The debate over introducing smartphone pouches in schools has polarised educators, parents, and policymakers. While much of the discussion has been around the potential cost of these pouches, circa €9m, our focus should be on the benefits and risks of such an approach.
The main argument for introducing smartphone pouches hinges on the hope that they will minimise student distractions during school. It’s a view backed by a 2023 Unesco report that found that phones are disruptive in class. Many teachers I’ve spoken to echo this finding, saying smartphones can be a significant distraction, with students texting, playing games, or browsing social media during classes, negatively affecting their learning and engagement.
Research on supporting the removal of smartphones from schools is mixed.
Louis-Philippe Beland, an associate professor of economics at Carleton University in Ontario, co-authored a paper in 2017 which suggested that smartphone bans help students do better in class. His study, which looked at British school data, suggested a phone ban was equivalent to pupils spending an extra hour a day in class — although an attempt in 2020 to replicate the same study design in Sweden found that banning phones had no impact on student performance whatsoever.
Cutting down on cyberbullying is another reason given by supporters of smartphone pouches. Smartphones provide students with constant access to social media, where bullying can occur, and a ban could limit opportunities for online harassment during school hours. A systemic review this year of the literature on the effects of smartphone bans in schools by Prof Klaus Zierer and Tobias Bottger from the University of Augsburg in Germany found some improvements in social wellbeing but not so much in learning. They also found evidence suggesting smartphone bans can reduce social problems like bullying. The academics recommended that any ban must be accompanied by interventions such as media literacy.
It is well documented that smartphones impede social interactions, so the hope is that by banning them, schools might foster more face-to-face conversations, collaboration, and student teamwork.
Our collective ability to listen and tell a story is diminishing alarmingly. We must prioritise ways of connecting socially for young people and offer them the space and skills to do this. While a smartphone ban during school hours will not address this issue sufficiently, I would support any move to improve this communication crisis.
Another argument in favour of smartphone pouches is that they may prevent cheating. Yes, it would make it harder for students to look up answers or share information covertly. Still, cheating existed before smartphones and is likely to continue despite attempts to introduce smartphone pouches.
It is proposed that a school environment free of smartphones may reduce anxiety and the stress associated with constant notifications and comparison. However, I worry that this will only intensify teenagers’ engagement with this content during out-of-school hours, creating an even bigger battle for parents at home.
One of the main objections against a smartphone ban is that parents want to communicate directly with their children, especially in emergencies. A ban may raise concerns about student safety and parental peace of mind. Children agree—to a point.
Sonia Livingstone, a professor of social psychology at the London School of Economics and Political Science and a leading child media researcher, found that young people favoured smartphone pouches but were also keen to carve out exceptions. She outlines an example of a case of a child with diabetes who needs a reminder to take their pills or a child who’s caring for someone at home and needs to feel they could be reached in an emergency. She argues that introducing nonlocking pouches for children who need their phones to monitor blood sugar or other medically necessary reasons should be facilitated.
An argument against introducing pouches is the measure might prevent students from learning how to use technology responsibly. Some experts, like Pete Etchells, a psychology professor at Bath Spa University and author of Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time, believe that schools can be an essential environment for teaching digital literacy, internet safety, and online conduct, and banning smartphones can limit students’ ability to learn these skills. With education evolving to integrate technology more deeply, smartphones may be seen as part of this modernisation. Some argue that banning smartphones sends a retrograde message in a world where tech skills are increasingly essential for future careers.
Other parents argue that smartphones often provide accessibility features for students with additional needs, such as text-to-speech, voice commands, or specialised apps. They worry that a ban could hinder these students from accessing the tools they need for their education.
Implementing and enforcing any smartphone ban will present a logistical challenge for schools, as students may find ways to circumvent the rules, requiring even further monitoring from teachers and staff.
While there are obvious benefits to children not having their attention hacked by smartphone technology during school hours, this does not address the issue in a broader context.
If we are to manage our problematic relationship with technology, we need to work with humans, not the devices.
Even if we could remove harmful elements such as pornography, cyberbullying, and grooming from the internet, we would still have the case of a 14-year-old spending nine hours a day watching videos of cats on skateboards. Of course, regulating content and access must be addressed, but self-regulating our attention is the holy grail of our relationship with technology — this is where our efforts must focus. We must teach young people how technology hacks our attention and harvests our data to sell it to the highest bidder. We need them to know about surveillance capitalism and how they are being manipulated so that they can choose to step away from technology instead of being denied access in a way that glamourises the online world and makes it even more alluring.
As a foundation stone, we need to address the issue of smartphone ownership in primary schoolchildren. I have visited many schools over the past 18 months to discuss the possibility of getting parents to commit to delaying smartphone ownership while their child attends primary school and have been disheartened by the level of resistance. Whatever the reason for allowing older teenagers to develop self-regulation skills, the possibility of primary schoolchildren learning those skills is unreasonable. We need to start by protecting younger age groups and allowing them to have a smartphone-free childhood experience and use that time to instil a value system that promotes a more informed and mature relationship with technology so smartphone pouches will not be required by the time they start secondary school.
Debates about internet access are typically split between those who are rights-based and those who are responsibility-based. Those who are responsibility-based will support measures like bans and prohibitions to protect children from outside forces. Those who are rights-based will be more supportive of education and awareness and see value in giving the child or teenager the right to choose their level of access to the online world. These approaches are both right and wrong.
Children need to earn the right to own a smartphone by showing responsibility. So, we must offer them the opportunity and support to learn how to develop a healthy relationship with technology at a pace they can manage developmentally. The answer is not smartphone pouches or unfettered access — it is controlled exposure in tandem with a child’s ability to self-regulate.
Dr Colman Noctor is a child psychotherapist
