UNESCO has called for international bans on smartphones in schools. Many teachers are concerned as well: a survey shows that 72 percent of high school teachers in the United States view cellphones as a major distraction for students. The growing use of smartphones in schools, along with increasing awareness of their negative effects, has led many countries to restrict their use and support policies that reinforce these measures. Despite this, some see such actions as unnecessary, or as an infringement upon individual rights.
Notably, the National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) ruled in 2024 that the collection of smartphones during the day at schools does not constitute a human rights violation, reaffirming its 2014 decision. Initial tests of this new strategy show promising results. Many schools that have prohibited phones have experienced fewer problems with discipline and absenteeism, with one psychologist noting that in those schools, “laughter can be heard in the hallways again.”
While smartphone bans in schools are proving to be beneficial in the short run, they ultimately do not address many underlying issues with increasing screen time dependence, such as technology companies making their services as addictive as possible, particularly to children. Furthermore, the positive effects technology can bring to the classroom, particularly in places like parts of Africa, necessitate a judicious approach to restricting smartphone usage that still allows for the benefits of technological learning.
Positive Effects of Technology in the Classroom
Despite the negative effects it often has on student learning, technology also presents many positives. For example, remote learning enabled by technology is a definite plus. While its position on smartphones in schools is negative overall, UNESCO recognizes the massive continuity boost that remote learning gave student learning during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Furthermore, increasing technological literacy in regions like Africa can open doors to the gains in development that technology can offer. Brookings estimates that AI could double African countries’ GDP rate by 2035, emphasizing the possibility for growth in areas such as training and education. Beyond that, mobile phones in general have been shown to help achieve greater equality and equity in access to services, making travel less necessary in areas such as education and banking. Aside from the individual benefits of this improved access, it may spur economic growth.
Aiming to boost equity and reduce the need for expensive private tutoring institutes, or “Hakwons,” the South Korean government pushed the use of AI textbooks in classrooms. Ultimately, teachers, schools, and lawmakers successfully resisted universal adoption of these textbooks, but the situation illustrates potential benefits of technology in classrooms: tailoring learning to students and improving educational outcomes.
A 2022 dissertation from the University of Kent indicates that in Niger, students with access to mobile phones in the classroom received higher scores than students in the control group. That said, mobile phones increased math scores more than writing scores, showing that their usage is not universally beneficial and could even lead to diminishing returns, depending on the area of focus.
Some technology in schools also offers a safety element. Parents highlight the important role smartphones play in allowing consistent communication with their children while they are in school, particularly in emergencies. Lee Yoon-kyung, leader of the National Parents’ Association for True Education in South Korea, pointed out the anxiety that could be caused in students and parents alike through restricting access to phones.
However, neither remote learning nor developing technological literacy requires the use of smartphones specifically, and for parents truly concerned about their students’ safety, options such as so-called “dumbphones” are available. These are less distracting but allow communication to be sustained.
Alternatives to Bans
Even for countries who agree that smartphones have significant negative effects on schools, some have found alternatives to banning them altogether. For example, China has limited the use of smartphones to 30 percent or less of the time spent teaching, and has incorporated breaks from screens. This enables the integration of smartphone technology into learning while allowing the majority of classroom time to be screen-free.
Though it is not directly related to school bans on smartphones, Australia’s recent decision to ban social media for those under 16 years of age represents an alternative route to approaching technology’s chokehold on children. This option allows regulations to target specific applications that may distract students during school, without requiring a blanket ban against the devices themselves. (Australia itself has banned smartphones in all public schools, but the point remains.)
Addiction or Personal Responsibility?
Ultimately, though, the above measures are aimed at punishing users, not the technology companies that intentionally hook users as much as possible. The American Psychological Association (APA) recognizes technological addiction, which includes social media addiction as a subgroup. In 2017, Sean Parker, the founding president of Facebook, directly admitted that the company “exploit[ed] a vulnerability in human psychology” in trying to maximize user time. This admission came prior to Instagram’s and Facebook’s adoption of short-form “reels” in 2020 and 2021, respectively—an arguably far more attention-grabbing medium popularized by TikTok. Considering 59.9 percent of the global population uses social media for an average of two hours and 24 minutes a day, the influence that social media companies hold is staggering.
In fact, by October 2024, more than a dozen states had sued TikTok for intentionally making the platform addictive to children. According to communications among TikTok employees that these states accessed, a staffer referred to its algorithm as having a “slot machine effect on young people.” One executive confirmed targeting younger users, saying that “it’s better to have young people as an early adopter.” When NPR asked TikTok for comment on the allegations that it violated consumer protection laws, the company pointed to settings that are adaptable on the consumer’s end, such as parental controls, screen time, and privacy.
In that vein, there is still a large degree of personal and parental responsibility in choosing to use these social media services. In Australia, despite the laws previously discussed, 84 percent of kids 8 to 12 years old use social media—a striking figure that points to parental responsibility as a significant factor. Furthermore, social media apps are certainly not the only ones students may use during the school day. And of course, schools may restrict phone use as much as they like, but a student can still go home and spend the rest of the day on their phone.
Moving Forward
Though restrictions on school phone use may target the issue in the short term, they are incomplete without also requiring increased accountability and transparency from technology companies, as well as publicizing the harm caused by heavy screen time and social media usage, especially to adolescents. The latter would provide parents and students alike with more tools to make healthier choices about technology consumption. Technology’s positive impacts on global classrooms are also important to weigh. In the end, there may be more than one way to hear laughter in school hallways again.
