A policy that looks decisive—but risks ignoring how young people actually use technology
The Department for Education’s renewed push for mobile phone‑free schools has been presented as common sense: phones distract, social media harms wellbeing, therefore remove the device and improve learning. It is a neat narrative, politically attractive and easy to communicate. But it risks mistaking visibility for impact.
The reality on the ground is far less dramatic. The majority of schools in England already restrict or ban mobile phone use during lessons, and many go further by requiring phones to be handed in at the start of the day. This is not a radical new safeguard; it is established practice. Framing the guidance as a decisive intervention feels less like policy innovation and more like a gesture designed to reassure an anxious electorate.
The deeper problem is that this debate focuses obsessively on the device, rather than on the behaviour, systems and education that sit around it.
Control, Not Capability, Is the Real Difference
The DfE is simultaneously encouraging schools to invest heavily in education technology: laptops, Chromebooks and school‑managed iPads. On the surface, this looks contradictory. Why ban one screen while promoting another?
The answer lies in control. School‑managed devices operate within tightly governed ecosystems. They connect to filtered networks, are locked down through mobile device management software, and are used at the direction of the teacher for defined learning purposes. Personal mobile phones, by contrast, connect to private networks that bypass school filtering entirely.
But here is the uncomfortable truth: banning phones does not remove phones from young people’s lives. It simply pushes their use outside the school gate, beyond any safeguarding framework schools can influence. If anything, it reduces the opportunities for schools to monitor and support safe usage.
And this matters, because the risks associated with digital technology, cyberbullying, exposure to harmful content, and excessive use, do not begin and end at the school gate. As Weiss and Bonell (2025) note, the causal relationship between smartphone use and harm is complex and poorly understood, and simple restriction policies may not address the underlying behaviours that drive risk.
What the Evidence Really Says
Research into mobile phone bans is far less conclusive than public debate suggests. A major UK study published in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe examined pupils across 30 English secondary schools and found no evidence that restrictive phone policies improved mental wellbeing or overall academic outcomes (Goodyear et al., 2025). While in‑school phone use decreased, overall levels of use did not, suggesting that behaviour was displaced rather than meaningfully reduced.
International evidence points in a similar direction. Analysis of OECD PISA data indicates that countries with higher levels of school phone bans do not see improved attainment; in fact, there is evidence of a small negative association between the prevalence of bans and student performance (Kemp, Brock and O’Brien, 2024). This does not prove that bans are harmful, but it does challenge the assumption that they are inherently beneficial.
Even the most commonly cited pro‑ban study, Beland and Murphy (2016), which found modest improvements in attainment following bans, provides only partial support for the policy. The improvements were relatively small and concentrated among the lowest‑attaining pupils, within a specific set of conditions. Importantly, this study does not establish that bans are an effective system‑level solution in modern, highly connected digital environments.
The wider academic picture is best described as mixed. Systematic reviews suggest that any benefits of bans tend to be modest and context‑dependent, reinforcing the idea that blanket policies are a blunt tool for a nuanced challenge(Böttger and Zierer, 2024).
Education, Not Elimination
If schools are serious about safeguarding and outcomes, the more difficult conversation is about education. Young people will live, work and socialise through connected devices for the rest of their lives. Removing phones from sight does not teach responsible use, digital literacy, or self‑regulation.
We would not respond to poor writing by banning pens. Nor would we address unhealthy eating by refusing to teach nutrition. Yet when it comes to digital technology, policy too often reaches for elimination rather than education.
OECD evidence suggests that moderate, structured use of digital devices for learning is associated with better outcomes, while excessive or unregulated use is linked to poorer performance (OECD, 2023). The issue, then, is not the presence of technology itself, but how it is used.
And this brings us to an unresolved inconsistency. A tablet is, functionally, a large smartphone. It runs the same applications, accesses the same platforms, and presents many of the same risks. Will Ofsted inspectors begin checking screen sizes or operating systems? Will compliance hinge on whether a device contains certain apps? It seems unlikely.
What inspectors will continue to evaluate is whether schools have a credible safeguarding culture, clear behaviour expectations, and systems that demonstrably protect pupils.
A Better Question
The real policy question is not whether phones should be banned. It is how schools can best prepare children to navigate a digital world safely, confidently and responsibly.
That requires investment in filtering, staff training, and curriculum time for digital citizenship. It requires engagement with parents and an acceptance that technology is embedded in young people’s lives. And it requires moving beyond policies that are simple to communicate, but limited in their impact.
The evidence is clear enough on one point: banning phones is, at best, a partial solution. Without a broader strategy, it risks becoming a performative response to a complex challenge.
Banning phones is easy. Building digital resilience is harder. But only one of those approaches prepares pupils for the world they are actually growing up in.
References
Beland, L‑P. and Murphy, R. (2016) Ill communication: Technology, distraction and student performance. Labour Economics, 41, pp. 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.04.004
Böttger, T. and Zierer, K. (2024) To ban or not to ban? A rapid review on the impact of smartphone bans in schools on social well‑being and academic performance. Education Sciences, 14(8), 906. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080906
Goodyear, V.A., Randhawa, A., Adab, P., Al‑Janabi, H., Fenton, S., Jones, K. et al. (2025) School phone policies and their association with mental wellbeing, phone use and social media use (SMART Schools): a cross‑sectional observational study. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 51, 101211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101211
Kemp, P., Brock, R. and O’Brien, A. (2024) Mobile phone bans in schools: Impact on achievement. British Educational Research Association (BERA). Available at: https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/mobile-phone-bans-in-schools-impact-on-achievement (Accessed: 4 May 2026).
Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development (OECD) (2023) PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
Weiss, H.A. and Bonell, C. (2025) Smartphone use and mental health: going beyond school restriction policies. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 51, 101237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101237
