Leadership Focus journalist Nic Paton explores the growing debate around smartphones, social media and children’s well-being, and how school leaders are balancing online safety, behaviour, learning and the realities of a digital world.
A phone-based childhood
You’re not by any chance reading this on your phone, are you? In truth, it wouldn’t be surprising if you were, given how ubiquitous smartphones are these days. In fact, according to data collated by Uswitch, a staggering 96% of the adult UK population now has a mobile phone, rising to 100% of 16 to 24-year-olds.
MUSTAFAA MALIK,
HEAD OF HARLOW GREEN COMMUNITY PRIMARY SCHOOL, GATESHEAD
More worrying from the perspective of school leaders is the statistic that, in 2024, some 61% of children aged 8-11 also owned a smartphone. The addictive nature of these devices is such that, as Mustafaa Malik, head of Harlow Green Community Primary School in Gateshead, points out, walk down most high streets these days and – probably within seconds – you will see children of all ages, including in pushchairs, with their heads in devices.
“Let’s be clear: it’s not the parents’ fault,” he emphasises. “We are all being inundated with technology. A lifestyle is being developed in which we can only navigate the world via our phones.
“Most of us, for example, couldn’t have travelled to Belfast without our phones; people had their tickets on them and used them to buy food and drink at the airport. Increasingly, our whole lives revolve around them.
“But it is devastating. The worry for a lot of head teachers is how we’re going to function as a society in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, when these children who have grown up with their heads buried in devices become adults who aren’t used to having that human contact in the same way and haven’t developed the emotional skill set required to function successfully,” Mustafaa adds.
A phone-based childhood
You’re not by any chance reading this on your phone, are you? In truth, it wouldn’t be surprising if you were, given how ubiquitous smartphones are these days. In fact, according to data collated by Uswitch, a staggering 96% of the adult UK population now has a mobile phone, rising to 100% of 16 to 24-year-olds.
MUSTAFAA MALIK,
HEAD OF HARLOW GREEN COMMUNITY PRIMARY SCHOOL, GATESHEAD
More worrying from the perspective of school leaders is the statistic that, in 2024, some 61% of children aged 8-11 also owned a smartphone. The addictive nature of these devices is such that, as Mustafaa Malik, head of Harlow Green Community Primary School in Gateshead, points out, walk down most high streets these days and – probably within seconds – you will see children of all ages, including in pushchairs, with their heads in devices.
“Let’s be clear: it’s not the parents’ fault,” he emphasises. “We are all being inundated with technology. A lifestyle is being developed in which we can only navigate the world via our phones.
“Most of us, for example, couldn’t have travelled to Belfast without our phones; people had their tickets on them and used them to buy food and drink at the airport. Increasingly, our whole lives revolve around them.
“But it is devastating. The worry for a lot of head teachers is how we’re going to function as a society in 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, when these children who have grown up with their heads buried in devices become adults who aren’t used to having that human contact in the same way and haven’t developed the emotional skill set required to function successfully,” Mustafaa adds.
A growing concern for school leaders
Mustafaa’s reference to Belfast is, of course, about May’s NAHT Annual Conference, held in the Northern Irish capital, where he put forward a motion highlighting school leaders’ growing concern about the impact of early and frequent exposure to digital technology on children’s attention and cognitive development (see the panel at the end for its full wording).
The motion, which was passed by conference, called on the government to commission and publish independent research on this issue, to implement national guidance and to run public health-style awareness programmes on online safety.
“A number of members came up to the mic after the motion to speak about it positively. National Executive also said it was supportive of the motion, so it seemed like it resonated,” says Mustafaa.
“It is the unregulated constant use, with inappropriate activity, not the device itself. In increasingly extreme cases, children are becoming so angry that they smash up their homes because they don’t have enough access to devices. When devices are removed as a consequence, some children respond by behaving as though they are in their ‘terrible twos’, despite being much older, bigger and stronger. Unfortunately, when behaving this way, they learn that the more aggressive they are, the more they’ll get their way. It becomes a vicious cycle.
“In schools, we see the children who arrive each day displaying signs of dysregulation and finding it difficult to focus within lessons where you have to concentrate on an adult explaining concepts within a class context,” he adds.
Government
action and the policy tightrope
To an extent, Mustafaa’s motion in May was already pushing at something of an open door. Last month (June), the government announced it intends to push forward with a full-scale ban on social media for under-16s from next year, in what it termed an ‘Australia plus’ ban in reference to the similar move taken there in the spring.
The UK government’s decision followed a consultation by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), to which NAHT contributed (see panel at the end). The ban, which will be legislated for during the autumn, will curb access to platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. It will not, however, cover messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal.
The latest move followed confirmation in April that the government will also introduce a legal ban on smartphones in schools in England and ministers are expected this autumn to issue guidance for parents on healthy screen use for children.
For schools and school leaders, however, there is a difficult tightrope to walk here. This includes how, when and even whether children should be allowed to access smartphones, and how best to work with parents. More widely, there is a balancing act that schools and teachers have in protecting children from digital harm versus teaching them how to navigate our increasingly digital world in a safe and responsible way.
Government
action and the policy tightrope
To an extent, Mustafaa’s motion in May was already pushing at something of an open door. Last month (June), the government announced it intends to push forward with a full-scale ban on social media for under-16s from next year, in what it termed an ‘Australia plus’ ban in reference to the similar move taken there in the spring.
The UK government’s decision followed a consultation by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), to which NAHT contributed (see panel at the end). The ban, which will be legislated for during the autumn, will curb access to platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X. It will not, however, cover messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal.
The latest move followed confirmation in April that the government will also introduce a legal ban on smartphones in schools in England and ministers are expected this autumn to issue guidance for parents on healthy screen use for children.
For schools and school leaders, however, there is a difficult tightrope to walk here. This includes how, when and even whether children should be allowed to access smartphones, and how best to work with parents. More widely, there is a balancing act that schools and teachers have in protecting children from digital harm versus teaching them how to navigate our increasingly digital world in a safe and responsible way.
The limits
of a ban
JAMES BOWEN,
NAHT ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY
As NAHT assistant general secretary James Bowen highlights: “We know technology has huge potential to support learning, but it’s clear that our members are becoming increasingly worried about the unrestricted access many children have to the online world at home. The social psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt, for example, talks about how the current ‘phone-based childhood’ has severely restricted children’s real-world freedom, replacing it with a harmful, addictive online existence – I think that will resonate with many.
“It feels like we’re at an inflection point as a society where we have to decide how we respond to this ever-growing challenge. While it is long overdue, it is good that we are now seeing a national debate about children’s access to the online world, particularly social media. I think we can all agree that social media, in its current form, is incredibly harmful – not just to young people, but to adults as well,” he adds.
School leaders and politicians alike will undoubtedly be closely watching what lessons come from the Australian experience and how these can be applied to the UK, he highlights. However, the fact that the UK’s proposals exclude platforms such as WhatsApp already raises questions as to how effective any ban will be, James cautions.
“We need to recognise that a social media ban alone is not a silver bullet when it comes to helping children navigate the online world. Many school leaders will tell you that messaging services, such as WhatsApp, cause them enormous problems too, and members also raise concerns with us about the impact of online gaming,” he explains.
“The other thing is that we need to be preparing young people for when they access it, whether that’s at 15, 16, 17 or 18. Because whether we like it or not, even if some form of ban is introduced, at some point in their lives the vast majority will still access it. Therefore, there is still a responsibility – a duty for us as a society – to ask, ‘How do we best prepare children?’” James adds.
The limits
of a ban
JAMES BOWEN,
NAHT ASSISTANT GENERAL SECRETARY
As NAHT assistant general secretary James Bowen highlights: “We know technology has huge potential to support learning, but it’s clear that our members are becoming increasingly worried about the unrestricted access many children have to the online world at home. The social psychologist and author Jonathan Haidt, for example, talks about how the current ‘phone-based childhood’ has severely restricted children’s real-world freedom, replacing it with a harmful, addictive online existence – I think that will resonate with many.
“It feels like we’re at an inflection point as a society where we have to decide how we respond to this ever-growing challenge. While it is long overdue, it is good that we are now seeing a national debate about children’s access to the online world, particularly social media. I think we can all agree that social media, in its current form, is incredibly harmful – not just to young people, but to adults as well,” he adds.
School leaders and politicians alike will undoubtedly be closely watching what lessons come from the Australian experience and how these can be applied to the UK, he highlights. However, the fact that the UK’s proposals exclude platforms such as WhatsApp already raises questions as to how effective any ban will be, James cautions.
“We need to recognise that a social media ban alone is not a silver bullet when it comes to helping children navigate the online world. Many school leaders will tell you that messaging services, such as WhatsApp, cause them enormous problems too, and members also raise concerns with us about the impact of online gaming,” he explains.
“The other thing is that we need to be preparing young people for when they access it, whether that’s at 15, 16, 17 or 18. Because whether we like it or not, even if some form of ban is introduced, at some point in their lives the vast majority will still access it. Therefore, there is still a responsibility – a duty for us as a society – to ask, ‘How do we best prepare children?’” James adds.
The WhatsApp problem
DR BEN KNIGHT,
SENIOR LECTURER IN EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND
The potentially corrosive role of messaging platforms such as WhatsApp in this debate is important, especially the impact they have on children’s health and well-being and the fact that they often fall outside some definitions of ‘social media’, agrees Dr Ben Knight, senior lecturer in education at the University of the West of England (UWE).
With his colleague, associate professor Dr Paul Redford, he has been carrying out research into the smartphone experiences of children and young people. Their findings are due to be presented in detail to members in October – again, see the end of this article for more details.
“A number of data points in our study indicate that children are staying up half the night on their phones and that chat groups seem to be the main culprit. Indeed, the biggest ‘bogeyman’, according to young people, their parents and teachers, is group chat – WhatsApp groups that mean young people’s phones are pinging half the night,” Ben explains.
“If you have a whole year group on a shared WhatsApp that’s, maybe, 100 kids. It only takes one of them to send a message at 2am and everyone gets a notification. The other thing that makes this an extraordinarily complex policy area is that it straddles home and school. Understandably, many school leaders do not know the extent of their jurisdiction when dealing with these issues.
“Our data showed quite clearly that the vast majority of teachers reported young people being tired during the school day because of smartphone use, with more than 70% reporting they had observed this. It also showed that problems starting outside school, mostly on chat groups, spill into school and then become the school’s problem. So, they’re dealing with a lot of peer-group fallout, arguments and disagreements, some of which can be quite volatile, that begin on chat groups outside school and then carry on into it,” Ben adds.
The WhatsApp problem
DR BEN KNIGHT,
SENIOR LECTURER IN EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND
The potentially corrosive role of messaging platforms such as WhatsApp in this debate is important, especially the impact they have on children’s health and well-being and the fact that they often fall outside some definitions of ‘social media’, agrees Dr Ben Knight, senior lecturer in education at the University of the West of England (UWE).
With his colleague, associate professor Dr Paul Redford, he has been carrying out research into the smartphone experiences of children and young people. Their findings are due to be presented in detail to members in October – again, see the end of this article for more details.
“A number of data points in our study indicate that children are staying up half the night on their phones and that chat groups seem to be the main culprit. Indeed, the biggest ‘bogeyman’, according to young people, their parents and teachers, is group chat – WhatsApp groups that mean young people’s phones are pinging half the night,” Ben explains.
“If you have a whole year group on a shared WhatsApp that’s, maybe, 100 kids. It only takes one of them to send a message at 2am and everyone gets a notification. The other thing that makes this an extraordinarily complex policy area is that it straddles home and school. Understandably, many school leaders do not know the extent of their jurisdiction when dealing with these issues.
“Our data showed quite clearly that the vast majority of teachers reported young people being tired during the school day because of smartphone use, with more than 70% reporting they had observed this. It also showed that problems starting outside school, mostly on chat groups, spill into school and then become the school’s problem. So, they’re dealing with a lot of peer-group fallout, arguments and disagreements, some of which can be quite volatile, that begin on chat groups outside school and then carry on into it,” Ben adds.
When online problems spill
into school
GRAHAM FROST,
HEAD TEACHER, ROBERT FERGUSON PRIMARY SCHOOL, CARLISLE
Graham Frost, head teacher of Robert Ferguson Primary School in Carlisle, neatly illustrates this problem. “Just this Friday gone, I spent a big chunk of my time unpicking the consequences of children being in an unsupervised group chat, in which two of them had had a disagreement,” he says, despite the school having implemented a complete ban on mobile phones last September.
“The majority of the other children in the chat had weighed in behind one of them against the other. It was a classic example of cyberbullying, leaving one of the children absolutely crushed and unwilling to come to school. Of course, that meant I then had to speak not only to the children but also to their parents on the phone. So, the workload involved in unpicking issues that are happening outside of school is quite significant,” he adds.
Calls for tech industry accountability
Graham also put forward a motion to conference in Belfast, which in his case called on not just the government but also the technology and gaming industries, to take more of a lead on regulation. “We’re getting off the starting blocks, with Australia having led the way by showing that you can legislate to insist on age-appropriateness. But we’re still nowhere near off the starting blocks when it comes to the video games industry,” he tells Leadership Focus.
“I think there is a good awareness [about the dangers of smartphones]. What’s lacking is the heft of legislation that holds industry to account and says, ‘You need to put time limits on how long a game can be played’ or something like that. So that it enforces that.
“There should be ways of limiting this kind of activity for children, and that has to be enforced by legislation as well as by industry. We shouldn’t just be talking about awareness; we should be saying that we need to legislate to stop this. Otherwise, we’re going to have a generation of children who will only do things if they get that rapid dopamine hit.
“One parent said to me, ‘This is the world. We have to get the children used to it’. I think there’s a place for that, and we already do that. We’re always doing that. But what we also need to do is say, ‘This is toxic’. In the same way as we talk about ultra-processed foods or obesity, we need to be able to raise the alarm. But we should also be expecting the government and industry to take that seriously,” Graham adds.
Creating a new school norm
UWE’s Dr Ben Knight points to positive, if anecdotal, evidence from schools in Bristol that have moved to lockable pouches for their pupils’ phones. “There was some throwing of toys out of the pram for a while, some defiance and some attempts at getting around it – all those kinds of things. But within weeks, not months, most young people were reporting that they were perfectly comfortable with their phone being locked away, and observational evidence suggests there was greater interaction between the children,” he explains.
“According to reports from one school’s internal monitoring, they were finding more interactive ways of occupying themselves at break and lunch times and appeared happier – although that’s a difficult one to measure. Attendance was up, lateness was down and detention figures had improved.
“So I think it is about preparing yourself for a period of resistance, possibly from multiple stakeholder groups, and thinking about how to navigate that. But it is also about keeping your eyes on the long game; this is essentially about creating a new norm.
“There will be new year sevens coming in this September and, depending on when this unfolds, cohorts who won’t have known anything different. Then the following year, there will be year eights and year nines, and within five or six years, the whole school will be populated by young people who won’t have known what it was like when you could sneak off to the toilet and send a text,” Ben adds.
The wider
cognitive
impact
JIM NICHOLSON,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE, HONEYCOMB EDUCATION TRUST, STOCKPORT
“There are two aspects, I think,” agrees Jim Nicholson, chief executive of the Honeycomb Education Trust in Stockport. “There’s the policing of smartphones inside school premises. But, actually, what I feel we’re not addressing is the major elephant in the room and, frankly, the root of the problem: young minds having access to one of the most powerful devices that have been held by humans.
“What we’re seeing is the cognitive impact: the erosion of cognitive ability in young people driven by smartphones being so powerful and restricting the wider range of stimuli that a child would normally look to and be involved in.
“For example, it seems to be impacting children’s ability to play. At after-school events where children are free to roam outdoors, we’ve noticed that when a child brings out a smartphone, the nature of play changes.
“No longer are the children playing, running, jumping and physically interacting. They become consumed by that one device and sit around it, being shown a whole range of nonsense. So, I think the issue here is, should we be challenging the status quo? Yes, there are questions around how you police that – well, you legislate,” Jim continues.
“For secure, resilient young people, the level of control they are experiencing now is actually, I think, diminishing that ability to be resilient, to think for themselves and get themselves out of challenging situations. They could still have a phone, a very simple phone for connection, but it doesn’t need to be a smart device.
“So, my message to the government would be: let’s just actually challenge the real issue here. Do we want to see a change in the social behaviours of young people? Do we want to see a reduction in the resilience crisis we have? Do we want to see a reduction in the mental health crisis we have? One of the major influential factors that we could actually address here would be by having smartphone devices banned for certain age groups through legislation, which would then support parents around, say, a 14-year-old or even a 12-year-old, to be able to say, ‘No, you’re not having a mobile phone; you’re not having a smartphone’,” he adds.
Benefit, risk and responsibility
SARAH HANNAFIN,
NAHT HEAD OF POLICY (PRACTICE AND REASEARCH)
“This is finding a balance of benefit and risk when it comes to children and young people and the online world. We’ve got to a point now, I think, where everyone knows that we need to take action to mitigate risks and protect children and young people,” emphasises NAHT head of policy (practice and research) Sarah Hannafin.
“At the same time, we do know there are benefits; we know the world is digital. So, how do we protect children and young people while also preparing them for this world and allowing them to enjoy it safely?
“Our view – as we spell out in our consultation response – is that no one thing is a panacea for this. There needs to be a package of different things, of which delaying access to social media might be one. But it can’t be done on its own. We also want tech companies to take responsibility, as well as parents,” she adds.
The cost
of making
bans work
MORGAN FLACK,
NAHT POLICY OFFICER
The speed at which the government moved following the consultation (which only closed at the end of May) illustrates just how much this issue is resonating with the public as well as school leaders, highlights NAHT policy officer Morgan Flack, with the DSIT consultation garnering significant public interest and response.
Points highlighted by NAHT in its response include the fact that, for many schools, banning mobile phones through, say, the introduction of lockable pouches is not cheap.
“The move to a statutory ban from the government is definitely something we have welcomed,” says Morgan. “But we have also called for targeted funding for schools to be able to implement the ban in a way that is suitable for them. For a large secondary school, putting in place locked pouches, for example, could cost between £20,000 and £40,000, and that’s a decent chunk of money.
“We have also called for additional guidance, or perhaps communications from the government, to help support that. Most schools, yes, already have this sort of ban in place. But for those that don’t – and given that each year brings a new intake, meaning the message needs to be reinforced continually – we’ve asked for a bit of extra support with communications so that schools can confidently convey this to parents,” Morgan adds.
Listen to school leaders
As well as legislating to curb access, a key part of how the government responds going forward needs to be, very simply, listening more to school leaders, emphasises James Bowen, in conclusion. “I think listening more is really important. I think what’s crucial here is that policymakers and politicians really listen to what school leaders are saying about how this will and won’t work, and not just jumping on a bandwagon of an easy headline,” he tells Leadership Focus.
“Now is absolutely the time to talk to school leaders who are with young people day in, day out and who understand how and why they’re using it, and to think this through carefully. This means moving quite quickly beyond the headline position and really getting into the details of how this would work in practice,” he says.
NAHT’s consultation response
NAHT’s submission to Growing up in the online world: a national consultation has emphasised that a balance needs to be struck between recognising the potential risks and negative impacts associated with children and young people being online and using social media, while considering the potential benefits this technology can bring.
At 9,500 words and nearly 30 pages, only a snapshot can be presented here; the full document is available to view on NAHT’s website.
The submission highlights the positive impacts on children and young people associated with being online and using social media. This includes the sociability of online gaming, developing personal interests and improved accessibility, for example, for children and young people with neurodiversity, especially with social communication challenges, who can find interactions through screens liberating.
It also highlights the impact of technology on children in developing their plans for the future, a critical and essential part of their development and progression into wider society, with as many as three-quarters (75%) now using the online world to support this.
On the flip side, however, social media and online interaction can open children to “vast and varied” dangers, including exposure to inaccurate (including misinformation), harmful and discriminatory content; bullying; AI-generated content (including deepfakes); scams and blackmail (including financially motivated sextortion). It can lead to addictive behaviour, expose children to dangerous or upsetting content and cause “stark” damage to children and young people’s self-esteem and overall sense of well-being.
Furthermore, the document raises concerns that an over-reliance on online platforms, including EdTech and AI tools, may diminish pupils’ critical thinking abilities and academic curiosity by reducing the need to interrogate a range of sources.
“Due to the risks outlined earlier in this response, NAHT fully supports the need for additional safety measures and restrictions to be put in place to ensure that children and young people are protected from the risks associated with social media usage,” the document states.
NAHT also supports social media platforms having a minimum age of access, based on at least the digital age of consent, with effective and robust age-verification measures. “The exact age that this should be is a decision for the government to make, informed by the evidence provided by responses to this consultation,” the document says.
However, any decision around implementing age-appropriate access to social media platforms needs to balance the positives and negatives of usage, as well as recognise that many of the risks associated with it are also present on other platforms. “NAHT is concerned that the discourse around the issue has become reductive and overly simplified around a binary choice of banning social media to those younger than 16,” it states.
“NAHT is clear that, on the basis of the evidence that children and young people are still using social media in Australia despite a ban, there must be a resolute focus on ensuring that social media companies are not absolved from taking responsibility to make their platforms safer, and that there is increased governmental monitoring and regulation to ensure compliance,” it adds.
Ultimately, as NAHT in its response makes clear, “a ban alone would not be the panacea for all of the risks that are currently present and must be considered alongside a wider package of measures”.
Finally, while schools can – and do – do a great deal, they are not able to address all the harms associated with digital technology, including social media, messaging services, gaming and AI. “Any solution must primarily include the government, parents and carers, and technology companies themselves,” it adds.
NAHT’s consultation response
NAHT’s submission to Growing up in the online world: a national consultation has emphasised that a balance needs to be struck between recognising the potential risks and negative impacts associated with children and young people being online and using social media, while considering the potential benefits this technology can bring.
At 9,500 words and nearly 30 pages, only a snapshot can be presented here; the full document is available to view on NAHT’s website.
The submission highlights the positive impacts on children and young people associated with being online and using social media. This includes the sociability of online gaming, developing personal interests and improved accessibility, for example, for children and young people with neurodiversity, especially with social communication challenges, who can find interactions through screens liberating.
It also highlights the impact of technology on children in developing their plans for the future, a critical and essential part of their development and progression into wider society, with as many as three-quarters (75%) now using the online world to support this.
On the flip side, however, social media and online interaction can open children to “vast and varied” dangers, including exposure to inaccurate (including misinformation), harmful and discriminatory content; bullying; AI-generated content (including deepfakes); scams and blackmail (including financially motivated sextortion). It can lead to addictive behaviour, expose children to dangerous or upsetting content and cause “stark” damage to children and young people’s self-esteem and overall sense of well-being.
Furthermore, the document raises concerns that an over-reliance on online platforms, including EdTech and AI tools, may diminish pupils’ critical thinking abilities and academic curiosity by reducing the need to interrogate a range of sources.
“Due to the risks outlined earlier in this response, NAHT fully supports the need for additional safety measures and restrictions to be put in place to ensure that children and young people are protected from the risks associated with social media usage,” the document states.
NAHT also supports social media platforms having a minimum age of access, based on at least the digital age of consent, with effective and robust age-verification measures. “The exact age that this should be is a decision for the government to make, informed by the evidence provided by responses to this consultation,” the document says.
However, any decision around implementing age-appropriate access to social media platforms needs to balance the positives and negatives of usage, as well as recognise that many of the risks associated with it are also present on other platforms. “NAHT is concerned that the discourse around the issue has become reductive and overly simplified around a binary choice of banning social media to those younger than 16,” it states.
“NAHT is clear that, on the basis of the evidence that children and young people are still using social media in Australia despite a ban, there must be a resolute focus on ensuring that social media companies are not absolved from taking responsibility to make their platforms safer, and that there is increased governmental monitoring and regulation to ensure compliance,” it adds.
Ultimately, as NAHT in its response makes clear, “a ban alone would not be the panacea for all of the risks that are currently present and must be considered alongside a wider package of measures”.
Finally, while schools can – and do – do a great deal, they are not able to address all the harms associated with digital technology, including social media, messaging services, gaming and AI. “Any solution must primarily include the government, parents and carers, and technology companies themselves,” it adds.
Mustafaa Malik’s motion to conference
Conference notes growing concerns about the impact of early and frequent exposure to digital technology on children’s attention and cognitive development. While technology can enhance learning, evidence suggests that unregulated use, starting in the early years, may contribute to reduced concentration and increased behavioural challenges.
While schools play a vital role in promoting online safety and digital literacy, the majority of smartphone and other screen use occurs outside of school hours, where parental support is essential. Conference believes that schools cannot address these issues alone and that national action is needed to support parents in setting boundaries and to mitigate the negative effects of excessive screen time, including smartphone use and gaming.
Conference calls on the National Executive to:
- Press the government to commission and publish independent research into the long-term impact of early technology use on children’s attention, learning and well-being, and the links between digital addiction, attendance and behaviour
- Advocate for the provision of evidence-based practical strategies, resources and training for schools on addressing these challenges
- Campaign for national guidance and a public health-style awareness programme on online safety that supports families to establish healthy screen boundaries and includes age-appropriate recommendations and practical strategies
- Advocate for this guidance to be widely promoted through schools, health services and community organisations, ensuring accessibility for all families.
The Bristol smartphone experience and school policy project
The Bristol smartphone experience and school policy project has been led by academics from UWE in Bristol. It has drawn on the views of more than 3,700 students, 1,500 parents and 350 staff across six secondary schools.
The findings triangulate experiences and perspectives of these three stakeholder groups and are remarkably consistent. First, exposure to negative experiences via smartphones is widespread, and parents are not as aware of this as they might think.
These range from low-level distractions to more serious issues (such as harmful content and peer conflict), often spilling over into the school day, according to school staff.
Second, however, smartphones are also seen by parents and young people as essential tools for safety and coordination. A majority of students reported feeling safer with their phones, and many parents said they relied on them to stay in contact during the school day.
For head teachers, this creates a genuine leadership dilemma. Simplistic ‘ban or allow’ approaches may fail to capture the complexity of the issue. While ‘not seen or heard’ policies remain the most popular in principle, staff consistently report that enforcement is challenging and that the prevalence of ‘workarounds’ reported by young people is eye-opening, the academic team concluded.
Moreover, students, parents and staff often favour different approaches, reflecting their distinct priorities and concerns. Importantly, the data suggested that those pupils who are already struggling academically may also be more exposed to negative smartphone experiences, but less supportive of tighter restrictions.
This, in turn, raises important questions about equity and the role of schools in protecting those most at risk. What these young people may need and what they may want are not necessarily the same.
Dr Ben Knight and Dr Paul Redford, who conducted the study, will be discussing their wider findings with NAHT’s National Executive and on our podcast in autumn 2026.
Built with Shorthand