Recent headlines about cell phones in schools have garnered attention across the globe, but they tell us a more complex story than Soundbites. Recently, the Economist published the results of a double-layered study, which improves the phone ban, while conservative politicians in the range of politicians jumped on the bandwagon with past rights, and there is a consent of digital devices in schools. Both answers, which contain a grain of truth, fundamentally miss what is happening in our classrooms.
It’s not the device that’s the problem
Let’s give you an idea of what we actually do. The problem is not that students carry small rectangular objects in their pockets. The problem is that these forms have addictive applications. Tiktok, Youtube, mobile games – these platforms use addictive psychological techniques, evoking dopamine responses, creating the same biological reward cycles that create all kinds of addictions.
This is not accidental. These applications are designed with short-term dopamine hits, small rewards to get more users. It’s a basic biological function that drives us to eat calorie-dense foods or binge-watch television programs. Our brains are programmed this way, and tech companies have become particularly adept at exploiting these natural responses.
When we focus only on banning the device, we are treating the symptom rather than addressing the root cause. It’s like trying to solve obesity from tiles instead of checking where we’re putting them.
Why blankets are not banned
Phone support research tells a more nuanced story than the headlines. Yes, some studies show marginal improvement, especially for students who benefit from the reduction, especially for students who are allowed to reduce (there was a serious study by the Economist today). But other studies, including attempts to replicate the original research, have found no benefit from phone restrictions.
In addition, in the OECD, three students were concerned about different lessons to any students, different “London” researchers found continentinitis, if the number of countries connected with this is low, but the reasons for this correlation remain unknown.
The “local, don’t show up” policy, the phone-accessible behavior in classes, from my work experience, just dysfunctional behavior is not a massive problem. When I was teaching in Malaysia, I was constantly encountering this beauty, and I was always struggling to adjust to the culture. In Southeast Asia, where I studied, culturally motivated students with educational expectations did not exhibit this behavior at all. There was another problem outside of class, but not a problem in class.
This says something very important: Consent issues are at play against this and more so than cultural factors. Here students are culturally compatible or the system allows for more interaction and teaching style and topic, the phone is less of a problem.
Better not banned
Here’s what we actually need: Learning the culture and curriculum. It’s hard to be distracted when you’re really engaged with what’s happening in front of you. It’s distracting when the content doesn’t speak to you or the teaching methods don’t pay attention.
Instead of playing to win, God is firmly entrenched in politics, with no basis for sound science, we must recognize the complex combination of factors at play. Yes, there is overuse of screens in inappropriate contexts. Yes, students are really worried about addictive apps. But the solution isn’t to point fingers in comfortable scapegoats—it’s to do better.
We need study plans that are fun, interesting and personal. We need teaching methods that acknowledge the digital world our students inhabit while offering meaningful alternatives to passive consumption. Most importantly, we must stop quick-fixing complex education problems.
The right tool for the right job
This does not mean giving up – quite the opposite. In my practice, I use a mixture of approaches depending on the learning objective. Sometimes it’s all pens and paper, using the brain-body connection to consolidate memory. Sometimes it’s creative work with glue, scissors and paint. We make mind maps, we do paper on the floor, we circle the room for decision-making exercises, and yes, we work on screens when it’s our most efficient work tool.
Basic principle: tool for the right time. For learning and memory, handwriting offers certain cognitive benefits. To assess and demonstrate learning, exams may be offered using keyboards on electronic devices for recent research, which may take exams using keyboards.
This makes intuitive sense: We don’t know when we’re being underestimated, we’re showing off our learning. Electronic devices seem to be an effective tool for this demonstration.
Moving beyond binary thinking
The conservative promise of legal rights to obtain consent for digital devices in schools represents the kind of political backlash in schools that will help education. Imagine what technology will be like by 2029, when screens that block two are often redundant, but actively detrimental to students’ preparation for the world of the future.
It’s not about being pro-tech or pro-tech. We need to think about how we integrate our tools to address the real challenges that poorly implemented technologies create for our students.
We need to teach good digital habits rather than digital avoidance. We need educational programs with Tiktok that offer something good, not by ignoring its independent qualities, but by giving something truly meaningful and giving back.
Complexity requires complex solutions
Banning the phone The debate reveals something uncomfortable about our approach to education and policy: We’ve settled for simple solutions to complex problems. But student anxiety, digital addiction, and declining engagement aren’t problems we can solve with magnetic pouches and charters.
They compete with the importance of curricula, teaching methods, and the characteristics of our teachers’ school creativity, and our school’s after-school learning mechanisms.
Instead of struggling with tomorrow’s technologies, we should always focus on what we already know, we should always focus on what we know works: engaging students in their contemporary contexts, with supportive environments that recognize their current, real, and future needs.
The solution is not to ban our students from living, but to inhabit our students – to help them, to focus on them and think of enough experiences to compete for their attention.
No