Findings from smartphone study back up Government's decision to ban devices during school day

A Government decision to ban pupils using smartphones during the school day has been supported by new research from UWE Bristol academics.

Findings from a study undertaken by Dr Benjamin Knight and Dr Paul Redford have added to the evidence justifying the Department for Education’s move to outlaw smartphone use in schools in England from the start of this academic year.

From 1 September, schools have been expected to follow statutory guidance requiring them to have policies that prohibit pupils’ access to and use of mobile phones throughout the school day, except where an authorised exception applies.

In the main, Dr Knight said this would mean schools ensuring that existing “phones switched off and in bags” policies were enforced consistently throughout the school day, or moving to more restrictive approaches. These could include requiring pupils to store phones in lockable magnetic pouches or lockers at the start of the day or, in some cases, introducing outright bans on smartphones being brought onto school premises – an approach some schools had already adopted.

However, the study showed some pupils found ways to circumvent the ‘off and in bags’ rules before the new legislation came into force - including secretly using their devices in toilets, under tables, via earbuds or smart watches, by hiding a phone on school premises or switching it to silent mode.

In addition, the study found that enforcement of smartphone policy was a substantial and uneven burden on school staff. Nearly two-thirds of staff (64.7 per cent) reported actively enforcing smartphone rules at least weekly, while 29.3 per cent did so daily or at least once per lesson.

The findings are from new analysis, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, of a survey of 3,721 secondary school pupils and 352 secondary teachers on the use of smartphones among young people in Bristol and the surrounding area in 2025.

Dr Knight, an Associate Professor in Education, said: “Our data shows how porous the ‘phones off and in bags’ policy was and how vulnerable to circumvention it was by a significant minority of young people. It didn’t stop smartphone use – it changed how and where it happened.”

In their survey responses, students admitted they primarily circumvented the policy through concealment and reduced visibility. Staff reported the same pattern: 79.8 per cent observed use in hidden/less monitored areas, 61.3 per cent observed toilet visits to use phones and 58.9 per cent witnessed phones being kept hidden and silent rather than switched off.

Dr Knight said: “Toilets were the most common location for phone use outside lessons, reported by 82 per cent of students. But it is perhaps not surprising that young people would come up with fairly elaborate displacement behaviours to make sure they could stay in touch with their peer group online and in touch with what's happening.”

On the impact on staff of the ‘off and in bags’ policy, Dr Redford, an Associate Professor, added: “Any time spent enforcing smartphone rules is time spent focusing on something other than the lesson they are teaching. Smartphones featured prominently in behaviour incidents: one in three members of school staff estimated that they were involved in at least a quarter of the incidents they dealt with.”

The researchers warned that school leaders would face challenges in successfully introducing more restrictive policies, predominantly because young people were strongly opposed to restricting their access to smartphones. The study showed that 93.5 per cent of pupils wanted either the status quo [‘off and in bags’] to remain in place, or to have fewer or no restrictions.

Dr Knight said: “School leaders should prepare for some turbulence as there is likely to be pushback and subversion from some students. They aren't going to be preaching to the choir about this, so they should think carefully about how it is introduced, what the messaging is and how it's rolled out.

“And the students who least want it [stricter rules on phones] are the pupils who saw themselves as struggling most academically. They were also more likely to report breaking their school’s existing smartphone rules - school leaders should be aware of that. There is a real dilemma here for schools. The pupils who are struggling most are also the least likely to want tighter restrictions on their phones and the most likely to circumvent the rules.

“Our data suggests that simply introducing stricter policies or enforcement may not be enough. Schools need to think carefully about how those policies are understood, implemented and supported, particularly among pupils who may already be struggling. New rules will need to be introduced and enforced in ways which are sensitive to the scale of change this new policy represents for some young people.”

Dr Redford, from UWE Bristol’s School of Education and Childhood, added: “Because the Government has not said ‘You must create smartphone-free school days by using this or that particular strategy’, schools have got to judge what is going to work best for them.

“Our findings strongly support the government’s new position that schools should be smartphone free by default, however the data also indicates that ‘off and in bags’ was not working as a restrictive policy. It will be interesting to see whether schools can enforce this approach more successfully to meet the new government expectations.”