We Looked At All The Recent Evidence On Mobile Phone Bans In Schools – This Is What We Found

from the looking-at-the-actual-data dept

The Conversation

Mobile phones are currently banned in all Australian state schools and many Catholic and independent schools around the country. This is part of a global trend over more than a decade to restrict phone use in schools.

Australian governments say banning mobile phones will reduce distractions in class, allow students to focus on learning, improve student wellbeing and reduce cyberbullying.

But previous research has shown there is little evidence on whether the bans actually achieve these aims.

Many places that restricted phones in schools before Australia did have now reversed their decisions. For example, several school districts in Canada implemented outright bans then revoked them as they were too hard to maintain. They now allow teachers to make decisions that suit their own classrooms.

A ban was similarly revoked in New York City, partly because bans made it harder for parents to stay in contact with their children.

What does recent research say about phone bans in schools?

Our study

We conducted a “scoping review” of all published and unpublished global evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools.

Our review, which is pending publication, aims to shed light on whether mobile phones in schools impact academic achievement (including paying attention and distraction), students’ mental health and wellbeing, and the incidence of cyberbullying.

A scoping review is done when researchers know there aren’t many studies on a particular topic. This means researchers cast a very inclusive net, to gather as much evidence as possible.

Our team screened 1,317 articles and reports as well as dissertations from masters and PhD students. We identified 22 studies that examined schools before and after phone bans. There was a mix of study types. Some looked at multiple schools and jurisdictions, some looked at a small number of schools, some collected quantitative data, others sought qualitative views.

In a sign of just how little research there is on this topic, 12 of the studies we identified were done by masters and doctoral students. This means they are not peer-reviewed but done by research students under supervision by an academic in the field.

But in a sign of how fresh this evidence is, almost half the studies we identified were published or completed since 2020.

The studies looked at schools in Bermuda, China, the Czech Republic, Ghana, Malawi, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United States. None of them looked at schools in Australia.

Academic achievement

Our research found four studies that identified a slight improvement in academic achievement when phones were banned in schools. However, two of these studies found this improvement only applied to disadvantaged or low-achieving students.

Some studies compared schools where there were partial bans against schools with complete bans. This is a problem because it confuses the issue.

But three studies found no differences in academic achievement, whether there were mobile phone bans or not. Two of these studies used very large samples. This masters thesis looked at 30% of all schools in Norway. Another study used a nationwide cohort in Sweden. This means we can be reasonably confident in these results.

Mental health and wellbeing

Two studies in our review, including this doctoral thesis, reported mobile phone bans had positive effects on students’ mental health. However, both studies used teachers’ and parents’ perceptions of students’ wellbeing (the students were not asked themselves).

Two other studies showed no differences in psychological wellbeing following mobile phone bans. However, three studies reported more harm to students’ mental health and wellbeing when they were subjected to phone bans.

The students reported they felt more anxious without being able to use their phone. This was especially evident in one doctoral thesis carried out when students were returning to school after the pandemic, having been very reliant on their devices during lockdown.

So the evidence for banning mobile phones for the mental health and wellbeing of student is inconclusive and based only on anecdotes or perceptions, rather than the recorded incidence of mental illness.

Bullying and cyberbullying

Four studies reported a small reduction in bullying in schools following phone bans, especially among older students. However, the studies did not specify whether or not they were talking about cyberbullying.

Teachers in two other studies, including this doctoral thesis, reported they believed having mobile phones in schools increased cyberbullying.

But two other studies showed the number of incidents of online victimisation and harassment was greater in schools with mobile phone bans compared with those without bans. The study didn’t collect data on whether the online harassment was happening inside or outside school hours.

The authors suggested this might be because students saw the phone bans as punitive, which made the school climate less egalitarian and less positive. Other research has linked a positive school climate with fewer incidents of bullying.

There is no research evidence that students do or don’t use other devices to bully each other if there are phone bans. But it is of course possible for students to use laptops, tablets, smartwatches or library computers to conduct cyberbullying.

Even if phone bans were effective, they would not address the bulk of school bullying. A 2019 Australian study found 99% of students who were cyberbullied were also bullied face-to-face.

What does this tell us?

Overall, our study suggests the evidence for banning mobile phones in schools is weak and inconclusive.

As Australian education academic Neil Selwyn argued in 2021, the impetus for mobile phone bans says more about MPs responding to community concerns rather than research evidence.

Politicians should leave this decision to individual schools, which have direct experience of the pros or cons of a ban in their particular community. For example, a community in remote Queensland could have different needs and priorities from a school in central Brisbane.

Mobile phones are an integral part of our lives. We need to be teaching children about appropriate use of phones, rather than simply banning them. This will help students learn how to use their phones safely and responsibly at school, at home and beyond.

Marilyn Campbell, Professor, School of Early Childhood & Inclusive Education, Queensland University of Technology and Elizabeth J Edwards, Associate Professor in Education, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Lightbulb icon Laughing icon Flag icon Lightbulb icon Laughing icon

Comments on “We Looked At All The Recent Evidence On Mobile Phone Bans In Schools – This Is What We Found”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
90 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

If schools want to stop phone usage all they need to do is paint the walls with paint that blocks all radio signals in or out

Cell phone service wouid go down as soon as you entered the building

One grocery store that used to be around here did that to keep employees on their work

The paint blocked all cellular signals inside the store

Such paint is legal to buy and use

Problem solved

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Sure, but it’s not inexpensive. And schools typically have classrooms with large window areas, which few people would paint over.

Interior hallways? Sure, you could get significant coverage there. The Gym? The Music Room? Lecture halls? Same. But none of those places are the ones that would have the most impact. (An argument could be made for the lecture hall, but you typically find those on higher age group campuses…)

Disregarding any benefit from denying students access in classrooms, you would still have helicopter parents flying into a rage over not being able to call or text their offspring at a moment’s notice. Something you might want to factor in.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Those “helicopter parents” would have to live with it as there is no law against signal blocking paint, contrary to what one poster down thread says

You can buy a 5 gallon drum of the stuff at Home Depot for $257.

If Home Depot sells it, then it is legal.

There is no criminal statute that Home Depot, or its employees, can be prosecuted under for selling signal blocking paint.

Home Depot would never sell anything illegal

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Home Depot sells the stuff so it is legal

Home Depot wouid not sell it if it were illegal

And if that coat of signal blockint paint is painted over with normal paint, they will never know

And since there is no signal transmitted there is no way they could figure it out.

Unless you are transmittimg a signal, the FCC has no jurisdiction

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The problem is parents not making their kids obey the rules, and not just on cell phones either.

I never smoked, but my parents did tell the school when I was in highs school “Dont call me if you catch my kid smoking because I allow it”, basically tell the school they were not going to make it obey that rule.

I did not like the taste of cigs, so I never took up smoking, but if I ever had, my parents would have had my back, and there is nothing the school could have done to them for not making me obey that rule.

I had heard of parents doing that for cell phones too telling the shcoools they had a right to contact their children then they felt it, and they were not going to make their children obey.

Parents do have a right to not make their children obey any rule or rules the parent does not agree with.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

there is nothing the school could have done to them for not making me obey that rule.

Parents do have a right to not make their children obey any rule or rules the parent does not agree with.

I don’t think your parents would have been able to force the school to not kick you out if you had been breaking their rules. Parental authority does not override the ability of others to enforce their policies.

It’s also not difficult to imagine that if the school had caught you smoking underage, and knowing what your parents told the school… perhaps they’d have gotten a visit from protective services. Parental authority is not above the law, either.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I would have resisted being taken, if CPS had ever come to take me.

My parents had a 73 Chevelle Laguna that could have outrun what cops were driving at the time.

This does show my agem but the cops were driving, at that time, Dodge Aries cars which the Chevelle would outrun.

An Aries could do 103 top speeed with the pedal to the floor, while my parents Chevelle could 141 miles an hour, so they would have caught me.

I would have flat out DUSTED them, once I made it to the freeway.

The Laguna wighed 4100 pounds vs 2400 for Dodge Aries, so any roadblock with their car would have been smashed to hell, and the department would have had to buy a new squad car after I smashed through their roadblock.

What I would have also done before taking off is take sledge hammer and smashed the radio in the squad car, so backup could not be called.

Smashing out the radio is better, because does not come under FCC jurisdiction since you are not actually transmitting a signal, so there would have been no federal charge for destroying the two way radio.

I would have totally resisted CPS, if they had ever come to take me and the cops would have never caught my parents 1973 Chevelle Laguna with what they were using at the time.

Tirear says:

Re: Re:

Pretty sure a “jamming device” is something that floods the the frequency with signals too strong for anything else to get through. Your link seems to support this, since it says that before filing a complaint about suspected jamming you should make sure that it isn’t just a matter of “physical obstructions that block the signal”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

If it does not transmit a signal it is not under fcc jurisdiction

You can also paint it over with a coat or two of normal paint so nobody would ever suspect you were using signal blocking paint

The signal blocking paint is meant as a primer, and for another coat of paint on top of it

That is how that one Lucky/Albertsons/Save Mart did it before they shuttered that location a few years ago

The store manager who did that was not breaking any laws.

He wanted to keep his employees off their phones so he used signal nocking paint. I was told if I wanted to use my phone while shopping there, tough

Legal to buy, legal tidd

Tirear says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I found some time to look further into it, and you’re full of shit. The article you linked has a section titled “Applicable Law”, telling us where to find the actual laws the article is summarizing. The part about signal jammers being illegal is attributed to The Communications Act of 1934 section 302(b). So what does it say?

SEC. 302. [47 U.S.C. 302] DEVICES WHICH INTERFERE WITH RADIO
RECEPTION.
(a) The Commission may, consistent with the public interest, convenience,
and necessity, make reasonable regulations (1) governing the interference potential
of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy
by radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful
interference to radio communications; and (2) establishing minimum performance
standards for home electronic equipment and systems to reduce their susceptibility
to interference from radio frequency energy. Such regulations shall be applicable to
the manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale, or shipment of such devices and home
electronic equipment and systems, and to the use of such devices.
(b) No person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices
or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply
with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.

What do you know, “signal jammers” actually refered to devices that emit enough “radio frequency energy” to cause interference. Who could have guessed?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

One form of jamming that is not illegal is to kam radar and lidar used by your HOA

I have heard of radar and lidar used by has to enforce their their speed limits

Since these radar and lidar guns are owned the the HOA and not by the police, jamming them would be legal

It is only illegal to jam radar or lidar owned by police. Jamming radar and lidar your homeowners association uses does break any laws sin e it is not being done by Police

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

No it would not, since it is not actually tranmistting a signal.

Signal blocking is only subject to FCC rules if you are actually tranmistting a signal, which paint does not.

So paint that act as a faraday cage is legal, since it does not transmit a signal

All you are doing is bascially making a faraday cage. Faraday cages are fully legal in both Australia and the United States.

You can buy it at Home Depot, so its legal, otherwise, Home Depot would not sell it.

If Home Depot sells it, it is legal

So if you want to use such paint in your place of business, just go hop on down to your local Home Depot, it is $257 for a 5 gallon drum.

Legal to buy, legal to use

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

IF Abortion clinics in California paint their walls with that stuff, which I have advocated to avoid the law in states that ban abortion tourism, they are not breaking any laws.

I am as pro life as they come, but I do not think that states should ban their citizens from travelling out of the state or country to get an abortion where it is legal.

As long as it remains legal in California I think that clinics should spend the money for signal blocking paint so that cell phones, ankle monitors and the like will be blocked from sending or receiving signals.

Like I said, if Home Depot sells the stuff, it is legal

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

And the very obvious question would be…

Who bribed the school board to use that kind of paint?

It’s expensive as fuck, for one, and school boards love to cut costs.

Are you implicitly suggesting that school boards accept bribes to solve a non-issue that can be solved with sensible school rules?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Not only does Home Depot sell it, I have been inside businesses where sch paint has been used.

One grocery store years ago did that to keep their employees off their phones while at work. When I walked into a now shuttered Lucky/Save Mart/Alberstons the manager did use such paint to keep his employees off their phones and on their work, and if customers inside the store could not use their phones, tough.

Using such paint is this now shuttered location did not break any criminal laws in California.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

This will help students learn how to use their phones safely and responsibly at school…

Why should students be on their phones at school at all?

Even in the case of an active shooter blowing other students away, it’s not like calling mommy/daddy is going to result in them donning body armor and grabbing their legally-owned AR-15 pattern rifle and rushing to school to neutralize the threat.

You guys are such dweebs for trying to put a scientific veneer on your desire to addict children to phones.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

You need to reread my comment. I didn’t mention calling parents.

Children are taught to call 911 in active shooter scenarios. It’s often how police are first made aware of a shooter.

But there are also other scenarios where students can benefit from having phones, such as recording bullying or inappropriate behavior by authority figures. There are likely a bunch of scenarios you haven’t or can’t imagine, so your ignorance isn’t a good measure for policy.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Children are taught to call 911 in active shooter scenarios. It’s often how police are first made aware of a shooter.

When has a child calling 911 during an active shooter directly saved lives because it activated police (who were otherwise totally unaware and hadn’t been notified by any adults) to race to school and zap the killer? Be specific and cite your sources.

(We certainly know this wasn’t the case in Uvalde, so don’t you dare lie and cite that massacre!)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
MrWilson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

When has a child calling 911 during an active shooter directly saved lives

Again, you’re being myopic. It doesn’t need to be a child. It doesn’t need to have been proven as the first alert about the incident. It doesn’t need to have been documented as definitely saving lives. It can save lives. The potential alone makes it valuable.

Your ignorance is not the basis for good policy.

(We certainly know this wasn’t the case in Uvalde, so don’t you dare lie and cite that massacre!)

Two witnesses near the funeral home called 911 before the shooter got the elementary school. Then a teacher called 911. Then students called 911. Those calls could have saved lives had the police listened to them and followed active shooter protocols. The police chief didn’t know about the calls from inside the school and didn’t have a radio at the scene.

You’re saying that a scenario where the calls were valuable but simply underutilized by cowardly cops is an indictment of the availability of cellphones to children instead of an indictment of the cops failure to act.

And again, it’s not just about active shooters. It could be calling an ambulance for a teacher or student who has a medical crisis. It could be any number of scenarios you haven’t imagined.

Be specific and cite your sources.

Trolls are not owed a thesis paper on the subject matter.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mamba (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Fuck dude, one mom hoped the fence and extracted(saved?) her two kids and a bunch of others all while the incompetent police force did fuck all at Uvalde.

https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/mom-who-saved-her-kids-from-uvalde-school-shooting-says-police-are-targeting-her-texas-robb-elementary-gunman-salvador-ramos-law-enforcement-response-angeli-rose-gomez-first-responders-who-is-pete-arredondo-town-square-protests-elementary-school-massacre

Was she called? No. But she did hear about it, went the school, and Got. Shit. Done. Expecting the police to do a god damned thing at this point is just ignorance and wishful thinking.

My kids have cellphones because we had a school shooter lot 15 minutes from my house. This is the US and thinking that it wont happen in your school just means you aren’t paying attention.

And because they can call me if they need a ride, forgot something at home, etc. you know. modern conveniences.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Fuck dude, one mom hoped the fence and extracted(saved?) her two kids and a bunch of others all while the incompetent police force did fuck all at Uvalde.

Wow, so you’re really gonna cite as a good example some (likely) Democrat female [if she votes at all…if she’s a citizen at all!!] who selfishly only saved her own children and left the kids of her friends/neighbors/possibly-fellow-citizens to die? Yikes. Wow!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Regardless, would it have been better for her to have run back in and her children possibly be motherless?

If she could’ve saved even one additional child, then yes–obviously. Because (unless her baby daddy was Black) her kids would’ve still grown up w/ a Father figure present in their lives!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

But sure, your paranoia over “phone addiction” definitely trumps the right of kids to survive.

Some might argue that kids who “survive” a mass shooting only to become cellphone-addicted, TikTok-watching, pro-Hamas retardios are worse off than their peers who were spared watching the world destroyed by climate change and unaffordable housing!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

If you get fired for breaking that rule the record can be tampered with

If you have the money you can get the record changed to day you were downsized and that is what future employers will

Anything that keeps you from.a job can be tampered with if you have the money

Money talks, bs walks

And with even more untraceable crypto you could pay with that and no bank trail will be traceable to you

If you live near northwest Mexico you can dispose of the computer you used in.the Sonora or altar desert.

There is no law in BCS,BCN, Sonora or Chihuahua that makes it a crime to dispose of evidence by heaving out in the desert to rot in the 120 degree heat

And American law does not apply to disposing of evidence in the desert in Mexico

American law has no jurisdiction in Mexico

And one way to foil plate readers at the border into Mexico is to take the plate out of its frame and put it elsewhere

I had one apartment manager who did that when she drove to Mexico to visit family. She just taped her plates up in her windows so plate readers for cars exiting the USA would not get her plates

The plates were still visible to human eyeballs so she broke no laws in California, Arizona, Sonora,Sinaloa, Nayarit, or Jalisco putting her plates in her windows to foil plate readers.

Putting her plates in her windows was and still is fully legal in those US and Mexican states as long as they are visible to human eyeballs

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Given your arguments I can only conclude there exists only 2 possible explanations for them:
1. You aren’t a parent because nobody would ever procreate with a full-blown idiot like you.
2. Your kids and your ex-wife hate your guts because you are a full-blown idiot which they discovered too late.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

I have no problem with phones in use at school at lunch or between classes. I would only want to restrict them while instruction is happening.

However, if the studies are correct and phone use during class doesn’t substantially affect academic achievement, I can think of at least three possibilities:

1) The kids are smart enough that not paying full attention in class doesn’t affect their grade.

2) The kids are dumb enough that even if they paid attention in class, it wouldn’t affect their grade.

3) The instruction provided in class is completely useless and the kids are effectively teaching themselves anyway.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Today’s parents are so spoiled. When my great-great-grandfather was young, contacting a child in school involved walking 5 miles or saddle up the horse.

Funny how times change, huh? Perhaps you should change with the times instead being stuck in the past?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

When I was young, contacting a child in school involved calling the school’s landline and hoping that whoever answered deemed the message urgent enough to pass on (no earlier than the end of the current period). It’ so good that modern parents can now contact their child immediately about last minute appointments etc. I wouldn’t ever want to go back to the bad old days, and I’m not even a parent.

Arianity says:

We conducted a “scoping review” of all published and unpublished global evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools.

Did you consider looking at related bans? I know there’s been studies on e.g. laptops in classrooms, that have had more definitive results (at least when it comes to achievement)

E.g:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131512002254?via%3Dihub

There’s other studies as well, and they have nicely designed randomized trials. It’s not directly comparable, but it does seem pretty suggestive, at least on the academic achievement front. Although laptop bans are also far easier to enforce.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

We looked at a load of studies and discounted those we didn’t agree with.

You say this like it’s an invalid approach, but it’s possible to disagree with a study because it’s wrong and therefore it’s perfectly justifiable to discount it. Researchers will literally conduct a new study to refute the findings of a different study they disagreed with because the methods or the conclusion were flawed. Studies aren’t infallible proof and you damn well would benefit from examining them whether you agree with the conclusions or not to see if their methodology and logic are valid.

Anonymous Coward says:

This is a hard problem

Phones can be useful. My daughter, for example, used hers to get reference photos for drawing in art class. They can be used to look up other pertinent information. There’s a calculator. Used as tools, they can be positive.

However, what we see now, especially in a post-covid world, is that everyone lets their phones rule their lives with notifications and constant distraction. Does your student need to know that someone they follow just posted content? They do not. Does a text message always need to be answered immediately? It does not.

How do we create new and better norms and teach kids that the messages can wait?

At our school, teachers are confiscating phones at the beginning of class. The solution? Some kids have kept old phones so that they have an extra one to give up, while they keep their real phone. Gotta love problem solving, eh?

The need to contact kids, especially when parents work far away, or in joint custody situations, or other times, is real, and it’s a reason why families find that even very young kids need their own phones now. There’s no pay phones and no landline at home, you see. And we expect parents to have much more surveillance of their children than we used to.

The flip side is, that kids also can contact their parents during the school day about rumors or about discipline issues before the school administration can fully act or investigate. This creates an interesting problem of time compression, where the principal gets a call from the parent who expects immediate answers about why Johnny has a referral or why doesn’t Becky have one.

In the end, we all have these phones and we all have to learn to live with them, as tools, and figure out how to keep them from being a distraction and a menace. Healthy boundaries are a life skill that our kids will need in college and the workplace and in life. Might as well start early.

Add Your Comment

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...