England is set to ban mobile phones in schools after a cross-party revolt in Parliament forced the government to abandon its previous reliance on advisory guidance. The change, introduced as an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, follows pressure from Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers who threatened to derail the legislation unless ministers made the rules legally binding. Until last week, the government had insisted that existing non-statutory advice to headteachers was sufficient. Now the Department for Education has confirmed that mobile phones will have “no place in schools,” bringing statutory force to what has until now been a matter of individual school policy.
The new law largely formalises existing practice. According to Department for Education figures, roughly 99.8% of primary schools and 90% of secondary schools already operate some form of phone restriction. But ministers hope the legal change will remove ambiguity and deliver a consistent national approach. The House of Lords backed the amendment by 276 votes to 169, though the debate included proposals for carve-outs for sixth-form students, medical devices and boarding school settings. Unions representing school leaders, including ASCL and NAHT, have said the statutory guidance provides welcome clarity, though some argue it “doesn’t really change much” in practice. There have also been calls for government funding to cover secure storage solutions such as lockers or pouches. Ofsted will consider schools’ mobile phone policies as part of its inspections.
Global push against screens in classrooms
The English ban is part of a broader international reassessment of technology in education. In Norway and Sweden, policies that once promoted iPads and laptops in the classroom have been reversed in favour of books and handwriting after both countries recorded drops in reading scores. In Los Angeles, where the mood is shifting even in the heart of the US tech industry, elementary and middle-school students will face restrictions on device use from September 2026, including limits on daily and weekly screen time and prohibitions on student-led use of platforms such as YouTube on district devices. Australia introduced a ban on social media use for under-16s, which some have hailed as the start of a global pushback against an over-mighty industry, though early reports suggest mixed effectiveness. While millions of accounts were removed, a significant proportion of under-16s who previously held accounts reportedly retained access, and critics argue that blanket bans are difficult to enforce and may simply drive harm “underground.”
The specific vulnerabilities of children’s developing brains
The debate about screens in schools is increasingly centred on a growing body of evidence about how digital technology affects children differently from adults. Researchers are making the point with growing confidence that not all brains are the same. Professor Sam Wass, a developmental cognitive neuroscientist, has highlighted that young children’s brains process information much more slowly than adult brains. An 18-month-old processes roughly one frame of information per second, compared with ten frames per second for an adult. Fast-paced, unpredictable screen content can be difficult for young brains to process and may trigger a “fight or flight” response, whereas slow-paced, repetitive and predictable experiences are optimal for early learning. This understanding has informed new UK government guidance for parents of children under five, underpinned by an expert panel led by Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza and Professor Russell Viner. The guidance recommends that children under two should avoid screen time except for shared activities such as video calls or reviewing photos that encourage bonding and conversation. For children aged two to five, no more than one hour of screen time per day is advised, with “less is better.” Fast-paced, social-media-style videos and AI toys or tools should be avoided altogether. Screens should not be used at mealtimes or in the hour before bed. The government has adopted a precautionary approach, recognising scientific uncertainty about the full extent of harm but deeming action necessary.
Evidence linking prolonged screen time to negative effects on language development, attention, cognitive abilities and executive function is mounting. Some studies also associate excessive screen use with increased tantrums and behavioural dysregulation, and using screens to calm a child’s tantrum can worsen the problem in the long term. A report by the charity Kindred Squared found that a significant percentage of children starting reception in the UK struggle to use a book properly, attempting to “swipe” pages as if they were a tablet. However, the picture is not entirely one-sided. A large Oxford study of nearly 12,000 children in the US found no evidence that screen time impacted brain function or well-being, even with high digital engagement. Researchers caution that the pace of technological development outstrips the ability of academic studies to keep up, leaving public policy in a difficult position. The dilemma, as one analysis put it, is that while policy is meant to be evidence-based, the researchers who analyse technology’s impact cannot keep up with the pace of change.
The social and emotional impact of screens is also a growing concern. Whistleblowers including Frances Haugen, the former Facebook data scientist, have highlighted teenagers’ susceptibility to the preoccupations with status and appearance that are used to maximise engagement. Haugen’s testimony to the US Congress alleged that Facebook, now Meta, knowingly harmed children and adolescents for profit, claiming that its products “harm children, stoke division and weaken our democracy.” Internal research she revealed indicated that Instagram worsened body image issues for a significant percentage of teenage girls and, in some cases, exacerbated thoughts of suicide and eating disorders. The company was aware that its algorithms could lead young users towards harmful content, such as material promoting anorexia. The core accusation is that profit has been prioritised over safety, particularly for younger users.
There is also a long tradition in the humanities, from George Eliot to the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, that values reading for its socially beneficial qualities — the curiosity and sympathy for others that it engenders. This is another source of concern about the impact of replacing books with devices that serve personalised, algorithmic feeds. Adults are not immune to these changes. All people exist in a dynamic relationship with the tools they use to communicate. But children and adolescents have specific needs and vulnerabilities and are at risk of being harmed when these are targeted by commercial interests.
From laissez-faire to precautionary regulation
Historically, the UK’s approach to big tech has been broadly laissez-faire, but that is changing. The Competition and Consumers Bill empowers a new Digital Markets Unit to impose obligations on the largest tech companies before harm occurs — a shift from a focus on consumer welfare to a focus on market power. The Online Safety Bill allows the government to demand that online platforms break encryption and search for illegal content, with substantial fines for non-compliance. Updates to the Investigatory Powers Act compel companies to inform the Home Office about security feature changes that could hinder investigations. Ministers have stated a commitment to a “pro-tech” approach that aims to remove unnecessary burdens while ensuring responsible development, but the Online Safety Bill represents an exception, with more stringent measures favoured. The case for a more precautionary style of regulation is at last being taken seriously where it arguably matters most — in relation to the growing and impressionable minds of children.
