Phone Bans in Schools: A Missed Opportunity for Digital Education?

Are we tackling the real issue by banning smartphones in schools, or are we avoiding the harder task of teaching young people how to use them responsibly? 

A graphic with a hand holding a smartphone displaying a video and social media icons on either side. Created in Canva by Christine.

As the debate over school phone bans gains momentum worldwide, policymakers cite concerns about student distraction, mental health, and online harm. Statistics from the Global Education Monitoring report, reveal that 40 per cent of education systems globally had laws and policies banning smartphone use in school at the end of 2024. Proponents of phone bans argue that social media and online content negatively impact students’ well-being, with terms like "brain rot" — the idea that social media consumption reduces intelligence among young people, making them less attentive and engaged—gaining traction in public discourse. 

However, research by Andrew Przybylski at the Oxford Internet Institute challenges this narrative. He notes that studies claiming a link between screen time and cognitive decline often confuse correlation with causation (Fleming, The Guardian, 2025). His team analysed data from nearly 12,000 children and found no measurable impact of screen time on cognitive function or well-being.

Concerns about "brain rot" have also been challenged by researcher Emilie Owens (Psyche, 2025) who suggests that teenagers actively seek out so-called "brain rot" content on platforms like TikTok as a deliberate coping mechanism. Rather than mindless consumption, it serves as a form of stress relief in a world where academic pressure and societal expectations are overwhelming. 

Similarly, a student op-ed published in Education Week (2024) argued that adults often misunderstand young people's media consumption, failing to recognise the sense of community and connection that digital spaces provide.

 

The Root of Online Gender-Based Violence and Cyberbullying

Another justification for school phone bans is the need to protect students from online harassment and gender-based violence (GBV) online. However, GBV online is not caused by phones but by entrenched and harmful societal norms and behaviours. As UNESCO’s Connect with Respect (2021) programme highlights, violence prevention requires education on gender equality and respect-based communication. Banning phones does nothing to challenge harmful gender norms that fuel online harassment; it only limits young people's ability to engage with digital spaces where these conversations should take place.

Cyberbullying is also often cited as a reason for banning phones. While banning technology won’t eliminate bullying, it does recognise how digital spaces amplify its intensity. Smartphones mean that bullying is no longer confined to the schoolyard—it follows students home, making it more persistent and harder to escape. However, research suggests that education can help mitigate the impact of online bullying. A systematic review by Lan, Law, and Pan (2022) found that social-emotional learning (SEL) programmes can contribute to reducing cyber-aggression and victimisation by promoting empathy and positive peer interactions. While empathy alone doesn’t solve cyberbullying, it plays a role in prevention by encouraging students to reflect on their online behaviour and be more mindful of the impact on others. 

If we acknowledge that smartphones have made bullying more intense and inescapable, why aren’t we equipping students with the skills to handle these challenges instead of simply removing the technology? Some argue that banning phones reduces immediate risks, making schools safer spaces. However, without digital literacy education, students may still encounter harmful online behaviours outside of school, without the tools to respond effectively. A balanced approach that combines structured digital literacy with responsible technology use policies may offer a more sustainable solution.

Placing the Burden on Teachers

An overlooked consequence of blanket bans is the burden they could place on teachers and school leaders. Educators are already managing heavy workloads, and expecting them to enforce phone policies may add yet another layer of responsibility. As the recent Australian social media ban for under-16s has shown (Flew, LSE Media Blog, 2025), such regulations are often rushed, leaving teachers and schools with the logistical challenge of enforcement. Policymakers should invest in professional development opportunities for educators and clear digital education strategies rather than expecting teachers to police students’ technology use.

The Bigger Picture: Meaningful Digital Education

The argument that phones disrupt learning is valid—students can be distracted by notifications and social media. However, removing distractions doesn’t teach students how to manage them. Edge Hill University researchers (2024) found no conclusive evidence that social media negatively affects mental health, suggesting that the real issue is time management rather than screen exposure itself. Teaching students how to focus in a tech-rich environment is, and will continue to be a crucial life skill. 

Blanket bans may offer a simple solution, but they fail to address the root causes of online harm and digital distraction.  A balanced approach—one that prioritises digital education over prohibition—could better prepare students for the complexities of the digital world. Schools should not be about restriction but empowerment, equipping young people with the knowledge and skills they need to thrive in both online and offline spaces.

By shifting the focus from bans to education, we ensure that students are not just shielded from potential harms but are actively prepared to face and address them.

Note: This article was orginally published on LinkedIn on 28 February 2025.