In recent years, more and more countries and political groups have started campaigning to ban phones from primary and/or high schools due to several issues that have emerged with the new generations. Several European countries have already decided to limit the use of smartphones in educational buildings, France banned it in 2018, and in the same year, the Greek Ministry of Education also prohibited phones. Recently, the topic has been in the middle of debates again, such as in the UK, the Netherlands, but also Germany, Spain, and then now Hungary. The new government of Wallonia, Belgium (the coalition of the Mouvement Reformateur: MR and the Engagé) has also supported this idea to limit/ban electronic devices within public education institutions. However, not everyone finds it an appropriate way to deal with this problem, and it is difficult to regulate. Therefore, in this article, I am going to review how France made it possible through legislation and what the experiences have been so far.

Wind of change

I will start with a personal note. I was nine, in second grade of primary school when I got my first phone (not a smart one), mostly because of the athletics training I had every day. My parents thought it was important for me to inform them whenever I arrived at my training location so they knew I was safe. Although it was already criticized why a parent would give a phone to a 9-year-old child, I used it for nothing else but to keep in contact with my parents. Times have changed, technology has changed. Back then, fifteen years ago, my phone did not affect my personal relationships. “Why would I use my phone if I can play with my friends?”—could have been in the mind of nine-year-old me. Of course, over the years, our habits and the role of phones changed (progressed?), and we started to send music and games to each other, play against each other, and eventually, we became part of the past, present, and future of social media.

Today, phones are not only for keeping in contact with others but also for living your life through them. You read on them, educate yourself on them, entertain yourself on them, follow the news on them, chat with your family, friends, and colleagues on them, and most importantly for children, your phone can label you and expose you to harm that will follow you on a daily basis. As I mentioned in my previous article, the phenomenon of bullying has changed as well. In the past, after the end of the school day, the bullying ended as well. However, this is no longer the case. There is no end to bullying in the age of the internet and social media.

But there are other aspects. The whole purpose of schooling has been damaged in the era of smartphones, hence, comprehensive regulation—primarily at the state level as education policy has always been considered a domain falling under constitutional identity and a wide margin of appreciation —is inevitable. However, as a professor said to a friend of mine about ChatGPT, “Don’t ban it, it is a tool, but you have to learn how to use it properly.”

The case of France

On August 5, 2018, the French government enacted a regulation (loi relative à l’encadrement de l’utilisation du téléphone portable dans les établissements d’enseignement scolaire), prohibiting the use of “cell phones and other electronic communication devices” in kindergartens/preschools (école maternelle), elementary schools (école élémentaire), and middle schools (collège) up to age 15. At Lycées, where teenagers spend the final three years of high school, individual institutions set their own policies regarding phone use.

The law, to be accurate, prohibits the use of cell phones by children inside school grounds or during school-related activities outside of school, such as sporting events or day trips, and also prevents them from accessing the internet via any device. Exceptions may be made for pedagogical purposes for children with special needs.

However, such regulations were not unfamiliar in the French legal system, as a 2010 modification to the French Education Code had already prohibited the use of cell phones but only “during class hours.” The nearly total ban in 2018 was proposed with the following objective: “[…] provide students with an environment that fosters attention, concentration, and reflection necessary for [educational] activities, comprehension, and memorization.”

The proposition, although received much criticism from across the political spectrum, was often dismissed as merely a “communication operation” (une opération de communication) or “political window-dressing” (l’affichage politique), a piece of legislation that “won’t change a thing” (une loi de circonstance qui ne va rien changer), as we can remember, the ban was a presidential campaign promise of Emmanuel Macron in 2017.

What are the experiences?

In general, as research continually shows, reducing screen time improves exam results, according to the London School of Economics, due to its strong connection to improved concentration. The same study also indicates that “restricting mobile phone use can be a low-cost policy to reduce educational inequalities,” which is a significant advantage for many schools. Proponents also argue that less screen time mitigates the often negative influence of social media, which can lead to bullying, and helps curb phone theft, a common problem in some schools.

The Problem Area: Enforcement

Here, I would like to share a personal (Hungarian) experience: my conversations with a friend who has been a primary and high school teacher for decades. Several problems arise not only with enforcement but also with timing. For context, in the last decade, the government has tried to modernize the educational system for the 21st century by creating an online platform and app to track grades, attendance, classroom changes during the day, etc.. Now, with the prohibition of such devices, much of this progress will be rolled back, or wasted, not to mention the time students, parents, and especially teachers have spent learning to use this new electronic system.

Another global challenge for such regulations is how a school, government, municipality, or other entity can enforce and, more importantly, ensure the safety of these devices when stored on school property. Who would be responsible for the devices while they are not in their owner’s possession? If something happens to them, who would be liable for any damage caused?

As mentioned in the previously cited Forbes article: before the French government ban, Le Figaro estimated that 30-40% of disciplinary actions in senior schools were related to mobile phone use in class. More importantly, according to Le Figaro, in many French schools, if teachers see a phone being used or hear one ring in class, the phone is confiscated until the end of the day—sometimes the week—when it must be collected from the headmaster’s office. Additional detentions are also given out. French schoolchildren are now used to making sure their phones are switched firmly off before heading to school in the morning. Although I have no personal experience with this, I must mention that I have doubts about the effectiveness of such “punishment.”

Conclusion

Although I think some kind of restriction is important in the case of smartphones, I cannot agree with a complete ban. Generally, total bans are not efficient, especially for teenagers. The forbidden fruit is always more enticing. It reminds me of banned books, such as my childhood favorite “Nothing” by Janne Teller, which is a fascinating story. After being banned for a few years, it became a mandatory book for Danish schoolchildren.

I do not believe that a total ban on anything, especially such an indispensable device, is the way we should proceed since we cannot avoid phone usage in this era. Instead, we should learn, understand, and then teach the next generations how to handle the challenges that phones bring to the classroom. Prohibition is like burying our heads in the sand, or as a universal saying goes: “Throwing the baby out with the bath water.” Some may believe that banning a device or an ideology is the right solution to a problem, but I cannot agree with that. It leads us to a comfortable situation (a dream) where we feel like everything is good and perfect. However, this approach does not solve the problem. Not to mention, we might also forget that potential dangers are still present.

Soma BÁCSFALVI is a Msc student of law at the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of the University of Szeged, Hungary, and a scholarship student of the Aurum Foundation. As a former intern with the presidential cabinet of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, his research focuses on the interconnections of national constitutional law and European public law, in particular on the rule of law and its manifestations in the European Union.