The UK proposes an amendment to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill to ban smartphones in all schools in England; a ban was previously just advisory
Government amendment to children's wellbeing and schools bill to replace existing guidance with statutory ban
The GuardianSally Weale
Context & Ripple Effects
UK policy has moved from softened school-phone legislation and voluntary guidance toward a proposed statutory rule. The shift follows organized parent pressure, including the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign.
It also sits alongside a UK consultation on under-16 social-media access and addictive app features, while France and UNESCO have already treated school smartphone restrictions as an education-policy issue.
First-order effects
Schools in England would have to enforce a uniform smartphone ban rather than rely on advisory guidance, shifting responsibility from individual school policy to statutory compliance.
Students and parents would face more consistent limits on phone access during the school day; the bill’s implementation details would determine how exceptions and enforcement work.
Second-order effects
Schools may need to revise behaviour, safeguarding and parent-contact procedures around devices, reducing the scope for differing local phone policies.
The proposal reinforces pressure on consumer-tech and social-media services already facing UK scrutiny over young users and engagement-oriented product features.
Third-order effects
If enacted alongside wider youth online-safety measures, the UK would be moving from guidance and platform-specific rules toward age- and setting-based limits on children’s digital access.
The measure adds to an emerging international policy pattern in which schools become a primary venue for limiting smartphone use, though outcomes will depend on enforcement and whether restrictions extend beyond school hours.
The trend: Governments are increasingly treating children’s smartphone access as a public-policy issue spanning schools, social platforms and product-design safeguards rather than leaving it to voluntary institutional rules.
Sounds like the “mobile phone ban” will simply make statutory what was already guidance to schools in England - no phones during the school day. So appears largely symbolic given almost all schools had this policy in place anyway. — www.theguardian.com/politics/ 202...
That's not the amendment, though. 106 was proposed and supported in the Lords, but not the Commons. Government has now said it will introduce its own amendment banning smartphones in schools but: “The details of the government's amendment have not yet been published.” www.bbc.c…
More performative nonsense that won't solve the real issues children face with devices and social media. Education and tackling the social media corporations is what's needed. — www.theguardian.com/politics/ 202...
Research from the children's commissioner for England last year found that 99.8% of primary schools and 90% of secondary schools already had policies in place that limited or restricted the use of mobile phones during the school day. — www.theguardian.com/politics/ 202...
Our approach to technology is so deeply confused. Banning the last tech wave whilst vigorously evangelising the next one. Which we'll then end up trying to ban. — Is there not any way of thinking this through upstream or are we just locked in this cycle? — www.theguardian.c…
Pointless law making. 99% of schools already ban mobile phones. Useless gesture politics. — Maybe spend more time informing the public of the truth and less time being performative. — www.theguardian.com/politics/ 202...
www.theguardian.com/politics/ 202... Today, a teacher exhorted one of my children's classes ( they are all 13/14) to “follow my TikTok /youtube” to learn the subject . — So exactly what are we doing here? — Also bans don't work as every secondary has children with booze, ene…
Alas, when have facts and figures ever got in the way of the government enacting a ban on something that gets *that* chunk of middle England nodding along? — Labour needs wins. The press will back this. Hang the consequences. And so on. [embedded post]