Abstract
This dissertation synthesises current evidence on the effects of smartphone bans in schools on student behaviour and learning outcomes, whilst critically examining whether such policies merely displace harms elsewhere. Drawing upon systematic reviews, quasi-experimental studies, and randomised controlled trials published between 2016 and 2025, this literature synthesis evaluates the efficacy of restrictive mobile phone policies across diverse educational contexts. Findings indicate that smartphone bans yield modest positive effects on social well-being, particularly through reductions in bullying and cyberbullying, with meta-analytic evidence suggesting a small but significant effect size (d = 0.162). However, evidence regarding academic performance improvements remains inconsistent, with benefits appearing concentrated among specific subgroups such as low-achieving students. Critically, the literature identifies unintended consequences including covert device usage, student anxiety, and displacement of digital distractions to alternative devices. The synthesis concludes that blanket prohibition policies present implementation challenges and may prove less effective than structured approaches combining restrictions with digital literacy education. Future research priorities include rigorous experimental designs comparing policy variants across diverse settings whilst monitoring both intended benefits and unintended harms.
Introduction
The proliferation of smartphones among school-aged children represents one of the most significant technological shifts in contemporary education. Current estimates suggest that over 95 per cent of adolescents in developed nations own or have access to a smartphone, with usage patterns increasingly extending into classroom environments (Office for National Statistics, 2023). This ubiquitous presence has prompted educational policymakers, school leaders, and governments worldwide to grapple with a fundamental question: should smartphones be banned from schools, and if so, what consequences—both intended and unintended—might such policies produce?
The debate surrounding smartphone bans in educational settings has intensified considerably in recent years, driven by mounting concerns regarding student distraction, cyberbullying, and the potential negative impacts of excessive screen time on adolescent mental health and academic achievement (Montag and Elhai, 2023). Proponents of restrictive policies argue that removing smartphones from the learning environment eliminates a primary source of distraction, reduces opportunities for online harassment during school hours, and creates conditions more conducive to focused attention and meaningful peer interaction (Selwyn and Aagaard, 2020). Conversely, opponents contend that bans may prove counterproductive, potentially increasing student anxiety, driving device usage underground, or failing to equip young people with the digital literacy skills essential for contemporary life (Ferguson, 2025).
This tension between potential benefits and unintended consequences renders the smartphone ban debate particularly significant for educational policy and practice. The stakes are considerable: policies affecting millions of students globally are being implemented, revised, or contested based on evidence that remains contested and incomplete. Countries including France, the Netherlands, and Italy have enacted national restrictions on mobile phone usage in schools, whilst jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom have issued guidance encouraging schools to adopt their own restrictive policies (Department for Education, 2024). Yet the empirical foundation supporting these policy decisions warrants careful scrutiny.
Understanding the effects of smartphone bans matters academically because it intersects with fundamental questions regarding attention, learning, adolescent development, and the role of technology in education. Socially, the implications extend to student well-being, peer relationships, and the preparedness of young people for an increasingly digital society. Practically, schools and policymakers require robust evidence to inform decisions affecting the daily experiences of students and educators alike.
This dissertation addresses these concerns through a comprehensive synthesis of current research evidence, examining not only whether smartphone bans improve behaviour and learning outcomes but also whether apparent benefits may be offset by harms displaced elsewhere within the educational ecosystem.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically evaluate the evidence regarding the effects of smartphone bans in schools on student behaviour and learning outcomes, whilst examining whether such policies produce unintended consequences or displace harms to other contexts.
To achieve this aim, the following objectives guide the investigation:
1. To synthesise existing empirical evidence on the relationship between school smartphone bans and student behavioural outcomes, including bullying, classroom conduct, and social well-being.
2. To evaluate the evidence regarding the impact of smartphone bans on academic performance across different educational contexts and student populations.
3. To identify and critically examine unintended consequences associated with restrictive smartphone policies, including harm displacement, covert device usage, and student anxiety.
4. To analyse the role of policy design and implementation fidelity in determining the effectiveness of smartphone restrictions in educational settings.
5. To identify gaps in the current evidence base and propose priorities for future research that might better inform educational policy and practice.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to address the stated aim and objectives. Given the nature of the research questions—which require integration of diverse evidence types across multiple outcome domains—a narrative synthesis approach was deemed most appropriate for capturing the complexity and nuance present within the existing literature.
The evidence base for this synthesis was drawn from a comprehensive search conducted across major academic databases, including Semantic Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science, encompassing over 170 million research papers. The search strategy employed multiple targeted queries designed to capture studies addressing: direct effects of smartphone bans on behaviour and academic outcomes; policy implementation issues; and potential displacement or unintended consequences of restrictive approaches.
Initial searches identified 1,139 potentially relevant papers. Following de-duplication procedures, 725 papers were screened for eligibility based on title and abstract review. Of these, 563 papers met relevance criteria upon full-text assessment. The final synthesis drew upon the 50 most pertinent papers, selected based on methodological rigour, direct relevance to the research questions, and contribution to addressing identified gaps in understanding.
Inclusion criteria required that studies: (a) examined smartphone or mobile phone policies within primary or secondary school contexts; (b) reported empirical findings regarding behavioural, academic, or well-being outcomes; (c) were published in peer-reviewed journals or presented as working papers from recognised research institutions; and (d) were available in English. Studies were excluded if they focused exclusively on higher education contexts, addressed technology use without reference to policy interventions, or comprised opinion pieces without empirical foundation.
Eight distinct search groups ensured comprehensive coverage across outcome domains, including academic performance, bullying and social climate, mental health and well-being, and policy implementation challenges. This structured approach enabled identification of both convergent findings and areas of substantive disagreement within the literature.
Data extraction focused on study design, sample characteristics, policy type examined, outcome measures, and key findings. Given the heterogeneity of research designs—spanning randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, cross-sectional surveys, and qualitative investigations—meta-analytic pooling across all studies was neither feasible nor appropriate. Instead, findings were synthesised narratively, with attention to the strength of evidence supporting different claims and the conditions under which effects were observed.
The quality of evidence was assessed using a modified approach informed by the GRADE framework, considering factors including study design, consistency of findings across studies, directness of evidence, and precision of effect estimates. This approach enabled nuanced judgements regarding the confidence warranted by different claims within the literature.
Literature review
Historical context and policy development
The emergence of smartphone bans as a policy response to technology in schools reflects broader societal anxieties regarding digital device usage among young people. Early mobile phone restrictions in educational settings focused primarily on preventing classroom disruption and examination malpractice. However, the rapid evolution of smartphone capabilities—encompassing social media access, multimedia functionality, and constant connectivity—has transformed both the nature of concerns and the complexity of policy responses (Selwyn and Aagaard, 2020).
Policy approaches have varied considerably across jurisdictions. France implemented a nationwide ban on mobile phones in primary and lower secondary schools in 2018, whilst individual schools in England, Australia, and North America have adopted diverse policies ranging from complete prohibition to conditional usage frameworks. This variation provides a natural laboratory for examining the effects of different regulatory approaches, though it simultaneously complicates efforts to draw generalisable conclusions (Randhawa et al., 2024).
Effects on behaviour and social well-being
A substantial body of evidence suggests that smartphone bans are associated with improvements in student behaviour and social climate within schools. The most robust findings pertain to reductions in bullying, including both traditional and cyber forms of peer aggression.
Böttger and Zierer (2024) conducted a rapid systematic review synthesising evidence on the impact of smartphone bans on social well-being and academic performance. Their meta-analytic findings indicated a small but statistically significant positive effect on social well-being (effect size d = 0.162). Qualitative evidence from teachers consistently reported reduced distraction and improved concentration among students following implementation of restrictive policies. These behavioural improvements appeared more pronounced and consistent than effects on academic outcomes.
Research from Spain provides corroborating evidence. Beneito and Vicente-Chirivella (2020, 2022) exploited regional variation in mobile phone policies to examine effects on bullying prevalence. Their quasi-experimental analyses revealed significant reductions in reported bullying following the introduction of school phone bans, with effects persisting across different age groups and school types. Importantly, these studies controlled for potential confounding factors including socioeconomic characteristics and pre-existing trends in bullying rates.
Swedish research by Abrahamsson (2024) similarly documented improvements in social outcomes, with particular benefits observed among vulnerable student populations. Girls and students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds appeared to derive greater advantages from restrictive policies, suggesting that smartphone bans may have equalising effects within school environments.
King et al. (2024) conducted a comprehensive evaluation examining problematic phone use alongside social, well-being, and academic effects of school phone bans. Their findings reinforced the behavioural benefits narrative, documenting improvements in classroom focus and reductions in peer conflict following policy implementation. Teacher reports indicated that the absence of smartphones during instructional time created conditions more conducive to sustained attention and collaborative learning.
The mechanisms underlying these behavioural improvements warrant consideration. Reduced access to social media platforms during school hours may diminish opportunities for online harassment and the amplification of peer conflicts that characterise cyberbullying dynamics. Additionally, the removal of smartphones may facilitate more meaningful face-to-face interactions during non-instructional periods, potentially strengthening peer relationships and social skills development (Montag and Elhai, 2023).
Effects on academic performance
Whilst evidence regarding behavioural benefits appears relatively consistent, findings concerning academic performance effects are markedly more variable and contested. The heterogeneity of results across studies suggests that contextual factors, policy implementation characteristics, and student population differences substantially moderate the relationship between smartphone bans and learning outcomes.
The seminal study by Beland and Murphy (2016) exploited the staggered introduction of mobile phone bans across English schools to examine effects on standardised test performance. Using a difference-in-differences research design, they estimated that banning mobile phones improved student performance by the equivalent of an additional week of schooling per year. Critically, these benefits were not uniformly distributed: effects were concentrated among lower-achieving students, whilst high achievers showed no significant improvement. This pattern suggested that smartphone restrictions might operate primarily by reducing distractions for students already struggling with attention and engagement.
Spanish evidence presented by Beneito and Vicente-Chirivella (2022) similarly identified positive effects on academic outcomes following regional mobile phone bans. Their analyses indicated improvements in examination performance, particularly in mathematics and language subjects requiring sustained concentration. As with the English findings, benefits appeared greatest among students at the lower end of the achievement distribution.
However, other large-scale studies have failed to replicate these positive findings. Kessel, Hardardottir and Tyrefors (2020) examined the impact of mobile phone bans in Swedish secondary schools using comprehensive administrative data on student performance. Despite employing rigorous quasi-experimental methods, they found no measurable impact of bans on academic achievement. The absence of effects persisted across different subject areas, grade levels, and student subgroups.
This null finding raises important questions regarding the conditions necessary for academic benefits to materialise. Possible explanations include differences in baseline phone usage patterns, variations in enforcement fidelity, or the possibility that Swedish students had already adapted their phone behaviour in ways that minimised classroom disruption regardless of formal policy.
Randomised controlled trial evidence offers potentially valuable insights, though such studies remain rare. Deng et al. (2022, 2025) conducted experimental investigations comparing different approaches to smartphone use in classroom settings. Their findings suggested that whilst unstructured phone use impaired learning compared to complete bans, teacher-guided educational use of smartphones could enhance learning outcomes beyond what was achieved through prohibition alone. This pattern suggests that the relevant distinction may not be between presence and absence of devices, but rather between different modes of engagement with technology.
Campbell et al. (2024) conducted a comprehensive scoping review of evidence for and against mobile phone bans in schools. Their synthesis highlighted the limited number of high-quality experimental studies available, with most evidence derived from observational or quasi-experimental designs vulnerable to confounding. The authors concluded that whilst suggestive positive findings exist, the evidence base remains insufficient to support confident conclusions regarding academic effects.
Unintended consequences and harm displacement
A critical dimension of the smartphone ban debate concerns whether restrictive policies produce unintended negative consequences or simply displace problems to other times, places, or technological platforms. Several studies have documented concerning patterns that warrant attention from policymakers.
Covert device usage represents one significant unintended consequence. Böttger and Zierer (2024) noted evidence of rule-breaking behaviour following smartphone ban implementation, with students developing increasingly sophisticated strategies for concealing and using devices despite prohibitions. Such patterns may undermine the intended benefits of restrictions whilst potentially creating adversarial dynamics between students and educators responsible for enforcement.
Research from the Czech Republic by Kopecký et al. (2021) examined adolescent behaviour following mobile phone restrictions. Their findings indicated that whilst bans reduced visible phone usage, they did not necessarily eliminate students’ psychological attachment to devices or their desire for digital connectivity. Some students reported increased boredom during break periods when phones were unavailable, particularly when schools failed to provide alternative engagement activities. This finding suggests that effective implementation may require complementary provision of social and recreational opportunities.
Anxiety associated with device separation—sometimes termed ‘nomophobia’—represents another documented concern. Magnusson et al. (2023) explored the complexities of managing mobile phone bans within digitised school environments. Their qualitative research revealed that some students experienced significant distress when separated from their devices, particularly those for whom smartphones served as anxiety management tools or connections to family members. Such findings highlight the need for nuanced approaches that acknowledge individual differences in students’ relationships with technology.
Harm displacement to alternative devices also warrants consideration. Some studies have noted that when smartphones are banned, students may simply redirect their digital engagement to laptops, tablets, or other permitted devices (Ott and Magnusson, 2021). If the underlying issue concerns digital distraction rather than smartphones specifically, policies targeting only one device category may prove insufficient.
The potential for differential impacts across student populations raises equity concerns. Magnusson et al. (2023) observed that strict enforcement of smartphone bans could strain teacher-student relationships, particularly when students perceived policies as arbitrary or excessively punitive. There are also concerns that enforcement may disproportionately affect certain student groups, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds for whom smartphones represent primary technology access points.
Policy design and implementation considerations
The literature increasingly emphasises that the effectiveness of smartphone restrictions depends critically on how policies are designed, communicated, and implemented. Blanket bans present particular challenges regarding consistent enforcement across diverse school contexts.
Randhawa et al. (2024) conducted a descriptive analysis of secondary school smartphone policies in England, examining how schools rationalised, designed, and implemented both restrictive and permissive approaches. Their findings revealed substantial variation in policy frameworks, ranging from complete prohibition with devices collected at the start of each day, through ‘out of sight, out of mind’ approaches requiring phones to remain in bags, to conditional usage frameworks permitting educational applications. Schools employing more restrictive approaches cited behavioural benefits as primary justifications, whilst those adopting permissive stances emphasised digital literacy development and practical enforcement challenges.
Gath et al. (2024) employed mixed methods to analyse educators’ and students’ perspectives on mobile phone use at school. Their research indicated that both groups often preferred regulation over total prohibition, recognising legitimate educational applications for smartphones whilst acknowledging the need for boundaries. Students expressed greater compliance with policies they perceived as fair and consistently applied, suggesting that policy legitimacy may influence implementation success.
The importance of complementary measures emerges as a consistent theme. Böttger and Zierer (2024) emphasised that successful smartphone policies tend to combine restrictions with digital literacy education, helping students develop skills for responsible technology use that extend beyond the school context. Similarly, Kopecký et al. (2021) highlighted the value of providing alternative engagement opportunities during non-instructional time, reducing boredom that might otherwise motivate covert phone use.
Deng et al. (2025) provided evidence that structured smartphone usage policies—permitting device use for specified educational purposes under teacher guidance—might outperform both blanket bans and unrestricted access. Their experimental findings suggested that the key variable was not device presence per se, but rather the nature and purpose of engagement. This perspective implies that the most effective policies may be those enabling beneficial uses whilst restricting harmful ones, though such nuanced approaches clearly present greater implementation challenges.
Evidence gaps and methodological limitations
Despite the growing body of research on smartphone bans, significant gaps and methodological limitations constrain confident conclusions. The relative scarcity of randomised controlled trials is particularly notable. Most evidence derives from observational studies or quasi-experimental designs that, whilst informative, remain vulnerable to selection bias and unmeasured confounding.
Wood et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional observational study examining associations between school phone policies and mental well-being, phone use, and social media engagement. Their findings suggested no significant difference in student well-being between schools employing restrictive versus permissive policies. However, the cross-sectional design precluded causal inference, and the authors acknowledged that schools adopting different policy approaches may differ in unmeasured ways that confound apparent relationships.
The definition and operationalisation of ‘smartphone ban’ varies considerably across studies, complicating comparisons and synthesis. Some research examines complete prohibitions with device confiscation, whilst other studies investigate partial restrictions permitting devices but prohibiting use during lessons. Without standardised policy definitions, aggregating evidence across studies proves challenging.
Geographic and contextual limitations further constrain generalisability. Much of the rigorous quasi-experimental evidence derives from European contexts (England, Sweden, Spain), with less systematic investigation of policies in other regions. Given potential differences in baseline phone usage patterns, educational cultures, and implementation contexts, caution is warranted when extrapolating findings across settings.
Ferguson (2025) offered a critical perspective, arguing that claims regarding smartphone ban effectiveness remain insufficiently supported by rigorous evidence. This sceptical stance highlights the importance of distinguishing between suggestive findings and robustly demonstrated effects when informing policy decisions.
Discussion
The synthesis of evidence presented in this dissertation reveals a nuanced picture regarding the effects of smartphone bans in schools. Whilst clear patterns emerge regarding behavioural benefits—particularly reductions in bullying—the evidence concerning academic performance remains inconsistent, and important questions persist regarding unintended consequences and optimal policy design. This discussion critically examines these findings in relation to the stated objectives and considers their implications for educational practice and future research.
Regarding the first objective—synthesising evidence on behavioural outcomes—the literature provides relatively consistent support for modest positive effects. Multiple quasi-experimental studies across different national contexts have documented reductions in bullying and improvements in classroom climate following smartphone ban implementation. The meta-analytic finding of a small positive effect on social well-being (d = 0.162) reported by Böttger and Zierer (2024) aligns with qualitative accounts from educators describing calmer learning environments. These convergent findings suggest that removing smartphones from school settings does reduce opportunities for peer harassment and digital distraction, at least during school hours.
However, several caveats temper enthusiasm regarding behavioural benefits. Effect sizes, whilst statistically significant, are modest in magnitude. A standardised mean difference of 0.162 translates to relatively small practical improvements at the individual student level, though aggregate benefits across entire school populations may nonetheless prove meaningful. Furthermore, questions remain regarding persistence of effects over time and potential adaptation as students develop alternative harassment methods or distraction sources.
The second objective—evaluating evidence on academic performance—reveals substantially greater uncertainty. The divergence between positive findings from English and Spanish contexts versus null results from Swedish research exemplifies the inconsistency characterising this literature. Several factors may explain this heterogeneity. Differences in baseline smartphone usage patterns could moderate policy effects; if Swedish students were already using phones less during lessons, bans would have less scope to produce change. Variations in implementation fidelity represent another possibility; policies that exist on paper but face inconsistent enforcement may fail to alter actual behaviour. Finally, outcome measurement differences across studies complicate direct comparisons.
The finding that academic benefits concentrate among lower-achieving students warrants particular attention. Both Beland and Murphy (2016) and Beneito and Vicente-Chirivella (2022) documented this pattern, suggesting that smartphone bans may operate primarily by reducing distractions for students already struggling with attention and engagement. High-achieving students, who may possess greater self-regulatory capacity or more developed study habits, appear to derive minimal academic benefit from external restrictions. This differential effect pattern has important equity implications, suggesting that smartphone bans might serve as one mechanism for reducing achievement gaps between higher and lower performing students.
The experimental findings from Deng et al. (2022, 2025) introduce additional complexity by demonstrating that teacher-guided educational use of smartphones can enhance learning beyond what complete bans achieve. This suggests that the relevant policy question may not be whether to permit smartphones, but rather how to structure their use productively. Such findings challenge binary framing of the debate as ‘ban versus allow’ and point toward more nuanced regulatory approaches.
Addressing the third objective—examining unintended consequences—the literature identifies several concerning patterns that policymakers must consider. Evidence of covert device usage following ban implementation suggests that prohibitions may drive behaviour underground rather than eliminating it. Students developing sophisticated concealment strategies whilst maintaining psychological attachment to devices represents a problematic outcome that may undermine intended benefits whilst creating enforcement challenges.
Anxiety associated with device separation among some students raises ethical considerations regarding proportionality and individual needs. Whilst most students may adapt readily to phone-free school environments, a minority may experience genuine distress, particularly if smartphones serve important functions for managing anxiety or maintaining family connections. Policies that fail to accommodate such individual differences risk causing harm to vulnerable students.
The potential displacement of digital distractions to alternative devices represents a structural limitation of smartphone-specific bans. In educational environments where laptops or tablets are permitted or even required, students seeking distraction may simply redirect engagement to these alternative platforms. This suggests that effective policies may need to address digital distraction more broadly rather than targeting single device categories.
The fourth objective—analysing policy design and implementation—emerges as particularly significant for translating research findings into practice. The literature consistently emphasises that policy effectiveness depends critically on how restrictions are designed, communicated, and enforced. Blanket bans present implementation challenges, particularly regarding consistent enforcement across diverse school contexts and the potential for adversarial student-teacher dynamics.
Evidence supporting structured approaches that permit educational uses whilst restricting recreational engagement offers a potential path forward. Such policies acknowledge legitimate applications of smartphones for learning whilst maintaining boundaries against distraction and misuse. However, nuanced approaches clearly present greater implementation challenges than simple prohibitions, requiring clear guidelines, teacher training, and ongoing monitoring.
The importance of complementary measures—including digital literacy education and alternative engagement opportunities during breaks—represents a consistent theme. Policies implemented in isolation, without attention to the broader school environment and students’ needs during non-instructional time, may prove less effective or produce greater unintended consequences.
Regarding the fifth objective—identifying research gaps and priorities—several areas warrant attention. The scarcity of randomised controlled trials represents a significant limitation of the current evidence base. Whilst quasi-experimental studies provide valuable insights, experimental designs would offer stronger causal inference regarding policy effects. Randomised trials comparing different policy variants—complete bans versus structured usage versus unrestricted access—across diverse educational settings would substantially advance understanding.
The lack of rigorous research on mental health and well-being outcomes represents another gap. Whilst behavioural and academic effects have received considerable attention, the implications of smartphone bans for student psychological well-being remain less well understood. Cross-sectional findings suggesting no significant association between policy type and well-being require confirmation through longitudinal designs capable of capturing dynamic relationships.
Research addressing implementation processes—how policies are enacted in practice, what factors predict successful implementation, and how student responses evolve over time—would inform practical guidance for schools. Currently, most research focuses on policy effects without detailed attention to the implementation mechanisms through which effects are (or are not) produced.
Finally, research examining long-term implications for digital literacy development would address concerns that restrictive school policies may fail to equip students with skills for responsible technology use in contexts where smartphones are ubiquitous. Understanding whether and how school phone policies influence students’ subsequent digital habits and competencies represents an important gap.
Conclusions
This dissertation has synthesised current evidence regarding the effects of smartphone bans in schools on student behaviour and learning outcomes, whilst critically examining whether such policies produce unintended consequences or displace harms elsewhere. The analysis addresses five stated objectives, yielding conclusions of relevance for educational policy and practice.
Regarding behavioural outcomes, the evidence supports cautious optimism. Smartphone bans are consistently associated with reductions in bullying and improvements in classroom climate, with effects documented across diverse national contexts. Whilst effect sizes are modest, the consistency of findings across studies employing different methodologies strengthens confidence in this conclusion. Schools implementing restrictive policies can reasonably anticipate some behavioural benefits, particularly regarding peer harassment and digital distraction during instructional time.
The evidence concerning academic performance effects is markedly less consistent. Whilst some studies document significant improvements in test scores following ban implementation—particularly among lower-achieving students—others find no measurable impact. This heterogeneity suggests that contextual factors, implementation characteristics, and student population differences substantially moderate policy effects. Schools should not assume that smartphone bans will automatically improve academic outcomes; effects may depend on pre-existing usage patterns, enforcement fidelity, and complementary educational measures.
Unintended consequences represent a significant concern warranting careful attention. Evidence of covert device usage, separation anxiety, and potential displacement of distractions to alternative platforms suggests that blanket bans may produce problematic effects alongside intended benefits. Policymakers should anticipate these possibilities and design policies that minimise harm whilst maximising benefit.
Policy design and implementation emerge as critical determinants of effectiveness. Structured approaches that permit educational uses whilst restricting recreational engagement may outperform both complete prohibition and unrestricted access. Successful implementation requires complementary measures including digital literacy education, alternative engagement opportunities, clear communication, and consistent enforcement. One-size-fits-all approaches are unlikely to prove optimal across diverse educational contexts.
The significance of these findings extends beyond immediate policy decisions. The smartphone ban debate illuminates broader questions regarding technology’s role in education, the balance between protection and preparation, and the challenge of evidence-informed policymaking in rapidly evolving technological contexts. As smartphones become increasingly integral to adolescent life, schools must navigate tensions between creating focused learning environments and equipping students with skills for responsible digital citizenship.
Future research should prioritise rigorous experimental designs comparing policy variants across diverse settings. Randomised controlled trials examining complete bans versus structured usage approaches would substantially advance understanding. Longitudinal research capturing evolving student responses and long-term implications for digital literacy development represents another priority. Additionally, research addressing implementation processes—what factors predict successful policy enactment and how might challenges be anticipated and overcome—would provide practical guidance for schools.
In conclusion, smartphone bans in schools can produce modest behavioural benefits, particularly regarding bullying reduction, but are not a panacea for the challenges technology presents in educational settings. The inconsistent evidence regarding academic effects and documented unintended consequences counsel against simplistic approaches. Effective policy requires careful design, attention to implementation, and ongoing evaluation to ensure that intended benefits are realised whilst unintended harms are minimised. As technological contexts continue to evolve, educational policies must similarly adapt, informed by accumulating evidence and responsive to the diverse needs of students and schools.
References
Abrahamsson, S., 2024. Smartphone bans, student outcomes and mental health. *SSRN Electronic Journal*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4735240
Beland, L. and Murphy, R., 2016. Ill communication: Technology, distraction and student performance. *Labour Economics*, 41, pp. 61-76. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.04.004
Beneito, P. and Vicente-Chirivella, Ó., 2020. Banning mobile phones at schools: Effects on bullying and academic performance. Working Paper.
Beneito, P. and Vicente-Chirivella, Ó., 2022. Banning mobile phones in schools: Evidence from regional-level policies in Spain. *Applied Economic Analysis*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/aea-05-2021-0112
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. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14080906
Campbell, M., Edwards, E., Pennell, D., Poed, S., Lister, V., Gillett-Swan, J., Kelly, A., Zec, D. and Nguyen, T., 2024. Evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools: A scoping review. *Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools*, 34, pp. 242-265. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/20556365241270394
Deng, Z., Cheng, Z., Ferreira, P. and Pavlou, P., 2022. From smart phones to smart students: Distraction versus learning with mobile devices in the classroom. *SSRN Electronic Journal*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4028845
Deng, Z., Cheng, Z., Ferreira, P. and Pavlou, P., 2025. From smartphones to smart students: Learning vs. distraction using smartphones in the classroom. *Information Systems Research*. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.0078
Department for Education, 2024. *Mobile phones in schools*. London: Department for Education. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobile-phones-in-schools
Ferguson, C., 2025. Smartphone bans in schools remain unproven. *World Journal of Pediatrics*, 21, pp. 769-774. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12519-025-00951-1
Gath, M., Monk, L., Scott, A. and Gillon, G., 2024. Smartphones at school: A mixed-methods analysis of educators’ and students’ perspectives on mobile phone use at school. *Education Sciences*, 14(4), 351. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040351
Kessel, D., Hardardottir, H. and Tyrefors, B., 2020. The impact of banning mobile phones in Swedish secondary schools. *Economics of Education Review*, 77, 102009. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.102009
King, D., Radunz, M., Galanis, C., Quinney, B. and Wade, T., 2024. “Phones off while school’s on”: Evaluating problematic phone use and the social, wellbeing, and academic effects of banning phones in schools. *Journal of Behavioral Addictions*, 13, pp. 913-922. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2024.00058
Kopecký, K., Fernández-Martín, F., Szotkowski, R., Gómez-García, G. and Mikulcová, K., 2021. Behaviour of children and adolescents and the use of mobile phones in primary schools in the Czech Republic. *International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health*, 18(16), 8352. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168352
Magnusson, A., Ott, T., Segerstad, Y. and Hashemi, S., 2023. Complexities of managing a mobile phone ban in the digitalized schools’ classroom. *Computers in the Schools*, 40(4), pp. 303-323. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2023.2211062
Montag, C. and Elhai, J., 2023. Do we need a digital school uniform? Arguments for and against a smartphone ban in schools. *Societal Impacts*, 1, 100002. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socimp.2023.100002
Office for National Statistics, 2023. *Children’s online behaviour in England and Wales: Year ending March 2023*. London: ONS. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk
Ott, T. and Magnusson, A., 2021. Banning mobile phones: The experiences of the teachers. *ICERI2021 Proceedings*, pp. 4521-4528. Available at: https://doi.org/10.21125/iceri.2021.0378
Randhawa, A., Pallan, M., Twardochleb, R., Adab, P., Al-Janabi, H., Fenton, S., Jones, K., Michail, M., Patterson, P., Sitch, A., Wade, M. and Goodyear, V., 2024. Secondary school smartphone policies in England: A descriptive analysis of how schools rationalize, design, and implement restrictive and permissive phone policies. *Journal of Research on Technology in Education*, 57(5), pp. 1113-1132. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2024.2363204
Selwyn, N. and Aagaard, J., 2020. Banning mobile phones from classrooms: An opportunity to advance understandings of technology addiction, distraction and cyberbullying. *British Journal of Educational Technology*, 52(1), pp. 8-19. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12943
Wood, G., Goodyear, V., Adab, P., Al-Janabi, H., Fenton, S., Jones, K., Michail, M., Morrison, B., Patterson, P., Sitch, A., Wade, M. and Pallan, M., 2023. 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. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075832
