After relying on cellphones to save education during the pandemic, schools are now banning tools that could someday transform learning.
The contradictions in our approach to technology in schools are striking. During the COVID-19 pandemic, phones, tablets, and laptops were essential tools for education. They became lifelines, ensuring continuity of learning when physical classrooms were no longer accessible. Yet now, as students return to in-person schooling, many of those same institutions are implementing cellphone bans. This inconsistency speaks to a deeper failure: Our schools have not learned how to fully harness the potential of technology to enhance learning. Instead of banning phones, how might we teach students and teachers how to use them responsibly and wisely and prepare them for the world we live in?
What Are Cellphone Bans, and Why Are They in Place?
Cellphone bans in schools are designed to eliminate distractions, prevent cheating, and curb cyberbullying. These bans come on the heels of the Surgeon General’s urgent warning about the dangers of excessive cellphone use. With rising concerns over the loneliness epidemic, the mental health crises fueled by COVID, and the damaging effects of social media on children, schools are reacting—but are they responding wisely?
Proponents of the bans argue that removing phones from classrooms helps students focus and gives teachers greater control over the learning environment. According to a teacher from Illinois I spoke to, “Without phones in the classroom, there’s one less distraction. It’s easier for me to manage instruction without constantly asking students to put their phones away.” An administrator from the same district shared a similar sentiment: “Phones disrupt the flow of learning. They allow students to disengage with the classroom and focus on their own worlds, whether it’s texting friends or scrolling through social media.”
When schools shifted to online learning, students had no choice but to dial-in; many students reported using phones and other devices to access lessons, complete assignments, and stay connected with their teachers and peers. Yet, now that students are back in classrooms, those same tools are being deemed distractions. As one teacher pointed out, “We threw technology at the problem, but we didn’t really think through how to use it in a way that supports deeper learning.” The bans show that schools are still struggling to figure out how technology can be leveraged to enhance teaching rather than hinder it (Lenhart, 2015).
For many teachers, cellphone bans bring immediate relief. “Phones were a constant battle,” said a middle school teacher I spoke to in New York. Now that they’re banned, I don’t have to spend half my class telling kids to put their phones away. I can finally focus on teaching.” As a recent New York Times article reported, this sentiment is shared by many educators, especially those who have struggled to manage cellphone use in the classroom.
Still, other teachers see the bans as a missed opportunity. “We need to teach students how to use phones responsibly,” a high school teacher in New York suggested. “These devices are a part of their everyday lives. Banning them isn’t preparing them for the future. It’s just avoiding the problem.” Rather than fighting against the tide of technology, this alternative take on cellphones in schools emphasizes the need for schools to teach students how to use phones as tools for learning and communication, helping them develop the digital literacy skills they’ll need in life beyond school (cf. Buckingham, 2013).
Students, unsurprisingly, view cellphone bans as yet another form of control in an environment already defined by restrictions. “It’s just another way for them to control us,” said one high school junior in an interview. “They’re afraid of what we might do with our phones, but banning them doesn’t make the problems go away—it just pushes them into different spaces.” This student’s sentiment highlights the disconnect between students and schools, where phones are seen not as tools but threats.
For many of the students I talked to, phones were more than just social devices; they were lifelines. “I need my phone to check on my siblings,” one student shared. “I can’t afford to be out of touch for hours in a day.” Bans on cellphones would disproportionately affect such students, many of whom are already vulnerable. For these students, a phone is not a luxury—it’s a necessity (Boyd, 2014).
The parents I spoke with were divided on the issue. Some supported placing restrictions on cellphone use in schools, believing that phones are distractions that hinder learning. “I don’t want my child on their phone all day,” one parent said. “They need to be focused on school, not Snapchat.” For these parents, the bans seem like a necessary step toward improving academic engagement.
Other parents, however, felt differently. They saw phones as a crucial connection to their children, particularly in emergencies. “If something happens, I need to know,” said another parent. “I don’t trust the school to handle everything, and the phone is the only way I can make sure my child is safe.” This concern is compounded by a lack of trust in schools, particularly among parents of color, who feel that phones offer a way to document issues and hold schools accountable when problems arise (Hobbs, 2010).
What I gained from my conversations was that something was missing from the debate about cellphones in schools. The real question that people were raising was not whether phones could be distracting but whether they could be useful for learning. By framing cellphones as tools rather than threats, I wonder how we might see cellphones as tools that can help students navigate learning and life and equip them with the skills they will need beyond school?
The Unintended Consequences: Exclusion and Criminalization
While it might seem like a solution, banning cellphones in school could have unintended consequences. For example, banning phones can increase the likelihood of conflict between students and teachers. As one student put it, “If a teacher tries to take my phone, I’m going to fight. It’s the most valuable thing I own.” I also found, based on an audit of discipline data from a school district in Michigan I’ve been working in, that banning cellphones can lead to more rather than less disciplinary issues, particularly among BIPOC students who are already disproportionately impacted by school discipline practices (cf. Anyon et al., 2018). I should note that in other districts, similar bans may have resulted in fewer disciplinary infractions; however, it is unclear whether these outcomes have been disaggregated by race and vulnerability status. But according to the American Civil Liberties Union (2021), Black and Latinx students are significantly more likely to face disciplinary action for in-school cellphone use, reflecting broader patterns of systemic inequities in school discipline policies.
Few people are talking about how these bans often exacerbate the very problems they aim to solve. Cyberbullying, for example, does not disappear with cellphone bans—it merely shifts to other platforms and other times of the day. “We’re not solving the problem; we’re just pushing it out of sight,” said a school administrator I talked to. Moreover, research shows that punitive policies like cellphone bans are often based on subjective beliefs rather than objective evidence (Gulson & Webb, 2017), and subjective discipline has raised ongoing equity issues across U.S. education systems because the penalty is felt more by vulnerable children than anyone else. In many cases, these policies end up criminalizing students for behaviors that could be managed more constructively.
Innovation Over Exclusion: Beyond More Bans
It’s clear that something needs to happen in response to student cellphone use in school. But that something doesn’t have to be holistic, preemptive bans. The future of education is digital, and rather than banning cellphones, how might we focus on teaching students and teachers how to use them responsibly to advance learning and life in the 21st Century?
Indeed, our workforce of educators will need time and dedicated professional learning to help them meaningfully integrate cellphones into teaching in ways that inspire creativity and innovation. Districts will need technical assistance to create platforms that provide a critical interface between our digital and physical worlds. This pivot to reimagine the role of cellphones in education will require a concurrent commitment to helping students understand not just how to use the technology but why and for what purposes (Kellner & Share, 2019).
The digital age has radically transformed our lives, and our schools must evolve to meet the demands of our emerging society. Banning technology is not only a shortsighted solution but also a missed opportunity. Instead of exclusion, we can leverage cellphones to innovate education in at least three ways:
Decolonizing the Curriculum through Mobile Technology. Cellphones can be used to help students access marginalized voices, global perspectives, and alternative histories that are often excluded from traditional curricula. By integrating mobile technology, students can conduct independent research on indigenous knowledge systems, oral histories, and anti-colonial struggles from around the world. For instance, students can engage in participatory research by using their phones to interview community elders, activists, or historians, recording and preserving these narratives for public history projects. This empowers students to question dominant narratives and claims while embodying roles as agents of cultural preservation and social justice. Such practices align with decolonizing methodologies that emphasize counter-narratives and critical reflexivity (Smith, 2012). Recent studies show that integrating mobile technology with a focus on social justice can disrupt hegemonic discourses in education, elevate historically marginalized voices, and motivate classroom learning (Souto-Manning, 2018).
Leveraging Mobile Technology for Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR). Cellphones can serve as powerful tools for engaging students in Critical Participatory Action Research (CPAR), where they investigate social inequalities within their own communities. Using cellphones, students can collect data through photos, videos, and surveys, documenting issues such as environmental racism, educational inequities, or food deserts in their neighborhoods. By analyzing this data and creating multimedia presentations, students can develop a deeper understanding of structural oppression while simultaneously proposing solutions to these injustices. Such an approach not only sharpens students’ critical consciousness but also nurtures a sense of agency and civic responsibility, aligning with Freirean pedagogy that calls for education to be an act of liberation (Freire, 2018). Recent research has demonstrated the effectiveness of CPAR in mobilizing youth to become change-makers, using mobile technology to amplify voices that are typically silenced (Cammarota & Fine, 2018).
Promoting Digital Activism and Global Solidarity through Mobile Technology. Cellphones can be transformative tools for advancing digital activism and encouraging digital citizenship where students engage in global movements for justice and equity. Students can use their phones to connect with youth activists around the world, participate in online campaigns, and use social media platforms to raise awareness about issues such as climate justice, racial equity, and human rights. Teachers can guide students in examining how digital activism works—how it spreads, the ethical considerations involved, and its potential for creating real-world change. This practice aligns with critical media literacy, which teaches students to critically analyze and produce media that challenges dominant ideologies and supports movements toward justice (Kellner & Share, 2019). Recent studies suggest that digital activism, when integrated into the curriculum, can foster a global sense of solidarity and collective responsibility among students (Papacharissi, 2015).
These are but three ideas for integrating cellphones into the structure of teaching and learning. While researching for this article, I came across several other examples of effective cellphone integration. For instance, in one high school, students used phones to create short documentaries about local civil rights landmarks, transforming their devices into tools for research and creative expression (cf. Livingstone, 2014). A science class used cellphones to gather environmental data on air quality and pollution, demonstrating how mobile technology can enhance project-based learning (cf. Lenhart, 2015). Finally, I came across an English class that used social media to engage with authors in real-time, bringing literature to life by bridging the gap between classroom discussions and the real world (Boyd, 2014).
In addition to these examples, there are a few other ideas that I believe could help promote more responsible cellphone use in schools:
Schools could establish clear, structured policies on when and how phones can be used in the classroom (Selwyn, 2016).
Schools could promote the use of tools like Google Classroom, Kahoot!, and Quizlet to help teachers turn cellphones into interactive devices for quizzes, assignments, and group projects (Hobbs, 2010).
Schools could encourage teachers to focus their instruction on project- and research-based assignments or creative projects that require multimedia use, helping students learn to navigate technology responsibly as they themselves are urged to use their cellphones to advance their learning (Kellner & Share, 2019).
I am persuaded that cellphone bans will offer only temporary relief for teachers and administrators struggling with the challenges of modern classrooms, and they will fail to address some deeper issues at play. As my conversations with students, parents, teachers, and administrators show, there are multiple perspectives on this issue, but the solution is not to ban phones—it is to teach students how to use them better. As I have suggested in another article, schools should be sites to prepare students for the future, and that means embracing, not fearing, the tools of the modern age. Or, as Albert Einstein once put it, “The mind that opens to a new idea never returns to its original size.” Let’s open our schools to the full possibilities that cellphones offer while guiding our children toward their wise and responsible use.
References
American Civil Liberties Union. (2021). Disparities in school discipline: A look at the data. https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-discipline
Anyon, Y., Jenson, J. M., Altschul, I., Farrar, J., McQueen, J., Greer, E., ... & Simmons, J. (2018). The persistent effect of race and the promise of alternatives to suspension in school discipline outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 95, 282-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.015
Boyd, D. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Buckingham, D. (2013). Media education: Literacy, learning, and contemporary culture. London: Polity.
Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (2018). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. New York: Routledge.
Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed (50th Anniversary Edition). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Gulson, K. N., & Webb, P. T. (2017). Emerging digital governance and education policy. Critical Studies in Education, 58(2), 185-198. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1281821
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Denver: Aspen Institute.
Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2019). The critical media literacy guide: Engaging media and transforming education. Brill Sense. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004404534
Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. New York: Pew Research Center.
Livingstone, S. (2014). Developing social media literacy: How children learn to interpret risky opportunities on social network sites. Communications, 39(3), 283-302. https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2014-0115
Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Cambridge, UK: Oxford University Press.
Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Souto-Manning, M. (2018). Critical, transdisciplinary, and transformative research in education: Broadening the boundaries of research and praxis. Review of Research in Education, 42(1), 72-101. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18759040
Smith, L. T. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). New York: Zed Books.
_____________________________________
Suggested citation: Kirkland, D.E. (2024). Can We Talk? A Critical Examination of Cellphone Bans in Schools. forwardED Perspectives, https://www.forward-ed.com/post/can-we-talk-a-critical-examination-of-cellphone-bans-in-schools.
David E. Kirkland, PhD, is the founder and CEO of forwardED. He is a nationally renowned scholar of education equity. He can be reached via email at: david@forward-ed.com.
Comments