On a damp February morning in England, ministers quietly released new guidance. Their message was simple yet bold: the use of mobile phones should be banned in schools during the school day.
What seemed like a small procedural shift carries with it deeper contestations of technology, attention, wellbeing, and the role of schools in modern childhood.
A Proposal With Many Ways In
Under the new guidance from the Department for Education (DfE), headteachers are encouraged—but not compelled—to institute bans on mobile phones for students at school.
Schools may choose from a menu of options: banning devices from the premises entirely, mandating that phones be handed in on arrival, locking them in secure storage during the day, or allowing students to keep them as long as they are “never used, seen or heard.”
The guidance also notes flexibility for cases where a student has health needs—for example, using a mobile app to monitor diabetes.
While this steering document gives heads more confidence to act, it stops short of a legal requirement. The guidance is non-statutory; schools retain autonomy. Some see this as a prudent balance; others see it as a tentative gesture.
The Ministry frames the move as a “crackdown on mobile phones in schools” to reduce disruption and bolster behaviour standards in classrooms.
Gillian Keegan, then Education Secretary, said that schools are places for children to learn and mobile phones are, at a minimum, an unwanted distraction in the classroom.
Why Now? Evidence, Worries And Momentum
The push for phone bans is grounded in mounting concern about the interplay of distraction, mental health, and online harms in young lives.
In England, 97 percent of children reportedly own a phone by age 12. The DfE cites data that about 29 percent of secondary pupils say mobile phones are used during lessons when they should not be.
Meanwhile, UNESCO has called for smartphone bans in schools, pointing to negative effects of excessive screen time on focus, wellbeing, and academic performance.
Neuroscience and behavioural studies add nuance to the debate. Even the mere presence of a phone—before it’s touched—can “prime” our attention to wander.
Excessive use of devices is linked with poorer sleep, lower executive function, and decreased sustained attention among adolescents. Some critics caution that blanket bans risk undermining legitimate pedagogical uses of devices or restricting social and emotional connectivity, especially for those who rely on phones for safe communication outside school.
Responses From The Front Lines: Welcome, Wary, Mixed
Reactions to the proposal have ranged — and sometimes, contradicted.
From one headteacher’s perspective, the guidance gives permission to do what many already practice. In schools where phones were fully banned, leaders report shifts in culture: the social pressure had been removed.
Some students and teachers say they now enjoy quieter corridors, fewer digital distractions during breaks, and more eye contact in class.
Geoff Barton, leader of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), noted that numerous schools already have strict rules limiting or prohibiting mobile phone use, suggesting the new guidance adds little to existing practices.
Similarly, Daniel Kebede, head of the National Education Union, emphasized that such measures are unlikely to bring significant change in schools where effective policies are already in place, adding that attention should remain on more pressing matters such as adequate funding and staffing levels.
Other critics flagged the limits of enforcement. In debates at Westminster, defects in practical oversight and the uneven burden on headteachers were raised.
Further complicating the picture, fact checks carried out in 2025 suggest that the proportion of schools already enforcing bans is ambiguous.
Some surveys of teachers imply roughly 83 percent of secondary teachers report their schools prohibit phone use unless allowed by staff — yet only a minority of schools may have full “no phone in person” bans.
In one Freedom of Information exercise, only 13 percent of responding secondary schools claimed an “effective ban”; another 52 percent had bans with phones remaining with students.
More recently, a national survey from April 2025 suggested that over 90 percent of secondary schools now enforce restrictions on student phone use during the day. That suggests many school leaders are adopting the spirit of the guidance, though nuances remain in how strict or permissive their rules are.
Beyond Bans: Challenges, Equity And Unintended Risks
A policy is only as good as its implementation—and in a decentralized school system, that implementation will vary.
Enforcement Burdens And Fairness: In schools with broken lockers, limited storage, or large student populations, physically collecting, storing, and returning devices may strain staff time or logistics. Schools in lower-income districts may lack infrastructure to support safe storage solutions or to supervise device collection.
Equity Of Access: Some students use phones for legitimate reasons — part-time work communications, caring responsibilities, or access to support networks. Blanket bans may unintentionally penalize those with fewer support options. Exceptions must be handled sensitively.
Substitution Effects: If phones disappear, what fills the gap? Some schools report increased use of smartwatches, portable tablets, or covert devices. Training for teachers to engage students’ attention and replace screen time with richer interactions becomes vital.
Unrealistic Expectations: Critics warn that a ban is not a magic wand. It cannot fully solve mental health pressures, online harms, or social networking addiction outside school hours.
Cautious Backlash: Parents asserting that emergency contact is hampered or children need autonomy over their devices may resist overly rigid rules. Schools that adopt bans must maintain open dialogue with families and explain the trade-offs.
A Turning Tide — Or A Cautious Nudge?
Though the DfE’s guidance stops short of compulsion, its release has shifted the conversation. The fact that over 90 percent of secondary schools reportedly now enforce restrictions—even if varying in strictness—signals a growing consensus that mobile phones must be reined in during school hours.
Academy chains like Ormiston are going phone-free across dozens of schools, affecting tens of thousands of pupils. In the London borough of Barnet, every school is set to ban phones entirely by term start, including at breaks.
In union halls, voices are now shifting. Daniel Kebede has publicly backed the idea of a statutory, legally binding ban — arguing it would unburden headteachers and clarify expectations.
Yet the Labour government counters that school leaders are best placed to tailor policies locally, and a nationwide mandate is unnecessary.
In parliamentary exchanges, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has dismissed rigid mandates as redundant, saying that almost every school already bans phones in school.
In Defence Of Silence: Small Freedoms, Big Possibilities
If you pause a moment and picture a quiet corridor during break time—the hum of chatter, laughter, dropping of bags, not the constant vibration or gleam of smartphone screens—that image is not nostalgic, it is intentional. The policy shift on mobile phones in schools invites us to reclaim unmediated space, attention, and presence in children’s lives.
Consider the student who enters school each morning with a mind restless from overnight notifications. Without a phone buzzing, they might arrive with headspace to absorb a morning briefing or notice a friend’s quiet greeting. Or the teacher who delivers a concept, and has eyes, not half-glances, from students.
Yes, schools cannot ban the digital world itself, but they can offer a sanctuary: a time and space where children are seen, listened to, and encouraged to think deeply again. In a landscape dominated by algorithmic voices, that may be the most radical gift.
A ban is not a cure-all, but it is a deliberate assertion: that childhood should not be managed by screens, and learning needs room to breathe. If well implemented, it might become a quiet revolution—one where devices rest, and minds wake.
