A recent study by the University of Birmingham has revealed that banning smartphones during school hours does not necessarily lead to improved mental health or academic performance among students.
The SMART Schools Study
The SMART Schools study, conducted by the University of Birmingham, set out to evaluate whether banning phone use throughout the school day leads to better mental health and wellbeing among adolescents. Given growing concerns over the potential negative effects of excessive smartphone use, such as increased anxiety and depression, disrupted sleep, reduced physical activity, lower academic performance, and greater classroom distractions, many schools have introduced restrictive phone policies. However, despite these widespread bans, there has been little empirical evidence assessing their actual effectiveness.
The study compared outcomes among students in schools with restrictive policies (where recreational phone use was not permitted) and those in schools with more permissive policies (where phones could be used during breaks or in designated areas).
The findings (published in The Lancet) suggest that simply prohibiting phone use during school hours is not enough to address these broader issues, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive approach to managing adolescent smartphone use.
The Methodology
Conducted over a 12-month period ending in November 2023, the study involved 1,227 students aged 12 to 15 from 30 secondary schools across England. Among these schools, 20 had restrictive phone policies, prohibiting recreational phone use during school hours, while 10 had permissive policies, allowing phone use during breaks or in designated areas. The researchers collected data on various health and educational outcomes, including mental wellbeing (assessed using the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale), anxiety and depression levels, physical activity, sleep patterns, academic attainment in English and Maths, and instances of disruptive classroom behaviour. Also, participants reported their smartphone and social media usage.
Key Findings
The study found no significant differences between students in restrictive and permissive schools concerning mental wellbeing, anxiety, depression, physical activity, sleep, academic performance, or classroom behaviour. While students in schools with phone bans reported slightly less phone (approximately 40 minutes) and social media use (about 30 minutes) during school hours, there was no meaningful reduction in overall daily usage. On average, students across both types of schools used their smartphones between four to six hours daily.
Link Found, But Need To Do More
In comments that appear to be somewhat contrary to the published findings, Dr. Victoria Goodyear, Associate Professor at the University of Birmingham and lead author of the study, says, “We did find a link between more time spent on phones and social media and worse outcomes, with worse mental wellbeing and mental health outcomes, less physical activity and poorer sleep, lower educational attainment and a greater level of disruptive classroom behaviour. This suggests that reducing this time spent on phones is an important focus. But we need to do more than focus on schools alone, and consider phone use within and outside of school, across a whole day and the whole week.”
Implications of the Findings
The results indicate that while excessive smartphone and social media use is associated with negative health and educational outcomes, banning phones during school hours alone is insufficient to address these issues. The study also seems to suggest that interventions should extend beyond the school environment, encompassing strategies that encourage responsible phone use throughout the entire day and week. A holistic approach of this kind could involve educating students on digital wellness, promoting alternative activities that do not involve screen time, and engaging parents in monitoring and guiding their children’s phone use.
Challenges and Criticisms
One challenge highlighted by the study is the pervasive nature of smartphone use among adolescents, making it difficult for school policies alone to effect significant change. Critics may also argue that the study’s cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causation between phone policies and student outcomes. Also, the reliance on self-reported data for smartphone usage could introduce reporting biases. Further longitudinal research may, therefore, be needed to explore the long-term effects of phone use and the efficacy of comprehensive intervention strategies.
Comparative Studies
While Birmingham University’s study is being hailed as a ‘landmark’ one, in fact, several other studies and campaigns over the past decade have focused on the impact of smartphone use on adolescents’ mental health, academic performance, and overall wellbeing. For example:
– In 2015, the London School of Economics conducted a study examining the effects of mobile phone bans in schools. The research found that students’ academic performance improved when cell phone usage was banned in schools. This ban not only helped students score higher in exams but also reduced the temptation to use cell phones for non-scholarly purposes.
– In 2024, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt spearheaded a global campaign to reduce smartphone dependency among children. His book, “The Anxious Generation,” explores the profound impact of smartphones on child development and the emerging mental health crisis since 2012. Haidt argues that excessive screen time displaces traditional child activities, contributing to widespread anxiety and depression. He emphasises the importance of creating smartphone-free environments in schools and encouraging more real-world play and social interactions. Despite some criticism about oversimplifying the connection between smartphones and mental health issues, Haidt’s efforts sparked significant discussion on the topic and inspired many to advocate for a balanced approach to technology in childhood.
The collective takeaway from all these kinds of studies appears to be that while reducing smartphone usage is beneficial, focusing solely on school policies may not be sufficient. Therefore, may commentators now believe a broader, more comprehensive approach involving educators, parents, and policymakers is essential to effectively address the challenges associated with adolescent smartphone use.
What Does This Mean For Your Business?
While the SMART Schools study primarily focuses on adolescent wellbeing and education, its findings have broader implications for businesses, particularly those operating in the technology, education, and workplace wellbeing sectors. The key takeaway from the study (i.e. that simply banning smartphone usage is not enough to mitigate its negative effects) raises important questions about digital policies in professional and commercial settings.
For businesses in the technology and social media industries, the study highlights the growing scrutiny over excessive smartphone use and its potential negative impact on mental health. With increasing evidence suggesting that overuse of digital platforms can contribute to anxiety, depression, and sleep disruption, there is a mounting expectation for tech companies to take more responsibility. This could mean a greater push for ethical design, such as introducing more effective screen time management tools, promoting digital wellbeing features, and even redesigning platforms to encourage healthier usage habits. Companies that fail to acknowledge these concerns risk facing regulatory scrutiny and reputational damage, as governments and consumers alike demand action.
The findings also have implications for businesses operating in the education and training sectors. Schools are not the only places struggling to balance technology use with productivity. Employers, for example, also face challenges in managing digital distractions in the workplace. The study suggests that outright bans on devices may not be the most effective solution, prompting organisations to rethink their approach to workplace technology policies. Rather than restricting access to phones entirely, businesses may benefit from fostering a culture of responsible use, similar to the approach recommended for schools. Encouraging employees to set boundaries around phone use, providing digital wellbeing workshops, and even implementing workplace policies that promote focused, distraction-free time could improve productivity and overall job satisfaction.
Also, companies in the health and wellbeing sector may see increased demand for services that help individuals manage their screen time. From mindfulness apps and digital detox retreats to workplace wellbeing programmes that promote better work-life balance, businesses that provide solutions for managing technology overuse could find new opportunities for growth. As more research emerges on the effects of smartphone use, there may also be a stronger market for advisory services that help organisations develop balanced digital policies.
Businesses that rely on digital engagement, such as marketers, advertisers, and online content creators, should take note of shifting attitudes toward screen time. If consumers (particularly younger demographics) begin to adopt more mindful technology habits, engagement strategies may need to adapt. Brands that prioritise ethical marketing, promote digital wellbeing, or offer tools to help users moderate their time online may find themselves better positioned in a marketplace where excessive smartphone use is increasingly seen as a problem rather than a convenience.
In essence, the study’s findings appear to serve as a reminder that technology policies, whether in schools, workplaces, or broader society, need to be a bit more nuanced than simple bans. Businesses that proactively address these challenges, whether by promoting digital wellbeing, rethinking workplace policies, or innovating new ways to foster healthier technology habits, are likely to be best placed to navigate the evolving digital landscape.
