Why should governors be interested in smartphone use in schools? Boards are constantly urged not to interfere in day-to-day management issues and this might seem a classic example of such an issue. However, it is an area where Board oversight is likely to be both necessary and helpful to the school leadership.
The issue has become a hot topic across the world. In the UK, there has been extensive press coverage, including articles by high-profile school leaders expressing divergent opinions. The government has changed its position and much coverage has been given to views expressed by Ofsted, the teaching unions, the Children’s Commissioner and the Princess of Wales. The recently-established Parents Against Mobile Phone Addiction in Young Adolescents (PAPAYA) argues for withholding mobile phones from young teenagers as “it gives young people an extra two to three years of childhood. Time to play, to enjoy each other’s company, and to concentrate on learning and social development without the distraction of constant notifications.”
Such debate is replicated globally, with schools and governments struggling to come to a clear position. A recent article, “Going back in time: the schools across Europe banning mobile phones” focuses on a school in the Netherlands that was previously an outlier and looks at others throughout Europe. It also tells us that more than half the states in the USA now limit the use of mobile phones in schools.
The harms occasioned by mobile phones in schools are numerous: they cause disruption in lessons; they deter sociability in free time; they facilitate access to harmful material; they provide opportunities for bullying; they facilitate cheating of various kinds; they encourage dependence – among many others.
In boarding schools as in family homes, unrestricted access to mobile devices interferes with sleep and encourages the development of online relationships that can be harmful. Many young people are dependent on their phones, unable to ignore notifications and suffer separation anxiety when deprived of them to take an exam.
The discussion is part of a growing emphasis on student wellbeing. There are fascinating insights into the topic in “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness” by Professor Jonathan Haidt of New York University. His introduction states, “My central claim… is that these two trends – overprotection in the real world and underproduction in the virtual world – are the major reasons why children born after 1995 became the anxious generation.” He calls for and justifies no smartphones before age 14, no social media before 16, phone-free schools and far more supervised play and childhood independence.
Schools increasingly need policies on mobile phone use and these policies require careful consideration of the implications. Where mobile devices have been used as tools for learning, alternative methods will be needed if use is restricted, and thought must be given to how young people are coached to make judgements when they are on their phones unsupervised. Where children are encouraged to interact with each other rather than with their phones, what consideration is given to those socially-isolated children whose apparent interest in their phones can be a defence mechanism? When bullies come offline, what actions are needed to ensure they don’t take to bullying behaviours around school instead – where are the risky areas? Above all, what do we want to encourage students to do in the time and space freed up by limiting access to devices?
Not all schools will wish to implement full bans on mobile phones during the school day in the manner of many others. Boards should be interested in why their school is choosing one approach over the other – a full ban, free access or somewhere between the two – and the evaluation, stakeholder communication and risk assessment that has informed the policy. It is not for governance to set policy, but a board has a legitimate interest in the wellbeing dimension, the implications for the student experience, and other outcomes. They will also be interested in how the reactions of students and complaints from parents will be managed.
One way governors might take an interest is when they visit their school. Where smartphones are permitted, do they see use that it is harmful? Where they are not, what changes do they see in behaviour? One head justified her ban because “(the students) would be heads down and not talking to one another, which made me think we must act now before their brains are completely rewired.” So, are students looking up and engaging? Another head remarked on the consequences of a ban in his school, “since we changed the phone policy we have seen a massive increase in participation. The numbers are phenomenal.” So, do you see a change in co-curricular activities? Another said of her students, “you will quite often see girls playing board games together…. There is no question that they read more now, but they also sit back and talk more.” So, is the Library seeing a resurgence in activity and are common rooms noisier and more sociable?
Whatever line your school has decided to take, it should be of interest to the board. As a governor, you have the same role to support and challenge in this area of school life as in any other – perhaps especially if the decision on how to proceed was difficult or contentious because of the multiplicity of views.