As Hungarian schools are preparing to ban mobile phone use in classrooms from September, many debate whether the decision is ultimately beneficial, and if so, why. Enikő Szakos, Educational Researcher at the MCC Learning Research Institute provides a thorough analysis in her latest piece, the English translation of which you can read below.
It is quite surprising how many people defend the use of phones in schools, as if the government’s restrictions are opposing a long-standing social consensus. The disadvantage of a progressive mindset is its constant push for surpassing and innovating, even when something works well as it is. Education and knowledge transfer based on interpersonal interaction have been an effective, society-binding form in public education for centuries, which we have been trying to replace with screens and devices in recent years, ignoring what children truly need.
The banning of phones from classrooms has been a long-standing global debate, which has become a pressing issue in Hungary with the latest legislative proposal. The Ministry of Interior plans to regulate that telecommunications devices capable of capturing images or sound and accessing the internet should be restricted in public educational institutions unless otherwise directed by the teacher.
It is a common practice worldwide to take phones from students at the beginning of the school day, only returning them in urgent or exceptional cases, or upon leaving. Last year, England introduced such a measure after surveys showed that students perform better without their smart devices. In Europe, countries like France and Belgium, and further afield, in successfully educated China, the use of mobile phones in schools is prohibited.
Previously, in Hungary, it was up to each institution’s own rules to decide what was allowed for students, and it was up to the parents whether to give their children devices.
Many still do not see that the measure is primarily for the children, not the teachers. Arguments that suggest disruptions existed before smartphones, such as passing notes, do not grasp the severity of screen addiction and the unlimited and unchecked distractions it brings. Until children learn self-regulation and proper self-discipline, we must help them by setting boundaries. Why not download study-related content on phones and integrate it into education? In short: because notifications can instantly divert children’s attention, and games are likely more tempting than reading even on a small digital screen.
Beyond aiding their focus, we also protect them from online bullying, which was previously impossible. The increasing incidents of public humiliation through images or videos require us to eliminate such possibilities.
While phones and the internet can be used beneficially, during unsupervised use, children—highly likely—do not read supplementary educational materials or books of interest instead of paying attention to a chemistry experiment but scroll through short videos on TikTok, encountering woke influencers and annoying American YouTubers. Consequently, instead of acquiring fundamental scientific knowledge (often dismissed as unnecessary) or listening to thoughtful adults, they consume potentially harmful content on their phones to fill the constant need for stimuli.
Excessive phone usage causes numerous neurological issues, as many studies have shown, but equally important, especially for the pandemic-affected generation: the deterioration of social relationships. Shared time, breaks between classes, trips, after-school activities, or project work are opportunities for developing social skills, forming friendships, practicing conflict resolution—that is, essential life skills. Screen addiction deprives children of these connecting opportunities. If we expect schools to play a role in raising children, it is essential to teach basic human skills and competencies, necessitating regulated screen time during educational hours.
Pointing to exceptions is never a solution, and central regulations cannot be based on such arguments. The legislation provides flexibility, allowing phones in classrooms with the teacher’s permission if deemed essential for tasks and if analogue tools, digital boards, and similar are insufficient for demonstration.
Banning phones is not the ideal step, but it is necessary. Ideally, children would receive their own devices later, learn when and how to use them, how to verify information found online, and spend their free time during their most formative years on activities that build and develop them, contributing positively to their personal growth and making them better people.
Read more on the topic:
