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Keep in mind the paper is a white paper (not peer reviewed) and it is sponsored by the Bezos Family Foundation and Walton Family.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:
an American company that is the philanthropic vehicle of billionaires John D. Arnold and Laura Arnold
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:
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.