrated that they had not been given an opportunity to explain this to those who introduced the ban in their school:

As highlighted above, most students said that they were not consulted about the smartphone ban and, in most schools, teachers have not asked for their opinions on the ban since it was implemented. This led into a wider discussion on how students generally have little say about what happens within schools, whether that is with regard to uniforms, facilities, what is taught and learned, and school policies. Most students expressed frustration at the limited role student councils had in their school. Students said that teachers or the principal retain all the power to make decisions.

One student said:

Students stated that they have no voice in decisions and have no other recourse but to do what teachers tell them. Students said that schools disempower them and indicated that their opinions are unimportant, particularly on any policies or initiatives that directly impact them. A small number of students even expressed that a smartphone ban in their school is in direct contention with their rights as a child.

For example, one participant stated:

Students felt that there was more people in power could do to elevate the student voice and agency, with one student explaining:

Students also discussed that in the cases of trying to contact home or go home from school due to being sick, they felt that teachers do not take students seriously. One student said:

Further, students rejected the perspective of parents and teachers that the ban will allow students to be more social with one another. Students felt that they should have autonomy over who they become friends with and it is up to students to decide if they want to make more friends. One student explained:

Further, students rejected the perspective of teachers that the ban will allow students to be more social with one another. Students felt that they should have autonomy over who they become friends with and it is up to students to decide if they want to make more friends. One student explained:

For the majority of students in this study, they felt that school staff (Teachers, Secretaries and Principals) do not hear students’ opinions on issues that directly impact them, nor do they feel as if their voice is important. Students want to be listened to by adults and believe that more could be done to elevate their voices on issues around school life, including the use of smartphones.

Preparation for a Blended Life

Students said that they felt that the ban did not teach them anything useful, as it did not prepare them for life and work outside, and after school. They spoke about how they were not building digital literacy, critical thinking, resilience and social skills around phone use. One student explained that:

This student went on to further explain that a ban in school would remove a safe space where adolescents can learn about the online world and make mistakes at an age where it’s more socially acceptable for mistakes to happen, and are close to adults who can support them:

Another student, in a different focus group, brought up how they believed that adolescents are not taught critical thinking skills when it comes to social media:

Other students expressed that if they aren’t receiving education on how to safely use social media then they are at risk of harm whilst on these platforms outside of school:

Students further explained that a ban will mean that they will not learn when it will be appropriate to use and not use smartphones in social settings. For example, students stated that when they are in college or employed that their smartphones will not be restricted, as they are expected to have learned when it is appropriate to use their phone.

One participant stated:

Another student explained that students needed more support and felt that a ban would make it more difficult for adolescents to understand and deal with situations regarding smartphones:

Resisting the Ban

Resistance to the ban was common among students, who achieved this through a variety of means. One student explained why they believe students resist the ban:

A fellow student further explained how other students resist the ban in their school:

This was reflected in another school where students said that it was common to break the ban:

A main rationale for implementing the ban was to prevent students from accessing their phones and reduce distractions in school. From the conversations with students across different schools, it is evident that students are finding ways to access their phones during the school day and are often distracted by thinking about how to access their phone. In fact, we found that the stricter the ban the more intensely students sought ways to subvert it.

Different Rules for Teachers

There was a perception among students that teachers were not obliged to follow the same rules for their smartphone use in schools. Students reported that they had seen teachers in class using their smartphones and on social media apps. For example, one participant said that they had seen their teacher in the classroom:

Another student had witnessed teachers on their phones throughout the school day:

Students highlighted that teachers do not model the behaviour they require from the students in this regard, as they tell students how they cannot have their phones, Students argued that teachers do not model the behaviour they require from the students in this regard, as they tell students how they cannot have their phones, but teachers can use their phones whenever they want. Further, students said that teachers often disrupt class with their own phone use:

Students were very exercised that teachers are not leading by example, particularly as they have told students how concerning smartphone use is in schools.

Better Use of Funds

Students across all schools minimised the importance of potential problems with smartphones and reported that there are more pressing issues in their schools that need to be addressed. They highlighted issues they experience with facilities in schools (broken toilets, quality of school meals, uniforms), as well as concerns about health issues. For example, one student brought up a pressing concern for them:

One group of students unanimously stated that they felt the money that the school had spent on Yondr pouches could have been put to better use:

Another group of students stated that vaping was a bigger problem in their school. One student stated:

From the students’ perspective, they experienced more immediate problems with school facilities than they did from smartphones. Students said that such concerns were more pressing and should have been dealt with first rather than focusing on banning smartphones in schools when there had already been a mobile phone policy in place.

Complexity & Vulnerability

Students emphasised how complex their lives can be and that the introduction of smartphone bans showed a lack of recognition of this by schools. One student explained:

In one focus group, there was a discussion on how adults, particularly teachers, do not acknowledge that students can have significant responsibilities at home. One student explained that:

Students wanted school policies to be flexible and recognise that they cannot always leave their home lives outside of school.

Students indicated that they do not always feel comfortable nor safe in disclosing personal issues to teachers, as they view many teachers as unfamiliar to them. One student explained why they felt this way:

Another student in a different group explained why they do not feel comfortable discussing personal issues with teachers:

In one school, with a smartphone ban, students reported that where they used to be able to make a quick call or send a text to a parent if they were unwell or had emotional issues, they now had to inform their class teacher, then the school secretary, and then the deputy principal before being allowed to make a call home. They reported that this led them to feel over exposed and vulnerable.

Minimising Online Risks & Adult Concerns

Although many of the students in this study reported that they were aware of occasional cases of cyberbullying, they explained that they felt that that smartphone bans do not prevent cyberbullying and that adults were overly concerned about this issue:

Further, students criticised adults who, they said, often amplify a situation because they were not aware of the context in which young people communicated with each other on smartphones and other devices:

They said that they felt that adults use extreme examples to over-inflate risks around smartphones. In one focus group, students explained their feelings on adults’ concerns about young people on social media and smartphones in schools:

Another student explained:

Other students, in a different focus group, felt that online bullying would not occur during school, and it is more likely that it occurs outside of school thus banning smartphones in school was pointless:

One student stated that they felt it was easier to view the smartphones as the issue rather than delving deeper into issues concerning adolescents:

Students warned against adults presuming that smartphones were to blame for the increase in adolescents being diagnosed with anxiety and depression, and instead pointed towards access to better information on mental health:

During the focus groups, students explained how adults are often more concerned than they are about the risks that can occur when using social media. They explained that technology has been a bigger part of their life compared to previous generations who may be more fearful and less equipped to respond to risks.

Many students also said that they go to friends for support about problems on social media, as they feel that parents do not fully understand social media or adolescents’ online spaces:

Most students indicated that they had a high level of trust in social media companies to protect them whilst online. For example, in relation to algorithms and safety strategies on social media apps students explained:

Throughout the focus groups in post-primary schools, most students indicated that they understand how algorithms work and have trained the algorithm to give them content they are interested in. Further, students engage safety strategies on social media apps to ensure that they remain safe whilst using these apps. Interestingly, students stated that they have a level of trust that social media apps will restrict harmful content to keep them safe when online.

Students felt that technology and social media is intrinsically blended into their lives and should not be viewed as an add-on, believing that many adults do not understand this. In fact, as highlighted above, students feel that adults are not comfortable with technology/social media and do not understand it enough to support adolescents when they encounter issues online, instead they report that adults often “overreact” and amplify issues more than is necessary.

Digital Citizenship Education

Despite the provision of considerable resources for digital education in schools, students reported that they were not taught enough in school about online safety and digital citizenship leading them instead to rely on their peers for guidance and skills:

Students further explained that using a smartphone can in fact increase their digital literacy skills and resilience, with one participant explaining this and reporting that education in school is mostly confined to computer skills more than digital citizenship:

Students showed an eagerness to learn more about online safety, as well as skillsets of good digital citizenship.

Access and Familiarity to Smartphones and Social Media Apps

Like the responses from the post-primary students, primary students also reported that they received their own phone when they were 11 or 12 years old. They also informed us that the reason they received a phone was because they were going into post-primary school and parents wanted to ensure that they had the phone for safety reasons, particularly travelling to and from school.

Students did inform us that from an early age, parents had provided access to other devices, such as an iPad. Students have access to social media apps through those devices; thus, it is not solely smartphones that provide access to social media apps for children and adolescents.

Primary school children who participated in this study attended schools where smartphones are not allowed due to parent initiated voluntary codes, which are aimed at delaying providing smartphones to children. Parents sign up to the code when their child begins primary school. Despite this, students were easily able to identity different types of smartphones (i.e. Android or iPhone) and revealed that they were frequent users of them. Students were asked how they could tell the difference, with one student explaining:

Another student explained how they could tell the difference between the make of the phones:

All students identified that the phones had icons for social media apps and informed researchers of apps they recognised:

Students then explained which apps they used, with most students saying they used YouTube explaining how they access this app with one student stating they access it:

In one focus group with primary school students from 6th class, they all reported that they had a smartphone but some also explained why they did not bring it to school:

However, members of this group did go on to express some frustration explaining that there were times they need access to a phone, specifically for travelling to and from school and attending appointments:

Another student said:

It was evident from the focus groups that if children did not have their own phone that they had access to a phone or a device within their home. Similar to post-primary school students in this study, the primary school students used phones or devices for entertainment (e.g., watching YouTube videos or shorts), completing homework and mostly to communicate with friends.

Student Acquiescence

Students were clear on why their parents did not allow them to have their own phone while in primary school repeating what they had heard from their parents:

Students who did not have their own phone talked about what they might use one for when they go to post-primary school:

Another student in this group felt that they would need a phone to have more independence in post-primary school:

Interestingly, primary students did not seem overly concerned about cyberbullying and reported that it was not something that had happened to them or anyone they knew.

In relation to spending too much time on a phone, students expressed trust in their parents to guide them on how to regulate their usage:

These younger students seemed to rely less on smartphones and other devices instead spending more time on school and/or other leisure activities such as sports, dance, and playdates.

Another student said:

Overall, it seemed that these primary students had yet to develop a realisation about the scope of content and activities that can be accessed on smartphones and were more inclined to engage in offline activities that preoccupied them, relying on their parents to mediate the online world for them.

Learning about Online Safety

Primary school students stated that they learn about how to be safe online from the internet itself, their parents and in school:

One student said:

Students reported that online safety lessons were delivered by teachers and outside speakers. However, while primary school students seemed to have a higher awareness of digital safety education than post-primary students, they also expressed some frustration in that they said the information is repetitive and they watch the same safety videos each year:

Overall students in primary schools said that they mostly relied on their parents to learn about online safety.

In line with the Lundy approach to children’s participation, students in primary and post-primary were asked what advice they would give to the Minister for Education regarding smartphones in schools.

Student responses covered topics from the introduction of a new policy on smartphones to the provision of education on digital wellbeing. One student said:

Another student believed that the previous more flexible school rules should be reintroduced stating:

Another student had the same opinion stating:

For these students and others, they believed that enforcing the previous more flexible approach was fairer, as they felt it was unfair to punish all students for a select few who misused their phones. For them, phone misuse should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Another student outlined how technology has a big part for learning in the classroom:

Other students believed that it was important that students are educated about how to be safer online, specifically taught skills on how to identify harmful content, and what they should do if they encounter such content. Students stated that social media is not the problem, rather it’s adolescents’ lack of knowledge on how to navigate it safely:

Other students believed that putting resources into smartphone bans was not beneficial, as resources need to be put into digital education instead:

Students wanted the government to issue advice via an awareness campaign to children and adolescents across the country on how they could stay safe online. This student wanted children and adolescents to know practical skills to be safe online and provided one example of this:

Overall, students did not support the idea of a smartphone ban and the use of resources to implement that ban. Instead, they had practical solutions to issues around smartphone use in schools, with the majority of students feeling strongly that education rather than a ban or restrictive approach was the best solution to keeping them safe. They emphasised that they needed to be prepared for the challenges they would meet online in the future.