(Credit: Ground Picture/Shutterstock)
In a nutshell
- School smartphone bans show no evidence of improving mental health, academic performance, or reducing overall device use, highlighting the need for more comprehensive approaches.
- A rights-based framework balancing protection with empowerment better serves children than restrictions alone, focusing on age-appropriate design and education.
- Children need guidance to develop digital agency through personal skills, peer support, and appropriate boundaries – similar to how we approach teaching driving safety rather than banning cars.
BIRMINGHAM, England — Countries worldwide are racing to implement smartphone restrictions in schools. France, Turkey, Norway, Sweden, and parts of North America have created policies limiting phone use in educational settings. Australia has gone further by banning social media for children under 16, while the U.S. Surgeon General has advocated for warning labels on social media apps. These measures reflect growing worries that digital devices pose inherent risks to children’s well-being, academic success, and social development.
But do these blanket restrictions actually work? And are they truly preparing children for life in an increasingly connected world?
The Problem with Digital Restrictions
A recent analysis published in The BMJ challenges the effectiveness of simple prohibitions. Written by experts from universities in the U.K., U.S., Sweden, and Brazil, the paper argues that managing children’s relationship with technology requires much more nuance than outright bans can provide.
For today’s children, smartphones serve as essential tools for communication, learning, and social interaction, especially among 8-17 year olds. While the authors acknowledge the importance of tech-free spaces and moments, they contend that approaches centered solely on restriction fail to equip young people with skills needed for adulthood in the digital age.
The study authors note how there’s little evidence supporting the effectiveness of phone bans. A recent evaluation of school smartphone policies in England found no connection between restricted phone use and improvements in adolescent mental health, physical activity, sleep quality, academic performance, or classroom behavior. School restrictions didn’t even reduce overall phone use or problematic social media habits outside school walls.
Unlike tobacco, where harms clearly outweigh any benefits, digital technology offers numerous advantages alongside potential risks. A more fitting analogy might be automobile safety: rather than banning cars when traffic fatalities rose, society developed comprehensive safety regulations, infrastructure improvements, and driver education programs.
Another problem with universal bans is how they ignore the vastly different contexts in which children use technology. Digital access varies dramatically based on culture, religion, socioeconomic status, internet quality, and even access to safe outdoor spaces.
For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, social media connects people to essential healthcare services. In Afghanistan, online platforms offer girls access to information about women’s rights and health topics. Chinese studies show social media benefits LGBTQ+ adolescents’ wellbeing.
A Rights-Based Alternative
Instead of focusing exclusively on restrictions, the authors propose a framework drawing on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This approach balances protection with empowerment through four key principles: non-discrimination, acting in children’s best interests, supporting development, and respecting children’s perspectives.
Within this framework, the paper identifies two main strategies for creating healthier digital environments: better design of technology and improved education.
On the design front, many current features actively work against healthy habits. Trending algorithms and reward mechanisms deliberately capture attention and encourage constant use. Instead, apps could incorporate protective settings like limited notifications and warnings about extended use periods. They might also include features that support learning, skill development, and positive social interactions.
The UK Digital Futures for Children Centre has developed “Child Rights by Design” guidance outlining principles for creating better digital products for young people. These include ensuring equity, prioritizing children’s best interests, protecting well-being, fostering development, and reducing exploitative features.
However, tech companies rarely prioritize public health over profits without regulatory pressure. The authors call for legislation requiring industry to demonstrate how their products support children’s rights and development .
Education Beyond Restriction
The second key element involves education by schools and families. The authors recommend an approach that helps children develop meaningful choice and control over their technology use. This connects behavioral health practices with real-world digital experiences.
This educational approach works on three levels:
- Personal – Giving children skills to make informed decisions, like identifying misinformation or reducing digital distractions.
- Collective – Encouraging peer-learning and group support, such as teenagers reviewing each other’s content before posting.
- Structural – Developing policies and rules that support healthy use, with schools and parents serving as guides rather than simply imposing restrictions.
Implementation faces several challenges. Schools often prioritize academic testing over digital literacy, many teachers lack necessary training, and parents frequently struggle to guide children through technological experiences they never faced themselves .
Building Digital Citizens, Not Digital Prisoners
The paper concludes that a rights-respecting approach offers more lasting benefits than simple bans by both protecting children from harm and building their capacity to thrive digitally. The authors call for immediate action on two fronts: improving regulations grounded in children’s rights and creating better training for educators and parents.
Just as we don’t expect children to become safe drivers simply by keeping them away from cars until adulthood, we can’t expect them to navigate digital spaces responsibly without guided experience. In today’s world, healthy technology habits aren’t just nice to have—they’re essential life skills.
Paper Summary
Methodology
This analysis paper draws on various research disciplines including education, public health, psychology, cognitive science, and pedagogical research. Rather than conducting new experimental studies, the authors evaluated existing evidence about smartphone and social media use among children, including findings from a recent evaluation of school smartphone policies in England led by the paper’s primary authors.
To incorporate diverse perspectives, the researchers organized focus groups with adolescents and adults from varied backgrounds to gather views on technology use and management. These discussions directly shaped the paper’s core recommendations, particularly regarding family involvement in guiding children’s digital habits.
Key Findings
The analysis revealed several insights about current approaches to managing children’s technology use. Most notably, school-based smartphone bans show little evidence of improving mental health, physical wellbeing, academic performance, or reducing overall technology use despite their widespread implementation.
The research highlighted how technology’s effects vary dramatically across different populations and contexts. For certain vulnerable groups—including children with disabilities, refugees, those in conflict zones, rural communities, and LGBTQ+ youth—digital access provides crucial resources and support that restrictions might eliminate.
The authors determined that addressing both hardware/software design and educational approaches would be more effective than restriction-focused policies. This dual approach acknowledges children’s rights to access technology while creating safer digital environments and building necessary skills.
Limitations and Implications
Evidence about which types of smartphone restrictions might benefit specific age groups remains limited. Few long-term studies have examined outcomes of different technology management approaches. Practical implementation faces obstacles including public perception of technology risks, academic testing pressures, knowledge gaps among educators and parents, and the extended timeframes needed to develop appropriate legislation.
The core message is that effectively managing children’s technology use requires more sophisticated approaches than simple prohibitions. The authors advocate developing comprehensive systems that include better product design, educational programs, and rights-respecting policies.
The goal is shifting from restriction-centered approaches toward building children’s capacity for healthy technology use in a world where digital literacy has become as fundamental as reading and writing.
Funding and Disclosures
The paper discloses several potential conflicts of interest among the authors. Gilson Schwartz serves as president of Games for Change Latin America, a non-profit organization supporting games for social benefit. Victoria Goodyear is a consortium member for a UK Department for Science Innovation and Technology funded project led by Amy Orben focused on children’s smartphone and social media use. Goodyear was also the principal investigator for a program focused on digital literacy education for teachers that was funded by Google in 2019.
These disclosures are important for transparency, as they indicate that some authors have received funding from or worked with technology companies and have professional interests in digital education and gaming for social benefit.
Publication Information
This analysis titled “Approaches to children’s smartphone and social media use must go beyond bans” appeared in The BMJ on March 27, 2025 (BMJ 2025;388:e082569) . The author team includes researchers from the University of Birmingham, Harvard Graduate School of Education, University of Cambridge, Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences, University of São Paulo, and University of Birmingham.
There is nothing in this article that shows what schools can do to combat distractions caused by phones. Most of the article references outside strategies – and ignores classroom management and discipline. This is an obvious distraction to a major problem students face that contributes to shorter attention spans, weaker critical thinking, and lower academic standards.