Many parents support banning smartphones in schools, but for some, there is one lingering worry.
Sam Marlow had always assumed she would give her daughter Rubie a smartphone when she started secondary school. That plan changed last September when Rubie’s school introduced a ban on smartphones for new students, allowing only basic “brick” or “dumb” phones that can call or text but have little or no internet access.
“It basically meant we didn’t have to be the bad guys,” Sam says. “Rubie was a bit disappointed, but she knew it applied to everyone in her year.”
The biggest drawback for Sam, who lives in rural Hampshire, is losing the ability to track her daughter’s journey to and from school. Still, she shrugs it off.
“I’m an 80s kid, and we didn’t have our location tracked,” she says.
To feel more reassured, she bought a separate Bluetooth tracker for Rubie to carry.
Sam says she is “over the moon” with the new policy, especially after seeing her older daughter, now 15, added to massive group chats involving hundreds of pupils when she got her first smartphone in Year 7.
On Tuesday, the House of Lords is set to debate an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would introduce a legal ban on smartphones in schools. Earlier this month, peers backed a similar proposal to ban social media for under-16s, though the government has said it will try to overturn that vote in the Commons after launching a consultation.
Currently, government guidance says schools should be “mobile phone-free environments by default”. This week, head teachers across England received a letter from the education secretary urging them to make sure pupils cannot use phones during the school day.
Almost all schools already restrict phone use, but the rules vary widely.
At Lostock High School in Manchester, students leaving a GCSE English lesson all point to their blazer pockets when asked where their phones are. Devices must be switched off or on silent, and any phone that is seen or heard is confiscated.
Many schools follow a similar “no see, no hear” approach, while others use lockable pouches or lockers where phones are stored on arrival.
But Lostock High’s assistant head teacher, Samantha Tsang, says creating a truly phone-free environment is extremely difficult without a legal ban and proper resources.
“We do catch students trying to use their phones during social times, and we can’t see every corner of the school,” she says. “We need statutory guidance. If every school is doing the same thing, it feels fairer and we’re more likely to get support from parents.”
The school cannot afford pouches or lockers, and staff have noticed some pupils handing in a second “burner phone” or a broken device if caught.
Research from the University of the West of England suggests that simply keeping phones switched off in bags does not stop pupils from using them during the day, and that parents often underestimate the harmful content children can access.
Despite admitting they are sometimes tempted to check their phones, the GCSE students interviewed say they follow the rules, though they like knowing their phones are close by.
Fifteen-year-old Abdullah says he wants his phone with him in case there is an emergency at home. His friend Bakhtiar points out that even their bus tickets are stored on their phones.
“Everything’s becoming digitalised,” he says.
“I honestly don’t know what I’d do without my phone,” adds Imaan, sitting with her friend Umara. “We use revision apps and talk about our exam work after school.”
Asked whether they would accept a basic phone instead, they all shake their heads.
“We prefer video calls,” Umara says.
According to Ofcom, almost a quarter of children aged five to seven now have their own smartphone, and nine in 10 pupils own a mobile phone by the time they reach secondary school.
Parentkind, a parenting charity, says parents usually give their children smartphones so they can stay in touch and track their location. Its chief executive, Frank Young, says parents often feel torn between giving their child a device they worry could be harmful or excluding them socially.
Donna Corker, from Stretford, has daughters aged 12 and 16 who both have smartphones. She believes phones should not be used in school unless there are medical or special educational needs.
“If there’s an emergency, there’s a school reception I can be contacted through,” she says.
Donna also feels it is a parent’s responsibility to teach children how to use phones safely.
“I set the rules at home,” she says. “And if I don’t think they’re using it properly, they lose it.”
The Conservatives have said they would support a ban on smartphones in schools. Meanwhile, the Association of School and College Leaders says phones are now part of everyday life and that any ban would need exceptions and proper funding to enforce it.
Back at Rubie’s school in Hampshire, head teacher Leanne Symonds says the full smartphone ban for new starters has already made “a huge difference”, with many parents delaying buying phones.
“We’d had a ‘no see, no hear’ policy for about 10 years,” she says. “Instead of changing the whole school, we decided to start from the bottom up.”
Winning over parents has taken time, especially those used to tracking their children or staying in touch through family group chats. Symonds also says questions remain about protecting children outside school.
“The school bus is the classic example,” she says. “Children can be shown content they don’t want to see, or end up watching things pushed by algorithms, without an adult around to help.”
Sam says she is not anti-smartphone and does plan to buy Rubie one in a few years, but believes parents need to stay ahead.
“You can control what they can and can’t access,” she says. “With my eldest, we allowed things gradually.”
The Department for Education says phones “have no place in the classroom” and that Ofsted will now assess how well schools enforce their phone policies.
While many parents and teachers back a legal ban, concerns remain about what children see once they leave school. What most people agree on is that action is needed — even if the debate over how to do it is far from settled.
