Phones at school: why I support an all-day ban and how to introduce it sensibly

At a glance

I recommend keeping personal phones put away throughout the school day, including breaks. With health-related and essential support exceptions, safe storage and available contact for parents. Technology still belongs in lessons. Its use should be determined by an educational purpose, not an incoming message.

I expect a ban to provide better conditions for concentration and more shared time without personal feeds. But the rule alone will not guarantee better grades, good relationships or every child's happiness. The school also needs to prepare what happens after phones are put away.

Why I say this as a technology enthusiast

I work with artificial intelligence every day. I enjoy technology and want children to learn to use it. At teacher training sessions, I also say openly that I would ban personal phone use at school. Including breaks. I see no contradiction.

Over eight years of work at Než zazvoní, I have met thousands of teachers. Conversations with them are part of what shapes my opinion, alongside research and my own work with children. Jonathan Haidt's book The Anxious Generation also influenced it significantly. I do not consider school experience something we may mention only after reading the last study. But I do not turn it into a representative survey: the number of teachers I have met is not the number of votes for one particular conclusion.

For the third time, we held a phone-free camp. Over two weeks, we observed more playful and content children, and parents also mentioned changes after their return. I consider the ban an essential condition of what we saw. But at camp, children also have a programme, people and a different environment. I cannot separate the contributions of individual influences from this experience.

Those shared conditions interest me at school too. I want a child to be able to work, talk or start playing something without their personal digital world continually entering it. I do not consider unrestricted phone availability a given we may change only once we have proved specific harm.

‘But they have to learn self-regulation’

They do. I simply would not transfer most of the responsibility to a child before creating conditions in which they can gradually take it on.

The US National Institute of Mental Health describes brain maturation into the mid-to-late twenties. The prefrontal cortex, involved in planning, prioritising and decision-making, is among the last regions to mature. Self-regulation develops continually, long before that. A finished ability to control yourself does not switch on around age 26, and that age cannot establish a precise boundary for every person. ¹

For schools, I infer a need for appropriate support. We can explain content recommendations to a twelve-year-old without leaving access to an app in their pocket all day and expecting them to resist opening it every time. Similarly, we teach children to cross the road safely but do not remove crossings for the sake of practice.

I also consider the ability to adjust your environment part of self-regulation. Put away the phone before working. Switch off unnecessary notifications. Decide what you want to finish, then evaluate what distracted you. The child gains a specific experience of making concentration easier. They do not have to fight for it every time against everything we have left running around them.

With age, I would expand space for personal decisions. Even for older students, however, independence does not mean a school cannot have a shared routine. Secondary schools need different arrangements for free periods, work placements, leaving the premises and adult students. That does not require us to abandon time when personal phones are put away.

You need not open a phone for it to distract you

Imagine a pupil getting into a more complex task. The phone vibrates. They do not look at it, but begin wondering who wrote and whether they should reply. They have followed ‘do not use your phone during lessons’. But their work is no longer uninterrupted.

Cary Stothart and colleagues' experiment found impaired performance on an attention-demanding task even among participants who did not respond to incoming notifications. It was a laboratory task, not a measurement of the results of a school ban. But it supports a reason not to be satisfied with a phone lying face down during work. ²

The mere presence of a switched-off phone is a different question. A meta-analysis of 33 studies involving 4 368 participants found no significant overall effect of a phone's mere presence on cognitive performance. I therefore do not use the claim that ‘even a switched-off phone takes twenty per cent of everyone's concentration’. ³

Even so, I recommend clearly putting phones away. We are addressing availability for use, checking and distraction throughout the day. And one more thing: switching off notifications does not address the moment a child opens an endless stream of videos themselves. A silent phone can still be hard to leave.

What schools and research show

In a 2025 Dutch evaluation, 75 % of surveyed schools in secondary education reported better concentration, 59 % a better social climate and 28 % better academic results. These are proportions of schools reporting a change, not percentage improvements in children's performance. Some teachers also described more work enforcing rules and an increase in physical harassment or disruption. ⁴

I take such evaluations seriously. A teacher has something to say about how their class functions. But alongside them, we also need to monitor other outcomes and places where the change did not deliver what was expected.

The English SMART Schools study compared 1 227 pupils in 30 schools. Stricter rules were associated with approximately 40 fewer minutes of phone use at school. But no difference in overall daily use or mental wellbeing was demonstrated. This was a cross-sectional comparison of different schools, not observation of a randomly allocated ban. The authors see no support in these results for restrictions alone in their existing form and call for further development. ⁵

My recommendation is nevertheless to build schools without personal phones. The school day matters to me in itself, and I want to connect the ban with conditions for learning and shared time. But I will not turn it into a promise to put right everything also happening at home, at night and outside school. We must not sweep a null result under the carpet; we should use it to refine expectations and examine what actually changes.

When children feel worse after a restriction

Another objection in the debate is that removing phones produces anxiety. I do not infer from such a result alone that the ban is harmful. What was measured, in whom and how long the change lasted matter.

In an experiment with 127 adults, 72 hours without a smartphone led to higher scores for withdrawal-like symptoms and fear of missing out. There was no significant difference on general positive and negative emotion scales. The finding supports the possibility of an unpleasant response to disconnection, not an addiction diagnosis for every unhappy pupil. ⁷

The longer course over time matters too. A 2026 American working paper examined the introduction of lockable pouches. It found substantially reduced phone use. In the first year, it also found more disciplinary incidents and poorer subjective wellbeing; in subsequent years, the wellbeing effect was positive and the disciplinary effect weakened. The average effect on test results was close to zero and differed by school stage. The study also found little evidence of changes in attendance, student-rated attention and perceived online bullying. The first year cannot be equated with the first three days. This is a working paper. ⁶

Initial discomfort therefore need not mean we should cancel the rule. But it must not become something we no longer need to address. With a particular child, I would find out what they miss and what has changed. Are they used to checking the phone constantly? Afraid they will not have contact with a parent? Or were they escaping classmates into messages with the only person they felt good with?

For that last situation, ‘it will pass’ is not enough. The child needs support, and the school must address the relationships around them too. I would discuss a marked or persistent deterioration with parents and the school support team, or a professional outside school. A firm rule and individual help do not exclude one another.

Responsibility does not end at a child's thumb

The companies designing the apps belong in this story too. On 26 August 2026, California's Attorney General's office announced a proposed settlement with Meta worth up to 17 billion dollars over ten years, subject to court approval at the time of announcement. Its proposed conditions for young people in the USA also matter to the school debate: default time limits, night-time restrictions, blocked notifications during the school day and an option for a non-personalised feed. ⁸

Meta does not admit liability or unlawful conduct in the agreement. The settlement is not research into the effectiveness of school bans and does not automatically introduce the same conditions in the Czech Republic. ⁹ Even so, it is important context for me: responses to risks are also being sought in changes to the services themselves. Continuing to demand only stronger user willpower is insufficient.

That is why I also examine funding, data access and researchers' relationships with companies. I want the same scrutiny for a technology company and for a pouch manufacturer profiting from restricting phones. Funding alone neither confirms nor refutes a finding. In the article's supporting material, I list published funding information for the principal school studies; this is not a complete audit of all professional connections.

A break should offer something at all

I also recommend an all-day rule because I want to create shared time. When only one pupil puts away their phone, their situation differs from the whole group doing so. I consider shared availability one condition from which a conversation or game can emerge. But the ban itself will not start them for the children.

I would therefore ask the school quite ordinary questions. Do children have somewhere to sit together? Are they allowed to move safely anywhere? Are games or materials available for trying something? Is there somewhere for a person who needs quiet too?

I do not mean an obligation to prepare every break as an organised programme. I mean offering some accessible options at all. A table for games. An open space. An adult who helps a newcomer join in and then gives them freedom. A school banning phones, movement, louder conversation and entry almost everywhere at the same time has not created much room for children.

This connects with my theory of points of contact with reality. What a child experiences among people matters too. Humiliation does not disappear when a phone is put away, and enforced cheerfulness will not solve loneliness. I would be particularly interested in pupils who remain on the sidelines. The rule should open up possibilities, rather than only deprive them of their existing refuge.

A school without personal phones can teach AI well

I want children to learn to understand technology. In my view, they can explore the basics of AI from the first year of primary school through suitable activities and teacher-guided demonstrations. This does not mean their own account or unrestricted independent conversations with a chatbot.

For work, I recommend prepared school devices without unnecessary notifications or personal social media accounts. The teacher should know why they are using the tool, what pupils should discover and which part of the task they must manage independently. The school should assess the service's age requirements, data protection and availability to everyone in advance. The words ‘school tablet’ alone will not turn an entertainment feed into an educational tool.

If the school does not yet have enough devices, it can choose group work, a shared demonstration or another version of the task. I would not use a lack of equipment as a reason for private phones to remain available without restriction all day. At the same time, we cannot ban their use and then require a phone without an alternative for timetables, signing in or every QR code.

How I would introduce an all-day routine

Prepare the rule first, then announce it

I recommend a simple foundation: the personal phone is switched off and put away during time at school within the school day, including breaks. Medically essential functions have an exception. Support needs, exceptional situations and family contact are also addressed in advance. A rule for an ordinary day is not a ban on bringing a phone for the journey to school.

I would describe smartwatches and other devices receiving the same messages separately. Function and purpose should determine the approach. Restricting notifications does not require automatically banning an e-reader. I would prepare appropriate arrangements for after-school care, trips and work placements; at secondary schools, I would also clearly define free periods and time outside the premises.

Choose storage the school can manage

The rule itself does not require any particular equipment brand. I would compare three common options when choosing:

These are questions for an operational decision, not a ranking of scientifically established effectiveness. Before purchasing, I would ask for a demonstration of the whole process across an ordinary school day, including late arrivals and departures for medical appointments.

Hear pupils and parents, remove specific obstacles

Ask what children need their phones for today. Some answers will reveal a problem the school must solve: a transport change, timetable access or arranging collection. Prepare an available telephone contact and specify who actually passes a message to the child. Printing an office number nobody answers is insufficient.

Pupil involvement need not mean a referendum on whether they may have rules at all. But pupils should influence the shape of breaks and have someone to tell when a particular part of the routine does not work. Communicate with parents in advance. Do not promise a certain percentage improvement in grades; explain the day you want to create at school and how you will recognise a change.

Agree a shared adult approach

Teachers should know beforehand how to respond to a forgotten phone, repeated breaches and a genuine emergency. I recommend a calm, predictable approach without public humiliation or using a subject grade as punishment for a phone. I would not turn repeated conflicts into a personal battle between one teacher and one child.

Adults also need to distinguish work-related phone use from their own scrolling. Their role differs from pupils', but they should be present during shared work. A children's phone ban is harder to explain when the supervising adult spends the break on their own feed.

Find out what actually changed

Before introduction, I would briefly map the frequency of interruptions, handling of infringements and children's experience of breaks. Then return to the same questions. In practice, perhaps after the first month and at the end of the half-year, not because these are universal adaptation periods.

Alongside phone use, monitor teachers' workload, conflicts, pupil involvement and those feeling worse. If recorded infringements increase, distinguish breaches of the new rule from increases in other inappropriate behaviour. Listen to children who do not appreciate the change too. When some repeatedly become targets of sanctions, find out why.

Success is not taking away as many phones as possible. I am interested in longer stretches of uninterrupted work, fewer arguments and breaks in which children have something to do and someone to be with. I would adjust the rule and its implementation according to the outcome.

What I take from MŠMT guidance and what I find missing

The Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MŠMT) guidance from February 2026 describes different arrangements and legal boundaries. For primary and secondary schools, however, it does not select one recommended default. It leaves the choice to the school; it explicitly recommends complete restriction particularly for nurseries. That is not enough for me as educational guidance for a primary school's decision. An overview of options is useful, but does not replace a recommendation from the ministry itself. ¹⁰

Even so, I would not disregard legal boundaries. The guidance draws on Section 30(3) of the Czech Education Act: use may be restricted through school or internal rules, while preserving essential use for health reasons. At primary and secondary schools, the school council approves school rules. Regulation does not authorise teachers to read messages or browse photographs. Temporarily taking a device must be proportionate; the guidance rejects holding it beyond the pupil's teaching day. ¹⁰

The school should check the specific wording of its rules against current law and its operations. This article offers an educational recommendation, not ready-made school rules.

What should remain after the phone is put away

I do not want a school where children fear technology. I want them to know how to use it and also experience time when they need not use it. That is why I support personal phones being put away all day alongside good digital teaching.

During introduction, I would want three specific things from leadership: an understandable rule, prepared implementation and interest in how children are actually doing. I consider opening up possibilities after phones are put away just as important as writing a ban. Only then does it make sense to visit a break and find out what has changed.

Sample letters to parents

Before use, complete every item in square brackets. The content must match the actual school rules and functioning school operations. Use the second letter only after the change has been properly approved and issued. For a secondary school, adjust free periods, work placements, departures and communication with adult students. Handle pupils' sensitive needs individually.

Preparing a change: first letter to parents

Subject: We are preparing a school day without personal phone use

Dear parents,

We are preparing a proposed change to school rules under which personal mobile phones would remain put away throughout the school day, including breaks. We want to create more space for pupils' concentration, rest and shared activities without continual use of apps and messages.

The proposal concerns use at school, not being able to have a phone on the journey to school and home. Medically essential use will be preserved; we will also address support needs and exceptional situations individually. Digital teaching will continue using equipment the school prepares for each specific task.

Before finalising the change, we need to address its practical effects. At this stage, we propose storing phones [INSERT SPECIFIC METHOD]. During the school day, parents would be able to contact their child through [INSERT PERSON, NUMBER AND AVAILABILITY TIMES]. We will also ensure the child can contact you when something important needs to be dealt with.

Please let us know by [DATE] through [CHANNEL] which ordinary situations we need to address during preparation. These might include changes to collection, transport or timetable access. For health-related and other individual needs, contact [CONTACT PERSON] privately.

Preparing the shape of breaks is also part of the process. We will review with pupils which activities and spaces are available and what could be added. We do not want to organise every minute; we want them to have accessible options and know whom to approach when they find joining in difficult.

We will tell you the final wording of the rules, effective date and procedures for exceptions or breaches after preparation is complete and the school-rule change has been approved. Following any introduction, we will seek pupils', parents' and teachers' experiences, including difficulties the change brings.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[NAME AND ROLE] [SCHOOL NAME] [CONTACT]

Announcing an approved rule: second letter to parents

Subject: From [DATE], personal phones will be put away during the school day

Dear parents,

From [DATE], a change to school rules takes effect: pupils do not use personal mobile phones during the school day, including breaks. The rule is intended to protect concentration during work and create shared time without personal apps and messages continually intruding. You can find the complete school rules [LOCATION OR LINK].

On arrival at school, the pupil [INSERT: SWITCHES OFF THE PHONE AND STORES IT IN A SPECIFIC PLACE]. It becomes available again [DESCRIBE THE END OF THE ROUTINE AND COLLECTION]. Early departure is handled through [SPECIFIC PROCEDURE]. Smartwatches and other devices are subject to [BRIEF WORDING CONSISTENT WITH SCHOOL RULES].

Medically essential use remains preserved. Agree individual support needs and other specified exceptions with [PERSON AND CONTACT] so relevant staff know the required procedure. In an exceptional situation, the pupil approaches [AVAILABLE PERSON OR PLACE]; the school has a procedure ready to ensure necessary help and communication.

During the school day, you can reach us on [PHONE NUMBER], at [TIME]. Messages are passed to the child by [RESPONSIBLE PERSON / PROCEDURE]. Pupils can make necessary family contact through [PROCEDURE]. Please send routine messages outside the period when phones are put away wherever possible.

Teaching with technology continues. For planned digital tasks, we prepare [ACTUALLY AVAILABLE SOLUTION]. In the event of a breach, we will follow school rules clearly and proportionately to the situation. We are explaining the procedure to pupils too.

During breaks, [ACTUAL SPACES AND OPTIONS, INCLUDING A QUIET OPTION] will be available. Pupils can bring their own ideas too. We plan the first shared evaluation of the change for [DATE]. We will monitor phone use, lessons, breaks, staff workload and children's experiences.

If you notice your child struggling with the change, please contact [CONTACT]. We want to address specific difficulties, rather than overlook them by referring to the new rule.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[NAME AND ROLE] [SCHOOL NAME] [CONTACT]

Sources, supporting material and research funding

The supporting material was checked during preparation of v2 on 12 September 2026. The educational recommendation expresses the author's position. His camp and professional experience is personal observation, not another research study.

1. National Institute of Mental Health: The Teen Brain: 7 Things to Know (revised 2023). Brain development and late maturation of the prefrontal cortex. NIMH.
2. Stothart, C.; Mitchum, A.; Yehnert, C. (2015): The attentional cost of receiving a cell phone notification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(4), 893–897. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000100. Author's research page.
3. Hartanto, A. et al. (2024): The effect of mere presence of smartphone on cognitive functions: A four-level meta-analysis. Technology, Mind, and Behavior, 5(1). DOI: 10.1037/tmb0000123. SMU university repository.
4. Carrión Braakman, I. et al. (2025): Monitoring landelijke afspraak mobiele telefoons en andere devices in de klas. Eindrapport: eenmeting. Kohnstamm Instituut / Oberon, report 1147. The figures cited in the article come from the VO section, meaning Dutch secondary education; they are school evaluations. Report and authors' summary.
5. Goodyear, V. A. et al. (2025): School phone policies and their association with mental wellbeing, phone use, and social media use (SMART Schools): a cross-sectional observational study. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 51, 101211. DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2025.101211. University of Birmingham.
6. Allcott, H. et al. (2026): The Effects of School Phone Bans: National Evidence from Lockable Pouches. NBER Working Paper 35132, April 2026. A working paper; the time course is in years after introduction. DOI: 10.3386/w35132. Abstract and published disclosures.
7. Eide, T. A. et al. (2018): Smartphone Restriction and Its Effect on Subjective Withdrawal Related Scores. Frontiers in Psychology, 9:1444. An experiment with 127 adults during a 72-hour restriction. DOI and full text: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01444.
8. California Department of Justice (26 August 2026): Attorney General Bonta Secures Transformative $17 Billion Settlement with Meta, Proposed Settlement Includes Fundamental Changes to Instagram and Facebook. Official announcement of the settlement proposed at that time, including the requirement for court approval. Attorney General's announcement.
9. Meta and State AGs’ Proposed Consent Judgment / Settlement Agreement, court document 572-1, filed 26 August 2026. Particularly relevant are the non-admission of liability and jurisdictional limits (PDF pp. 4, 7 and 52). Published document. News context: BBC.
10. MŠMT (26 February 2026): Guidance on setting rules for mobile phones and other electronic devices in schools. Legal and operational orientation, not effectiveness research. Particularly relevant are pages 5, 15, 28 and 34. Guidance page, PDF.

Who funded the principal school studies

Supporting material	What is disclosed
Dutch monitoring	Commissioner: the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW).
SMART Schools 2025	Funding: the UK's public NIHR Public Health Research Programme.
American pouch study 2026	Six supporters are listed, including Arnold Ventures, Bezos Family Foundation and Stanford Impact Labs. Yondr is a partner and data provider. Authors also disclose consultancy connected with technology companies; Google is expressly listed for Matthew Gentzkow. Details and other supporters appear on the NBER page.

Meta is not listed in the published funding of these three works. This is a review of available disclosures, not a complete examination of all authors' professional connections. A partnership with a data provider is not the same as direct funding. A company connection alone does not determine the validity of a result; the study's methods and the possibility of independent scrutiny also matter.