2024
Debating Matters Transatlantic is a partnership project between Bill of Rights Institute, Ideas Matter and Incubate Debate.
Please note, this Topic Guide should be the starting point of your research. You are encouraged to conduct your own independent research to supplement your argument.
INTRODUCTION
According to recent studies, the majority of young people in both the UK and US own a smartphone. Research by the UK’s communications regulator Ofcom found that smartphone ownership among 12- to 15-year-olds is above 95 per cent, with nearly a quarter of three- and four-year-olds owning a device. The research also showed that half of children aged three to 12 use at least one social-media app, despite the minimum age requirement being 13 (Ref: Guardian). While in the US, a 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 95% of American teens have access to a cellphone with 58% of them reporting using TikTok daily (Pew Research Center).
Smartphone use has been linked to a wide range of poor educational and mental-health problems, particularly in relation to social-media use (Ref: TES). The use of smartphones by under-16s has, therefore, become the subject of widespread debate in both countries. From failing eyesight, insomnia and poor concentration to self-harm, anorexia, anxiety and addiction, social media is held to be responsible for an array of problems relating to mental health and wellbeing in children. This has led many to call for an outright ban, or for usage to be at least severely restricted, for those under 16, particularly in school (Ref: Spectator).
In light of concerns over smartphone use among young people, the previous UK government launched an inquiry in September 2023 to consider whether a complete ban on smartphones in the classroom should be implemented (Ref: UK Parliament). Although the then Conservative government stopped short of legislation, it did issue a set of guidelines for schools, which was published in February 2024 (Ref: Gov.UK). The guidance suggested that ‘phones risk unnecessary distraction, disruption and diversion… This not only distracts the single pupil using the phone, but disrupts the lesson for the whole class, and diverts teachers’ efforts away from learning’ and that schools should aim to ‘provide a policy which prohibits the use of phones throughout the school day’. The government also stated that this policy should be open to ‘reasonable adaptions’ in the case of pupils with specific medical or social needs, such as children who use apps to manage a disability or a condition such as diabetes. But, even in such cases, smartphone usage would be restricted unless it was necessary.
Several states in the US, including Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and Florida have enacted legislation limiting cell phone access during the school year. Other districts have banned the use of phones during instructional time — or have allowed teachers to do so in their individual classes — while permitting their use during lunch or in the hallways. Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin has also announced new restrictions on smartphone use in schools, emphasizing the importance of minimising distractions and improving students’ focus in the classroom. The policy aligns with growing concerns among educators and parents and reflects a broader national trend towards limiting or banning mobile devices in educational settings (Ref: CNN).
In Los Angeles, the second-largest district in the US, the school board voted to ban cellphone use (Ref: The Washington Post). Alberto M. Carvalho, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, said in an interview that when you walk into a lunchroom, there are tables of four or five students staring at their phones rather than interacting with one another, which is heartbreaking. ‘Smartphones and the content students access relentlessly 24/7 are distracting kids from learning and eroding their mental health,’ he said.
The most restrictive school polices require students to hand over phones for the entire school day or store them in a locking pouch. Breaching the rules can lead to phone confiscation or losing out on extra-curricular opportunities. Occasionally misbehaviour yields more-severe consequences, such as exclusion for repeat offenders (Ref:
Middle College High School at HCC Fraga).
DEBATE IN CONTEXT
This section provides a summary of the key issues in the debate, set in the context of recent discussions and the competing positions that have been adopted.
In light of growing concerns over smartphone use among young people, and a range of studies, including observations of mobile-phone bans in France and the Netherlands (see AROUND THE WORLD below), banning smartphones in classrooms is becoming a popular again. When they were first introduced, many schools banned them but, as companies began developing applications and programmes that allowed phones to be used for educational purposes, that changed, according to Victor Pereira, a lecturer on education at Harvard University [The Washington Post]. Phones could suddenly be used as a measurement device in laboratories or to play games that test learning. By 2015-2016, just 66 percent of schools in the US barred their use. Then, when the coronavirus pandemic arrived, phones became a lifeline to learning in a virtual school environment for many students. However, more recently, the debate has shifted towards the impact of smartphones on children’s mental health. In particular, the work of social psychologist Professor Jonathan Haidt, who ‘has argued extensively that, between 2010 and 2015, there was a profound shift in the mental health of children and young people’ and claimed that ‘as children traded in their flip phones for smartphones with social media apps, their time spent online soared while time engaging face-to-face with loved ones plummeted, which negatively impacted their mental health’ (Ref: UK Parliament).
The Anxious Generation?
Professor Haidt’s 2024 book, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewriting of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness, provides the setting for much of the contemporary debate. In the book, Haidt looks at the influences at play in the problems faced by the ‘iPhone generation’, citing comprehensive accounts of contemporary social, psychological and evolutionary theories, the science of the brain and many academic papers on the impact of new technology (Ref: Strangers and Intimates Substack).
For Haidt, young people face a more isolating, uncertain and confusing world than ever before. In the absence of strong values and communities, young people feel disoriented and confused (Ref: The Conversation). He also suggests this trend has emerged at the same time as a ‘decline of a play-based childhood’ (Ref: NYU News). For young people, smartphones are filling this gap, and social media is ‘transforming childhood’. The result, according to Haidt, is poor educational results, worsening mental health and declining attention spans. Moreover, the fact these trends are happening in the US, Canada, and the UK means looking beyond country-specific reasons, such as the horrendous school shooting in Sandy Hook in 2012 (Ref: After Babel).
Digital detox or smartphone scapegoat?
One prominent advocate of banning smartphones in the classroom is Katherine Birbalsingh, who in 2022 was the chair of the UK government’s social-mobility commission. Head teacher at the Michaela School in London, Birbalsingh described how her school has introduced a ‘digital detox’ programme, where pupils must hand in their mobile phones and video devices at the start of the school day. She argued that parents can improve the social mobility of their children by restricting access to their phone because: ‘If we genuinely want things to be fairer, and we want our disadvantaged children to be socially mobile, the best thing I can do for them is getting them not to have a smartphone’ (Ref: Guardian).
However, a special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) specialist and consultant, Penelope Shortland-Palmer, disagrees that banning smartphones in the classroom is the answer to the challenges affecting young people. Good mental health, she argues, ‘is driven by a reasonable control over your environment and choices, a strong and supportive community, and the ability to access positive experiences’. Combined with the fact that, since the pandemic, some pupils are unwilling to attend school at all, the answer is not to make schools more draconian (Ref: Schools Week).
Furthermore, Shortland-Palmer points out that for many students, such as those with autism, their smartphone is a lifeline, it is their safe space and much of their social activity takes place online. ‘Loneliness and depression are not consequences of smartphone use; smartphone use is a logical response to the withdrawal of opportunities to take part in real, live activities’ (Ref: Schools Week). For Shortland-Palmer, focusing on smartphones to the exclusion of many other factors means we are in danger of failing to address the real problems faced by young people today.
The broader picture
British sociologist Dr Tiffany Jenkins argues that we need to look at the broader picture. Whilst she agrees with Professor Haidt’s argument ‘that kids are over-protected off-line but under-protected online’, she is critical of his overall thesis. Haidt, she says, is so determined to isolate the twin causes of smartphone use and the decrease in play-based childhood that he misses the broader picture.
Citing the work of an Oxford psychologist, Lucy Foulkes (Ref: New Statesman), Jenkins suggests ‘well-meaning efforts to discuss mental health with young people might be inadvertently steering them towards negative outcomes… Rather than encouraging [young people] to navigate the normal ups and downs of life as part of the human experience, we teach them to view these struggles as indicators of issues requiring immediate diagnosis and intervention.’ (Ref: Strangers and Intimates Substack).
Jenkins also points out that there have been other events, like the global economic crash and subsequent recessions, as well as the prominence of activists such as Greta Thunberg who promote a ‘climate catastrophe’, which can make young people fearful about their future. Indeed, it is this contemporary narrative, Jenkins argues, where ‘the younger generation is constantly confronted with the notion of an uncertain future that leads to anxiety and fearfulness rather than the particular challenges of our age’. It’s hardly surprising that they are anxious, when they are constantly led to believe they have no future, she says.
In addition, Jenkins is one of many critics of Haidt who argue that he has made the classic error of confusing correlation with causation. In other words, just because the decline in mental health in the young coincides with the advent of the smartphone, doesn’t mean the latter is causing the former. There have been a range of events which could be said to define our post-2007 era that Haidt fails to consider properly.
In a series of blogs from the London School of Economics, other academics have also been critical of studies such as Haidt’s which claim a link between mental health and smartphone use in the young. They point out that many such studies are prone to cherry-picking their evidence, choosing studies that support their hypothesis and downplaying any research that does not support their claims. In addition, many overstate the extent to which internet addiction is an issue among adolescents, depriving young people of the agency to make decisions for themselves. Such studies often make claims beyond what the data actually shows and dismiss a range of alternative explanations for the rise in mental-health problems in children (Ref: LSE blogs).
A Moral Panic?
Another British psychologist, Pete Etchells, is also sceptical of the link between screen-based activities and poor mental health. In his recent book, Unlocked: the real science of screen time and how to spend it better (2024) Etchells also highlights the correlation versus causation problem, arguing it could be as easily argued that mental health issues are leading young people to spend more time on smartphones, or there could be a third factor at play, such as loneliness (Ref: Time).
Etchells further suggests that concern over smartphones and mental health may be akin to the ‘moral panics’ that have accompanied innovative changes throughout history. For example, he points to past concerns that TV might promote violent behaviour or radio could lead to addiction. As far back as the nineteenth century, a moral panic ensued around the repeal of the paper tax in the UK, where some people worried that ‘women, children and the working classes’ would need to be ‘protected’ from an influx of trash literature. Even as far back as Ancient Greece, philosophers such as Plato worried about the damaging effects of poetry.
In a review published by Nature magazine, American professor of psychological science and informatics, Candice Odgers, argues that the idea that digital technologies are rewiring children’s brains is ‘not supported by the science’ (Ref: Nature). She suggests that hundreds of researchers, including herself, have searched for the kinds of effects being suggested and they have produced a mix of small associations or no associations whatsoever. In fact, she says, when associations are analysed over time, they suggest ‘not that social-media use predicts or causes depression, but that young people who already have mental-health problems use such platforms more often or in different ways to their healthy peers’ (Ref: Cap X). For Odgers, the rising hysteria around smartphones could be distracting us from tackling the real causes of young people’s problems.
The sceptics are not always right
However, Haidt himself responds to such criticisms by pointing out that when schools go phone-free there is an improvement in mental health, an increase in physical activity and a reduction in bullying: ‘Studies also show mental-health improvements, increases in physical activity, and reductions in bullying when schools go phone-free.’
Furthermore, he adds, there is evidence that demonstrates causation (not just correlation) and that his critics who offer alternative explanations cannot account for the way in which adolescent mental health has collapsed in similar ways, around the same time, in a range of countries across the world. Yes, there have been moral panics over technology in the past,’ he says. ‘But the skeptics are not always right. The lesson of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” is not that after two false alarms we should disconnect the alarm system. In that story, the wolf does eventually come.’
Advocating for a range of measures – such as no smartphones before high school, no social media before 16, phone-free schools and more independence, free play and responsibility in the world – Haidt asks: ‘What irreversible harm will be done to children who spend more time listening to their teachers during class, more time playing and exploring together outdoors, and less time sitting alone hunched over a device?’ (Ref: Persuasion).
However, Timandra Harkness, British journalist and author of Technology is Not the Problem argues we are wrong to point the finger at technology (Ref: Technology is Not the Problem). The study of previous panics around technology suggests that technology is often the scapegoat for broader social problems. Today, ‘successive generations … have less independent time outside adult supervision, and fewer opportunities to take risks and initiatives for themselves’. In the absence of other opportunities, is it any surprise that young people turn to smartphones? (Ref: UnHerd.)
To ban or not to ban?
Some advocate for a total ban on smartphones for under-16s (Ref: BBC). But if such a ban might be impractical, a ban on smartphones in the classroom might not. Smartphones in classrooms are distracting, contributing to poor mental health, and get in the way of education.
While the debate about whether or not to ban children from using smartphones continues, most writers and academics studying this phenomenon accept that it would be difficult to implement an outright ban on smartphone usage for under-16s. However, many do support a ban on smartphone use in schools. ‘Banning smartphones would take the very great pressure off children to act impulsively and participate in negative behaviours. Furthermore, it could support children in avoiding consequences in terms of reputation, school sanctions or personal relationships’ (Ref: Internet Matters).
However, many other commentators believe that because smartphones have become the norm, young people should be free to carry a device in school. Moreover, many parents and students are resistant to smartphone bans. They regard phones as essential tools for communication, especially in emergencies, i.e., school shootings or knife attacks [Ref: Slate]. Those against school bans argue they prepare young people for the modern world, and they can be a useful tool for finding out information as part of their learning while offering tangible benefits for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Health and wellbeing apps are a positive example of how smartphones have enhanced young people’s lives. Furthermore, these advocates point out, they are a great way for pupils to stay in contact with family and friends in cases of emergency, which many parents themselves are in favour of (Ref: OU News). Finally, those arguing against school bans on smartphones argue that young people need to learn how to use phones responsibly and that taking them away will not solve the problem. According to research by the Common Sense Society ‘…many young people reported they have grown savvier about their phone’s attempts to draw them in, and they’re taking steps to protect their digital wellbeing, like setting time limits and prioritizing certain types of notifications.’ (Ref: Common Sense Media.)
However, as many point out, the use of smartphones is a new phenomenon and one which should be studied and debated more widely. So, the question remains, should smartphones be banned in the classroom?
ESSENTIAL READING
It is crucial for debaters to have read the articles in this section, which provide essential information and arguments for and against the debate motion. Students will be expected to have additional evidence and examples derived from independent research, but they can expect to be criticised if they lack a basic familiarity with the issues raised in the essential reading.
FOR:
‘Childhood has been rewired’: Professor Jonathan Haidt on how smartphones are damaging a generation.
Fraser Nelson Spectator 4 November 2023
If we don’t ban smartphones in schools, we’ll be on the wrong side of history.
Celia Walden Telegraph 8 July 2024
Restrict phones to improve child social mobility in UK, says commission chair
Richard Adams Guardian 12 March 2022
Cellphone bans spread in schools amid growing mental health worries
Laura Meckler, Hannah Natanson & Karina Elwood The Washington Post 27 August 2024
AGAINST:
Do smartphones really cause mental illness among adolescents? Ten problems with Jonathan Haidt’s book
Michaela Lebedíková et al LSE Blogs 15 May 2024
Maybe Our Phones Aren’t the Problem, Argues a New Book
Will Henshall Time 21 March 2024
The smart phone is not to blame for the ‘epidemic’ of anxiety in young people
Tiffany Jenkins Strangers and Intimates 22 April 2024
“That’s a Long Half Hour for a Parent” What if the fearful families resisting stronger school phone bans have a point?
Stephanie H Murray Slate 09 June 2024
IN THE NEWS
Brianna Ghey’s mother Esther calls for ban on social media apps for under-16s
ITV News 4 February 2024
Virginia governor issues executive order that will limit or ban cell phone use in schools
Dakin And one and Sara Smart CNN 10 July 2024
Social Media, Not the Economy, is Harming Teen Mental Health
Jonathan Haidt Persuasion 12 April 2024
Labour WON’T ban mobile phones for under-16s despite calls from Brianna Ghey’s mother – as Keir Starmer hints at controls on social media
James Tapfield Daily Mail 12 July 2024
What happens when a school bans smartphones? A complete transformation
Tik Root Guardian 17 January 2024
I’m an expert on adolescence: here’s why a smartphone ban isn’t the answer, and what we should do instead
Lucy Foulkes Guardian 15 June 2024
Are phones really frying kids’ brains?
Matthew Feeney Cap X 4 April 2024
Children’s mental health is yet another brutally polarised debate
Hannah Barnes New Statesman 10 January 2024
Stop children using smartphones until they are 13, says French report
Angelique Chrisafis Guardian 30 April 2024
Why shouldn’t teenagers be allowed to use WhatsApp?
Zoe Strimpel Spectator 15 April 2024
Why we shouldn’t ban mobile phones in schools
Professor Andy Miah LinkedIn 8 August 2023
Banning mobile phones in schools ‘will help children and parents’
Emma Yeomans, Ali Mitib The Sunday Times (London) 19 February 2024
The mobile phone ban isn’t the wrong answer. It’s the wrong problem
Penelope Shortland-Palmer Schools Week 28 July 2024
We need to calm down about screen time
Timandra Harkness UnHerd 2 April 2024
Phone ban could improve school performance and student wellbeing, study says
Eleanor Busby Independent 30 April 2024
The Panic Over Smartphones Doesn’t Help Teens – It may only make things worse
Candice L. Odgers The Atlantic 21 May 2024
Smartphones ban may cause more harm than good, says Molly Russell’s father
Dan Milmo Guardian 30 April 2024
AROUND THE WORLD
The French school that’s cracked getting kids off their phones
Peter Conradi The Sunday Times (London) 4 May 2024
Dutch school phone ban to come into force next month
Eloise Hardy Euro News 16 December 2023
States Are Cracking Down on Cellphones in Schools. What That Looks Like
Arianna Prothero Education Week 23 May 2024
US Educators Increasingly Urge Total Phone Bans in Schools
Bryan Lynn Voice of America 5 March 2024
How mobile phone rules in schools compare in the UK and Europe
Will McCurdy i newspaper 20 February 2024
The Teen Mental Health Crisis is International, Part 1: The Anglosphere
Zach Rausch and Jon Haidt After Babel 29 March 2023
AUDIO / VISUAL
Should phones be banned at school?
BBC Own It 2024
Why banning smart phones in schools is a bad idea
Professor Andy Miah 27 July 2023
So to Speak podcast: A warning label on social media?
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression 25 June 2024
LONGER READS
Constant Companion: A Week in the Life of a Young Person’s Smartphone Use
Disconnect – The Case for a Smartphone Ban in Schools
Policy Exchange 30 April 2024
Has research really settled the fight over phone bans in schools?
Ellen Peirson-Hagger TES 20 May 2024
Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time (and how to spend it better)
Pete Etchells 2024
The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness
Jonathan Haidt 2024
Smartphones have not destroyed a generation
Postliberal Substack 27 March 2024
Mobile phone use to be banned in schools in England
Department of Education 2 October 2023
Technology is Not the Problem
Timandra Harkness 2024