In recent years, banning or restricting children’s access to smartphones and social media has grasped the attention of policy makers, schools and parents. A number of countries, including France, Turkey, Norway, Sweden, and regions of the US and Canada have introduced laws, policies or guidance for schools to ‘ban’ or heavily restrict the use of phones. Within Ireland, in 2024, the Minister for Education announced her intention to introduce smartphone bans in post-primary schools, whilst at the same time acknowledging that individual schools are best placed to decide on the scope and scale of restrictions for their students.

Whilst these bans aim to protect children from harm, and teachers often anecdotally report seeing benefits, evaluations of existing research highlight a lack of evidence on their efficacy. At the moment, we simply don't know enough about the impact of bans. Evidence is hampered by the fact that technological developments and technology use is moving at a faster pace than research. Some studies suggest that bans are beneficial to academic outcomes and mental wellbeing. Others suggest no effects. However, many studies have methodological weaknesses, use small samples or retrospective data, and can't ascribe causal mechanisms.

Our latest Researcher of the Month, Dr Megan Reynolds, has recently published a paper which explores young people's perspectives and experiences of smartphone bans in their schools. Unlike most previous research, it centres student voices in this high profile issue.

Summary

The researchers carried out focus groups during the first year of full phone bans at a set of schools in Ireland. They spoke with 66 students, 44 girls and 22 boys aged between 10 and 18 years old. The schools that feature in the study were chosen as early adopters of full bans. Prior to full bans, most of the schools had policies which restricted phone use at certain times of the day.

Secondary and senior schools in the study had introduced various measures to keep students from looking at their phones. Some gave every student a locked pouch in which to place their smartphone at the start of each day. Students could then keep the pouch with them in their bag before unlocking it using a special device at the end of each day. Other schools required students to place their smartphones into clear boxes mounted on the outside of their lockers, which were locked with either a padlock or combination until the end of the day. Within primary settings, the schools in the study tended to implement voluntary codes, designed to encourage parents to delay smartphone acquisition, though children frequently accessed digital content at home via other family devices.

Whilst bans are implemented with the best intentions from school staff, it is clear that students in the study did not feel that their voices were included in decision-making and they expressed a desire to have a say in decisions on both this issue and other aspects of their school lives. Students in the study identified factors that they considered more pressing and important than phone bans, such as the state of school facilities and health issues.

Most students in the study welcomed some restrictions and support around phone use, but objected to the notion of a full ban. They felt that blanket bans implied that they weren't trusted to manage their own phone use during school hours appropriately. A prominent theme was a sense of injustice. Students felt that they were being punished for the actions of a few who might have misused previous, more lenient policies, and they didn’t think this was fair. The students felt a greater sense of division with school staff. Spot checks, where teachers checked bags and ensured that pouches were closed, compounded this sense of mistrust, and impacted on student/teacher communication. Some students also referenced a perceived double standard or hypocrisy in behaviour, noting that teachers also cause distractions to the learning environment with their phone use.

The interviews revealed that the stricter the phone ban, the more students looked for ways to subvert it. Once a ban was in place, students reported actively seeking ways around it. They also said they felt more preoccupied with their phones than they had been before the ban.

One rationale behind bans is to reduce anxiety and distraction that might be caused by repeated notifications throughout the school day. However, some of the young people in this study, who had previously been able to contact their parents or carers if they wished, reported that being unable to do so created feelings of anxiety and vulnerability.

Students said they were told that reducing cyberbullying was a key reason for phone bans, but they neither understood nor accepted this rationale. Most reported no personal experience of cyberbullying and were unaware of it being an issue in their schools before the ban. They felt that banning phones in school would not stop cyberbullying, as it was more likely to occur outside school hours, a view supported by research showing that most cyberbullying happens outside of school hours.

Importantly, students argued that smartphone bans do not teach self-regulation or prepare them for life beyond school, where no one will manage their phone use for them. They felt that under previous, more flexible rules, where using a phone in class led to its removal, they learned more about when phone use was appropriate.

What did students suggest instead of bans?

Students suggested that schools should consider more flexible phone policies, noting that different learners have different needs (a view supported by international research). They favoured rules that trust students to keep phones in their bags, with clear guidelines and fair consequences for misuse. They also strongly highlighted the need for education on navigating the digital world safely, recognising harmful content or cyberbullying, and knowing what to do if they encounter it. They felt that if money was being spent on pouches and boxes for bans (pouches cost around 20 euros per student), it would be better spent on digital literacy education.

Implications

What can schools do?

Implement any new strategy only after thoughtful consideration. It’s important to consider what inadvertent impact phone bans might have on school culture, pupil-teacher relationships, mutual trust and respect, and individual students’ needs.

Remember that teachers and pupils value nuances in policies. A nuanced and well thought out policy can cater for different demographics of pupils, different ways of learning, different approaches and different levels of education.

Consult students meaningfully and act on their feedback. While many have valuable suggestions and want to be heard, some in the study felt that non-anonymous surveys or casual questions were tokenistic, unlikely to spark change, and could have personal repercussions. Genuine consultation means creating safe spaces for open discussion, not just requesting feedback without follow-through. Dr Reynolds suggests that creative workshops can be an effective way to boost engagement. Students are generally aware that phones could be distracting in lessons and would like more support to use them appropriately, but feel that blanket bans are unfair. The Lundy Model of Child Participation is a helpful framework involving children and young people meaningfully in decision making.

Remember that bans do not address essential digital literacy needs. Carefully consider what a meaningful digital literacy curriculum should include. Students in the study often found existing lessons boring, irrelevant or out of date. Why not survey your student body to identify content they will value? Within Dr Reynolds' study, students wanted to feel armed with practical skills for real situations.

Try to keep up with the research. New evidence is constantly emerging. Make an effort to keep pace with it, rather than making decisions based on conjecture. Tooled Up can help here!

And at home?

Remember that open communication is key. Your children are likely to be having very different digital experiences to you, and a very different childhood to the one that you remember. Chat with them about their online world, ask them about their experiences, lean in, and keep going with conversations, even if they feel tricky. Talking to children about what they are engaging with will help to encourage critical thinking and hopefully promote a stronger likelihood of them opening up if they need help or see something that upsets them.

Use devices together. Co-using, such as browsing social media or watching YouTube with your child, can spark natural, non-judgemental conversations about what they see and whether it is appropriate.

Ask your child how platforms work. Many young people in the study felt that they were more knowledgeable about social media and other digital platforms than their parents. Use this as an opportunity to start conversations. Ask them to show you features and give you advice.

Tooled Up members can listen to our interview with Dr Megan Reynolds here. Remember, if you are a Tooled Up member, you also have access to our whole platform, which is packed with evidence-based resources designed to support children in the digital world.