Download the full report (PDF, 22 pages) — author: Bogna Białecka, Foundation for Health Education and Psychotherapy (FEZiP), December 2025. Polish-language report; my summary below from a parent’s perspective.
In December 2025, Polish researchers published a review of 100+ sources — peer-reviewed studies, government reports, and meta-analyses — on enforced smartphone bans in schools. With France’s 2018 law, Holland’s 2024 law, Norwegian, Italian, Brazilian, and 20+ US state policies now in effect, we finally have real-world data from rollouts in 29 countries.
The report’s conclusion is stronger than I expected — and it contains one catch parents tend to ignore. Here’s the version I’d want before the next school meeting, the next class WhatsApp argument, the next conversation with a principal.
Three effects confirmed across multiple countries
1. Academic performance — measurable improvement
The single strongest study (Beland & Murphy 2016, 90 English schools): test scores rose by 6% of a standard deviation — equivalent to 5 extra days of effective learning per year. For the lowest-performing students, 14%. The ban narrows the achievement gap.
Spain’s Galicia after introducing the ban: PISA scores rose by 10–13 points, equivalent to a year’s worth of academic progress (Beneito & Vicente-Chirivella 2022).
Florida 2025 (NBER Working Paper 34388): year one was chaotic, with a spike in suspensions. Year two showed statistically significant improvement in test scores. This matters because it pushes back on the popular “I tried a ban, it didn’t work” argument — for the first few months it really doesn’t. It stabilises after about a year.
But notice: a UK study (Weiss & Bonell 2025, Lancet Regional Health Europe) of 30 schools showed no difference between schools with and without bans. Why? Because “ban” there meant theory — phones were formally prohibited but actually used. Plus students compensated after school.
This is the pattern that recurs through the whole report: a paper ban delivers nothing. An enforced ban delivers 6–13 points.
2. Cyberbullying — the strongest effect of all
Here the data is the most consistent, with no exceptions:
- Norway: bullying and cyberbullying down by 43% (Abrahamsson 2024)
- Australia (NSW): principal of Ulladulla High School: “Within the same week, most cyberbullying incidents disappeared” (ABC News, 2023)
- Spain: marked drop in incidents involving photos and recordings of students
- Netherlands: 75% of secondary schools report better concentration; 59% report better social climate (Carrión Braakman et al. 2025)
The mechanism is trivial: you can’t take a humiliating photo of a classmate if your phone is in a locker. You can’t film a fight if your phone never leaves your backpack. Most school cyberbullying is photo- and video-based, so physically removing the camera removes the source.
3. Mental health — mostly girls
This one is more nuanced. Not every study finds an effect. But where they do:
- 29% drop in psychological symptoms among girls (Norway, Abrahamsson 2024)
- Largest benefits for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds
- Less appearance pressure, fewer social comparisons
Mechanism: a smartphone in school = constant exposure to Instagram, TikTok, snaps from the party you weren’t invited to. Girls aged 11–16 carry this pressure most heavily. Cutting that input for 6–8 hours a day gives the nervous system a break.
The catch: the effect vanishes if the parent doesn’t pick up the slack
The UK study that found no health effects contains a sentence worth memorising:
“Students used phones less in school but compensated for it after lessons, so total screen time stayed the same.”
That’s the exact point where a school ban stops working. If your child grabs the phone at 3pm, goes home and scrolls TikTok until midnight — the school removed 6 hours of scrolling, the home gave back 8.
The report says it bluntly: a school ban is only effective when:
- parents back the school’s policy,
- students don’t compensate after school (e.g., heavy night-time use),
- school and home apply similar rules around sleep, screen time, and digital hygiene.
This is parent work, not school work. The school won’t take the phone away at 10pm. The school won’t enforce “we charge phones in the kitchen.” The school won’t say “one weekend day off TikTok.” Those three calls happen in my kitchen, not the staff room.
Four ban models — which actually works
The report identifies four implementation models, in descending order of effectiveness:
| Model | What it does | Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|
| Zero phones at school | Phones stay home or in a depository all day | Highest |
| Locking pouches (e.g., Yondr) | Phone in a pouch you can’t open without an unlock station | Highest, most “technical” |
| Lessons-only ban | Phone available at break, hidden during lessons | Medium |
| ”Phone if needed” | Formal ban, but phone used as a teaching aid | Lowest, often symbolic |
Takeaway: the lessons-only model is “better than nothing” — but it’s the Dutch model (full school day) that gave 75% of schools real results.
Who gains the most
Three groups benefit disproportionately:
- Girls aged 11–16 — appearance pressure and social comparison hit them hardest
- Students with low self-regulation — smartphones amplify their impulsivity; the ban provides structure they can’t impose on themselves
- Children from lower socio-economic households — worst outcomes without a ban, biggest gains after one
The third point is politically interesting: the ban isn’t a “tightening the screws” tool. It’s an equity tool.
Who may struggle with it
The report honestly flags the group for whom abrupt phone removal can be stressful:
- introverted students who use messaging as a safe channel
- neurodivergent students (including those on the autism spectrum) who may use phones for emotional regulation
- students with strong online social ties
For them, the report recommends: ban yes, but with alternatives — peer support programmes, “talk to me” badges, break-time facilitators, safe spaces. This is the part schools rarely design systemically — and should.
What parents can do — regardless of school policy
This is the section I’m writing this article for. Even if your school has no ban, you have four real moves:
1. Home–school consistency, in both directions
If the school has a ban — enforce a home rule: “phone goes in the drawer after school, comes out for a specific window.” Without this, the effect disappears.
If the school has no ban — set your own rule: phone stays in the backpack, comes out only on the way to/from school. Tell your child why: not punishment, just the fact that all the data says it’s better for learning and friendships.
2. Talk to the principal, not the class chat
Don’t post “BAN PHONES NOW!” in the class WhatsApp — it won’t work and will only divide people. Go to the principal with the report in hand, ask what model the school is considering, ask if the parents’ council could discuss it. Specific data > emotional appeals.
3. Home digital rules — evening, sleep, weekend
Three moves with the biggest household effect:
- Phones don’t enter the bedroom — charge in the kitchen or living room
- One screen-free hour before bed — something you can actually measure in your child’s sleep quality after two weeks
- One weekend day off social media — not necessarily off screens, but off TikTok/Instagram/Snapchat
If this sounds “unrealistic,” look at the 29% drop in psychological symptoms in girls — that’s the scale of change you won’t get from any other parental intervention.
4. Common minimums with other parents in the class
The hardest, but the most powerful. If you set “Snapchat from age 13” and 25 other kids in the class have it from 10 — your child becomes the one whose “parents are weird.” If 5 families agree on a shared minimum, the dynamic shifts qualitatively. That’s the point of meetings like the pilot we ran at our school.
Countries that have already done this
For context on who’s ahead:
- France (2018) — full ban up to age 15
- Italy (2007, expansions 2024–25) — all school levels
- Netherlands (2024) — lessons ban, expanded to primaries
- Norway (2024) — strict guidelines, lessons + breaks
- Finland (2025) — law for ages 7–16
- Hungary (2024) — full ban on all smart devices
- Portugal, Luxembourg (2025), Denmark (2026), Sweden (2026)
- Brazil (2025), South Korea (2026), China (2021)
- USA: 20+ states, including New York, Florida, California
- Australia, New Zealand, Canada (Quebec, Ontario)
Poland — silent at the legislative level so far. Which means the playing field is each individual school, principal, and parents’ council.
What I’d want you to take from this report
One sentence: the data is unambiguous, but the effect vanishes if the parent doesn’t pick it up at home.
The whole “school smartphone bans = a school issue” narrative misses the key mechanism — a student who doesn’t use a phone at school but goes home and scrolls until midnight gains nothing except longer, more intense sessions. The school does its part (and should). The parent does the other part (and without it, the school’s part collapses).
That’s exactly the dynamic you won’t see in a newspaper headline, but you’ll see it in the fourth table on page 14 of the report. Worth reading the whole thing.
Download the full report PDF (22 pages, FEZiP, December 2025, Polish) — all cited studies linked to originals.
If you’re organising a parents’ meeting at school on this topic — we have a home meeting template and a printable family digital contract you can use.
Weekly practical takeaways via email — subscribe to the newsletter.