Mobile Devices in Educational Institutions: To Prohibit or to Reflect?

The global surge in legislative measures supporting the prohibition of mobile phones in educational institutions has been met with resistance from critics who call for a more nuanced and reflective approach to the issue

License Creative Commons

Enrique Benítez Palma

In the closing months of the previous academic year, there was widespread discussion around the necessity of banning mobile phones in schools. However, as the 2024/2025 academic year begins, interest in this topic seems to have subsided. Despite this, legislative initiatives have persisted across the globe, sparking ongoing debate among key stakeholders within the education system—teachers, families, students—alongside education authorities and academic experts. This dialogue continues to yield insights and conclusions that are of practical relevance.

In Spain, the Consejo Escolar del Estado (State School Council) put forward noteworthy proposals in January 2024 concerning the use of mobile devices in non-university educational institutions. This concise, two-page foundational document identified the inherent tension between the clear goal of improving digital competencies—which advocates the introduction and use of technological tools in classrooms—and the issues arising from “the improper use of personal mobile devices”. This initial framework set the stage for a more detailed document, published on 18 June 2024, titled “El uso de dispositivos móviles en la educación del siglo XXI”, (The Use of Mobile Devices in 21st-Century Education). The latter text underscores the educational advantages of mobile devices, recommends providing training for students and their families on responsible use, emphasises the importance of each school’s individual educational projects, and calls for regulations that are tailored to different educational stages. It also introduces early considerations regarding the inevitable role of artificial intelligence in the educational landscape.

In September 2024, the Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) issued a timely reminder to stakeholders about “the responsibilities and obligations related to the use of mobile digital devices in primary and secondary education”. This instructive and pedagogical document emphasises the need for strict compliance with data protection laws, which affect not only educational institutions but also companies offering commercial applications within the EdTech sector. Often, personal data is processed without the knowledge or consent of the affected individuals or the educational institutions responsible for the students. The lack of respect for privacy by some of the major providers of educational applications is an issue that deserves further examination, and will be discussed in upcoming publications of Educational Evidence.

The AEPD’s recent document dedicates several sections to the use of mobile devices in educational institutions, referencing existing regional legislation and outlining possible scenarios, including sanctions for non-compliance. For students attending public schools in Autonomous Communities where such regulations are in place, sanctions are typically disciplinary rather than financial, involving actions such as confiscation of devices or, in some cases, expulsion. As the discussion progresses, it raises the question of whether potential conflicts might arise between older students and teachers over the confiscation of mobile phones, and whether these rules can be enforced without disruption.

The perceived success of prohibitionist measures seems to be bolstered by a broad social consensus, especially among teachers and parents. Various reports indicate improved attention in class, fewer disciplinary issues, and a reduction in instances of bullying through social media. Yet, other research points to the lack of solid evidence to support such a drastic measure, advocating instead for less restrictive approaches to manage this complex issue. Among the most vocal critics is Manuel Area Moreira of the University of La Laguna, who champions a stance of “more education and less prohibition”. He characterises the current trend as a “digital counter-reform in education”, defining it as “a protectionist response to the negative effects of technology on children and adolescents, where the solution has been to ban or restrict its use in educational environments”. According to Area Moreira, this approach is “pedagogically contradictory” and reflects “a conservative, and at times nostalgic, view of education”. His argument challenges the educational community, as he suggests that “digital negationism or prohibitionism oversimplifies the debate on technology and education, reducing it to a binary discussion of whether [this relationship] is beneficial or harmful”, as if context and usage did not matter.

Area Moreira’s alternative proposals are rooted in fostering digital literacy among students and families, encouraging critical thinking and creativity, promoting exemplary behaviour by parents at home, and shifting towards active, engaged learning that moves beyond the mere reception of “disciplinary content.” His chapter “Nostalgias, Miedos y Prohibiciones: La Contrarreforma Digital de la Educación” is highly recommended, available in open access as part of the book Didáctica y Tecnología: Encrucijadas, Debates y Desafíos, edited by Miriam Kap.

A similar debate has unfolded in the United Kingdom, where the previous Conservative government strongly advocated for banning mobile phones in schools. In February 2024, they issued a guide encouraging schools to craft their own policies on mobile phone use, accompanied by a “toolkit” designed to help educational institutions effectively communicate prohibitions to the school community, manage enforcement, and address potential consequences. These recommendations could prove useful for Spanish schools, as British authorities suggested trial periods to gauge reactions from students and families, along with using all available communication channels—emails, newsletters, face-to-face meetings, tutorials—to ensure the policy’s successful implementation, foster family support, and reduce student resistance.

Prohibiting mobile phones in schools is a complex challenge for several reasons. Many parents wish to remain in contact with their children throughout the day; some teachers have found innovative ways to use mobile phones to engage students and enhance learning; and emergency situations, such as school shootings in the United States, often necessitate immediate communication with students. Additionally, students with special educational needs may require mobile devices. Surveys also show widespread mobile phone use outside of school, often with parents passively allowing it as long as their children don’t disrupt them. Society must therefore confront the contradiction of demanding a ban on mobile phones during school hours while imposing no such restrictions outside of school.

In a telephone survey conducted in Scotland in February 2024 among secondary school teachers, alarming insights emerged regarding mobile phone use in classrooms. A staggering 92% of teachers reported classroom interruptions due to inappropriate phone use by students; 75% indicated that these interruptions occurred in all or nearly all of their classes; and although 72% of schools had internal policies regarding mobile phone use, only 9% of teachers found these policies effective. Furthermore, 59% of teachers supported either a total or partial (in-class) ban on mobile devices. Although no similar survey exists in Spain, it’s reasonable to assume that the results would be comparable, if not more concerning.

In response to the UK’s prohibitionist stance, scholars like Sonia Livingstone, Miriam Rahali, and Beeban Kidron from the London School of Economics have raised significant questions. They point out the contradiction between guidelines that encourage schools to ban mobile phones and the National EdTech Strategy, which promotes the educational use of new technologies and the development of students’ technological skills for better integration into the labour market. In a world where almost every interaction with public institutions and private companies is digital, it seems counterproductive for education systems to sidestep digital literacy. Teachers, families, and students are keenly aware of this inconsistency. The researchers also noted the lack of conclusive evidence linking mobile phone bans to improved learning outcomes or behaviour, despite strong public support for prohibition. Their proposed solution involves embedding digital literacy, skills, and the capacity to assess the risks of mobile devices into the curriculum—both inside and outside the classroom.

Perhaps the most vibrant debate on this topic is happening in the United States, where at least 13 states have enacted restrictive or prohibitive mobile phone laws, and California is set to pass the Phone-Free Schools Act, which will require all schools to implement mobile phone policies by July 2026. In the Anglophone world, policies often vary depending on local contexts, allowing schools the flexibility to adopt stricter or more relaxed rules depending on factors such as school size, socioeconomic environment, teacher training, and other variables. Between outright prohibition and complete freedom lies a broad spectrum of possibilities.

A pivotal finding from the American context comes from a Pew Research Centre survey published in June 2024, which offered two critical insights. First, 60% of secondary school teachers anticipated difficulties in enforcing legislative rules and internal policies—a concern that has been largely overlooked in Spain. Second, 70% of students believed mobile phones provided more benefits than drawbacks. This reveals a deep societal contradiction: while minors are often left unchecked in their private use of mobile phones—spending hours absorbed in screens—there is an attempt to sever this connection to their digital world during school hours.

In conclusion, professors Christian Montag and Jon D. Elhai encapsulate the debate by presenting compelling arguments both for and against banning mobile phones in educational institutions. Proponents of prohibition cite reduced distractions, improved academic performance, increased physical activity, greater face-to-face interaction, and the potential to foster imagination and creativity by managing boredom. Meanwhile, opponents argue that such bans prevent families from maintaining contact with their children, fail to prepare students for a distraction-filled world, and impose significant enforcement costs, such as providing lockers for phones. They also suggest that prohibitions may be contrary to the principles of a free and open society. Their article provocatively asks whether we need a “digital school uniform”—a question that demands careful and nuanced reflection.

Font: educational EVIDENCE

Drets: Creative Commons