Strict bans on mobile phones in schools have “close to zero” impact on student learning and show no evidence of improvements in attendance or online bullying, a study has found.
Researchers at US universities including Stanford and Duke looked at nearly 1,800 US schools where students’ phones were kept in locked pouches and found little or no differences in outcomes compared with similar schools without strict bans.
The report concluded that among schools instituting a ban: “For academic achievement, average effects on test scores are consistently close to zero.”
The results will come as a disappointment to teaching unions and campaigners in England who backed the government’s recent move to restrict the use of mobile phones in schools. A ban is likely to come into force next year.
Keep in mind the paper is a white paper (not peer reviewed) and it is sponsored by the Bezos Family Foundation and Walton Family. Personally taking it with a grain of salt and waiting for some experts to weigh in who are not economists (like most of the authors are) since I don’t feel like combing through this 100 page document.
it gets even stupider than that:
We acknowledge funding from Arnold Ventures
who is this John Arnold guy anyway…let’s see…and…oh
since February 2024, is a member of the board of directors of Meta.
oh, and fun fact, it’s not even a real fucking charity:
The Laura and John Arnold Foundation was initially created as a philanthropic organization, but was restructured as a limited liability company and renamed Arnold Ventures in January 2019. The organization’s LLC structure is intended to allow it to operate with more flexibility.
so he’s on the board of directors for Meta, which among other things owns Instagram…and he has a side business that pretends to be a charity even though it’s not, and it funds publication of a “study” saying no, teenagers having cell phones 24/7 is totally fine actually.
the tobacco industry used to pay people to wear white lab coats and say cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. it’s tempting to think of ourselves as more savvy than they were, and look back in hindsight and say “how could people have fallen for such obvious bullshit?”
well…
Wow that casts a healthy dose of doubt on the entire study. Thank you for pointing it all out so thoroughly!
I had seen the LLC thing and raised my eyebrows at the projects listed on their wiki, but didn’t see the META board thing, good catch. Everything is both awful and exactly as expected.
The Fox Family Institute for Poultry Studies determines that hen house doors should be left open
Interesting that Guardian didn’t see fit to mention it was a white paper unless I missed something.
Just on the epistemological tip, how is it being a white paper more relevant than having Bezos, Waltons, and more (of the same) sponsors?
Typically when a news article mentions a “study” it’s a peer reviewed research article. If it’s a white paper or a working paper that is typically pointed out. Leaving that detail out is notable and probably a purposeful decision by my reckoning.
Generally they don’t mention conflicts of interest even if they’re listed so that bit isn’t especially atypical here to me.
Okay. Again, from the standpoint of how to get at what’s knowable - my complaint here with The Guardian is that they aren’t pointing out the things they should be, at all, and that the white paper nature (from such “sources”) merits exactly nothing. No further draft on any such topic from such sources could ever be credible.
Your “typical / atypical” is you getting to my point for me, or maybe we just agree.
When did schools start allowing phones?
When the excuse “but what if my mom needs to call me” started working.
Mom can call the school. It worked for 70 years.
Why does the school have to be the middle-man? Just ban phones during actual classes and let them use it during free periods.
In practice that doesn’t work, for the same reasons education hasn’t been either. Too few teachers to students, plus the things (phones) are greasily addictive. And we’re talking about the youths, lol, dumb-kid brain, most exemplified by teenagers of course. The phase of life that specifically combines “rules are actually just stupid, did you ever notice that?” with “so anyway (I forgot what we were talking about [or any other thing])”.
It’s really just placing an extremely addictive thing in the pocket of anyone prone to addiction. Kiddos are very naturally weak to resisting those “reward now, consequences later” qualities that drive addiction in the first place. And just like any drug that sells, phones have been engineered (legally, lauded in many ways for doing so) to be super-duper addictive.
“Why don’t the children simply smoke the crack pipe in the hallways, between classes, forbidden to do so in class? Why must the school be the middle-man?”
Shallow take homie.
This should have been obvious. Why would you only be able to bully someone digitally in the time you’re in the school building? I was in high school when cell phones were first coming out, so I remember school before and during phones, and kids always could and would ignore class if they wanted to. This feels like an attempt to divert blame from school systems not being reactive to generational learning differences and needs. There are reasons to ban phones in schools, but if you think that doing so is going to prevent bullying or ignoring class, methinks you don’t remember pre-phone school.
I’m sorry but this comment, as well as the posted article is misguided. I am a classroom teacher and I can say without hesitation that it is 100% impossible to teach someone when they have a phone in their hand. It is extremely challenging when the phone is in their pocket. It is manageable but not ideal when it is in their bag.
Your brain is capable of doing one thing at a time and if that thing is scrolling feeds, then it is not learning.
If you’d like to develop an informed opinion on the matter, I highly recommend The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt. His book comes with a website with a regularly updated collection of research and data on the matter. The data is staggering; there is absolutely no question that smartphones do not belong in a classroom, full stop. They generally don’t belong in a child or adolescent’s hand either, but schools cannot do anything about that. To think otherwise simply indicates that you have not been in a classroom later than 2011.
Here is a link to that data: https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/research/collaborative-review-docs
My partner is a teacher, as well.
it is 100% impossible to teach someone when they have a phone in their hand
Yes, but this is a symptom of structural problems with our school system. Looking at phones didn’t make kids hate school. Hating school made kids want to look at their phones.
Schools have been shifting from places of learning, which requires exploration, to places of compliance and regurgitation. And it’s not just about the shift towards obedience-based, rote memorization in service of standardized testing (or how schools care about attendance only for funding reasons), we’ve even shifted the literal architectural design philosophy behind how we construct school buildings to be more prison-like.
The pandemic lockdown was horrible for kids, but the rush to reopen schools wasn’t about the negative impact it was having on their social development, it was about serving business interests who wanted their parent-employees back at work. They wanted the childrens’ holding cells reopened.
When we actually start shifting schools back towards environments of learning, at a structural level, I will have sympathy for the mission of education over sympathy for the disinterested
inmatesstudents.
