PE/BC is an independent, non-partisan organization, however we recognize that IPE/BC Associates and guest authors hold a range of views and interests relative to public schools, education issues, and the political landscape in BC. Perspectives is an opportunity for Associates and others to share their ideas in short, accessible essays.
New Research Casts Doubt on School Cell Phone Bans
March 29, 2025
By Patti Bacchus
Cell phone bans in schools have gained popularity, often championed by politicians who announce them and leave the task of enforcement to teachers and administrators. The best part? These bans typically don’t cost anything. But do they actually work?
While there’s little debate about how distracting cell phones can be—both for students and for many adults—there’s a lack of solid evidence suggesting that banning these powerful devices during school hours is an effective solution to the complex challenges they present.
A recent study out of the UK has been generating significant attention, and for good reason. Published in The Lancet in February, the University of Birmingham study found that students at schools with cell phone bans showed no better outcomes in terms of mental health, physical activity, sleep, or academic achievement.
This isn’t to say that excessive cell phone use or social media isn’t negatively impacting youth; rather, it suggests that banning phones in schools isn’t the solution politicians often claim it to be.
I’m old enough to remember a variety of knee-jerk bans on things kids do. I recall marbles being banned at my elementary school (something about gambling), “clackers” (those balls on strings that had a tendency to send small pieces of glass flying), and even pants for girls (until that glorious day in the late 1960s when the ban was finally lifted and I ran home to change at lunch). In the 1970s, calculators raised alarms in my high school, and the list goes on.
It’s easy for adults to impose bans on children and youth, who have little power and no vote. But just because we can impose a ban doesn’t necessarily mean we should.
Sure, kids checking Instagram, TikTok, or Snapchat during class isn’t conducive to learning. It’s disruptive and distracting. Teachers should absolutely have the authority to set rules in their classrooms, and keeping phones away during lessons generally makes sense—unless they are being used as part of the lesson or assignment.
But given that schools are meant to educate students and prepare them for healthy, engaged lives as productive citizens, are we
shortchanging them by opting for simplistic (and often hard-to-enforce) bans instead of more comprehensive, nuanced approaches? Wouldn’t it be better to help them develop healthy tech habits and the ability to set boundaries for themselves, enabling them to use technology constructively?
The Birmingham researchers believe so. Not surprisingly, they found that time spent on phones and social media correlated with negative outcomes, including worse mental wellbeing, decreased physical activity, poorer sleep, lower academic performance, and more disruptive classroom behavior.
However, the researchers concluded that simply banning phones in the classroom won’t solve this problem. Instead, they argue we need to take a more holistic approach to managing overall phone use as a key part of improving adolescent health and wellbeing.
That may require further study to determine the best strategies, as well as funding to educate teachers, parents, and students about managing
phone use. Schools and the education system are well-positioned to play a central role in this, but it will take much more than the “headline-grabbing gimmicks” of cellphone bans.
I’d also recommend involving students in the process of developing policies and strategies for cell phone use. This could shift the focus from mere compliance with rules to fostering critical, engaged thinking about technology.
This broader, more thoughtful approach may not grab headlines and is unlikely to be cheap, but we owe it to students to consider a solution that will improve their lives both now and in the future. It might just be time to ban the bans.
Patti Bacchus is a public education advocate, commentator, and IPE/BC Board member, who was also the Vancouver School Board’s longest-serving chair, from 2008-2014. She has also served on the Board of the Broadbent Institute. Patti has written extensively about public education issues in the Georgia Straight. She believes that a strong and well-resourced public education system is key to a healthy and just society.
their children with disabilities and/or diverse needs. These parents and many others know it’s a system under stress; they and their children regularly and directly experience the impact of teacher and support staff shortages and chronic underfunding. They also know how difficult it is to access the education decision-makers and be heard. And they speak to the fact that placing students with disabilities and/or diverse needs in classrooms without the necessary supports or, as is sometimes the case, in segregated classrooms, serves to stigmatize their children and seriously undermines their ability to succeed.
Looking back, inclusion first became a government initiative in the 1980s. The Royal Commission on Education report in 1988 and subsequent education School Act revisions mandated the closing of segregated schools and established the requirement that neighbourhood schools were to provide for the success of all children. There was the expectation of significant positive change and, for a time, there were meaningful steps in that direction. But, years of underfunding and the lack of adequate staffing and supports has us seeing inadequate supports as the “norm” and exclusionary practices coming back- reduced time at school, exclusion from certain activities, and, in some cases, even segregated programs and classes.
We’d add one more step. We’d encourage everyone to call on each school district and the Ministry of Education and Child Care to hold similar forums with parents/caregivers, support staff, educators and students to learn from their experiences and recommit to fully supported inclusion in all of our public schools.
In schools, staff work diligently to ensure that programs are effective. Measurable goals are created, data is gathered, and results are reviewed regularly. Reports regarding student progress are generated at prescribed intervals. These reports are shared with parents and relevant school staff, covering everything from classroom achievements to individualized programs such as speech-language therapy. The information is securely, confidentially stored for future reference as needed. The rationale behind this process is clear: if we do not measure our efforts, we cannot determine whether our interventions are truly making a difference.
Schools operate with a great deal of transparency. Classroom teachers provide daily plans that are utilized by themselves or a teacher-on-call. Support staff, such as English Language Learning teachers and contracted specialists like occupational therapists, follow universal referral systems, administer standardized assessments, document observations and provide reports . Caseload information is readily available to school administrators, and priorities are confidentially discussed during school-based team meetings.
As schools work hard to maintain a safe and supportive environment for students, the question remains: Does the presence of School Police Liaison Officers truly contribute to the safety of our schools, or is it simply an unproven assumption? Without clear data and transparent reporting on the program’s effectiveness, it’s difficult to justify its widespread adoption. Perhaps it’s time for a deeper, more data-driven conversation about how best to ensure the safety and well-being of students without relying on programs that lack measurable evidence of success. It’s crucial that we continue to explore alternative solutions that prioritize student welfare while addressing the complexities of modern school safety.
election issue, this particular race was dominated by harmful and hateful rhetoric that sought to control and further privatize education. This included:
support for the Conservatives in many parts of the province. Their ideas for education are reflected in the ongoing advocacy of right-wing Think Tanks, such as the Fraser Institute, that champion education reforms “to achieve better value for money and improved results for both students and taxpayers.”
As illustrated in the case of the BC election, these conservative political parties are linked to the rise of the “parental rights” movement in Canada – a movement that embodies the many links between far-right ideologies and interest in education privatization. In BC, for example, the attacks have been focused on a program called SOGI 123, which supports teachers to make schools safer and more inclusive for students of all sexual orientations and gender identities. Contrary to the arguments of the new Rights, research illustrates the positive impact of this program. A recent evaluation of SOGI 123, done by researchers at the University of British Columbia, found that the program decreased bullying and sexual orientation discrimination for both LGBT+ and also for heterosexual students.