The debate over introducing smartphone pouches in schools is polarizing among educators, parents, and policy makers. Although much of the discussion has been about the potential cost of these pouches (approximately 9 million euros), we should focus on the benefits and risks of such an approach.
The main argument for introducing smartphone pouches rests on the hope that they will minimize distractions for students throughout the school day. This is a view supported by a 2023 UNESCO report that found that mobile phones disrupt classes. Many teachers I spoke with echoed this finding, saying that smartphones are significantly more distracting to students as they text, play games, and browse social media during class. It states that this can lead to dissipation and have a negative impact on learning and engagement.
Research supporting the removal of smartphones from schools is mixed.
Louis-Philippe Belland, an associate professor of economics at Carleton University in Ontario, co-authored a paper in 2017 suggesting that banning smartphones could help students perform better in class. His research, which looked at UK school data, suggested that banning phones was equivalent to an extra day of class for students, but he set out to replicate the same study design in Sweden in 2020. In any trial it was found that banning phones had no effect on student performance.
Supporters of the smartphone pouches also say it helps reduce cyberbullying. Smartphones give students constant access to social media, which can lead to bullying, and the ban could limit opportunities for online harassment during school hours. A systematic review this year of the literature on the effects of smartphone bans in schools by Professors Klaus Zieller and Tobias Bottger of the University of Augsburg in Germany found some improvement in social well-being, but less so in learning. It turned out that there was no improvement. They also found evidence to suggest that smartphone bans can reduce social problems such as bullying. Scholars recommended that any ban must be accompanied by interventions such as media literacy.
It is well documented that smartphones impede social interaction, so banning them is expected to encourage schools to encourage more face-to-face conversations, collaboration, and student teamwork. Masu.
Our collective ability to listen and communicate has declined alarmingly. We need to prioritize how young people connect with society and provide them with the space and skills to do so. Banning smartphone use during school hours alone will not adequately address this problem, but I support any move to improve this communication crisis.
Another argument in favor of smartphone pouches is that they may prevent fraud. Yes, it makes it difficult for students to look up answers or secretly share information. Still, fraud has been around since before smartphones and is likely to continue despite attempts to introduce smartphone pouches.
It has been proposed that a smartphone-free school environment may reduce anxiety and stress associated with constant notifications and comparisons. However, I worry that this will only increase teens’ engagement with this content during non-school hours, leading to even more conflict between parents at home.
One of the main arguments against banning smartphones is that parents want to communicate directly with their children, especially in times of emergency. A ban could raise concerns about student safety and parental peace of mind. The kids agree to some extent.
Sonia Livingstone, a professor of social psychology at the London School of Economics and Political Science and a leading child media researcher, says that while young people prefer smartphone pouches, she makes exceptions. I found that I was very passionate about it. She outlines the case of children with diabetes who need reminders to take their medication, or children who are caring for someone at home and need to feel like they can be reached in case of an emergency. She argues that unlocking pouches should be promoted for children who need a cell phone to check their blood sugar levels or for other medically necessary reasons.
The argument against introducing pouches is that the measure could prevent students from learning how to use technology responsibly. Some experts, such as Pete Etchells, professor of psychology at Bath Spa University and author of Unlocked: The Real Science of Screen Time, say schools should focus on digital literacy, internet safety and online safety. We believe that this can be an essential environment for teaching behavior, and the ban on smartphones suggests this possibility. Limits students’ ability to learn these skills. As education evolves to integrate technology more deeply, smartphones may be considered part of this modernization. Some argue that banning smartphones sends a backwards message in a world where technology skills are increasingly essential to future careers.
Other parents argue that smartphones often offer accessibility features for students with additional needs, such as text-to-speech, voice commands, and specialized apps. They fear the ban will prevent these students from accessing the tools they need for their education.
Implementing and enforcing smartphone bans poses a logistical challenge for schools, as students may find ways to circumvent the rules and require additional oversight by teachers and staff.
While there are clear benefits to children not having their attention hacked by smartphone technology during class, this does not address the problem in a wider context.
If we want to manage our troubled relationship with technology, we need to work with humans, not devices.
Even if we were able to rid the internet of porn, cyberbullying, grooming, and other harmful elements, a 14-year-old could still spend nine hours a day watching videos of cats on skateboards. Sho. Of course, regulation of content and access must be addressed, but self-regulating our attention is the holy grail of our relationship with technology, and this is where our efforts must focus. is. We must teach young people how technology hacks our attention and collects our data to sell to the highest bidder. We tell them about surveillance capitalism and how it allows them to choose to stay away from technology rather than be denied access in ways that glorify the online world and make it even more appealing. They need to know if they are being manipulated.
protect young groups
As a basis for this, it is necessary to address the issue of smartphone ownership among elementary school students. Over the past 18 months, I have visited a number of schools to discuss the possibility of getting parents to commit to delaying smartphone ownership while their children are in primary school, but I have been discouraged by so much resistance. did. Whatever the reason for having older teenagers develop self-regulation skills, the likelihood that elementary school students will acquire them is unreasonable. We will start by protecting our younger age groups and ensuring they have a smartphone-free childhood, and use that time to instill values that foster a more informed and mature relationship with technology. so that by the time they reach their age they won’t need a smartphone pouch. Start junior high school.
Discussions about Internet access are typically divided into rights-based and responsibility-based arguments. Responsibility-based people support measures such as prohibitions and prohibitions to protect children from outside forces. Rights-minded people see value in supporting more education and awareness, and in giving children and teens the right to choose their level of access to the online world. These approaches are both right and wrong.
Children need to earn the right to own a smartphone by demonstrating responsibility. Therefore, we need to provide them with opportunities and support to learn how to develop healthy relationships with technology at a pace that they can developmentally manage. The answer is not in a smartphone pouch or free access, but in controlling exposure in parallel with the child’s self-regulatory abilities.
Dr. Colman Nochter is a child psychotherapist
