Critical Review of the Evidence For and Against the Phone Ban in French Schools

It has been just over one year since the French government passed what some call a "detox" law (Chrisafis 2018) prohibiting students in primary and middle schools from using their mobile phones on school grounds. This paper will briefly outline the arguments for and against banning mobile phones and will then critically review some of the research which these bans appear to be based upon. To conclude, some alternate forms of action will be discussed. 

The safety of students as well as their academic performance are arguably the two most supported reasons for banning cell phones. In 2007 a survey showed “youth who experienced traditional bullying or cyberbullying, as either an offender or a victim, had more suicidal thoughts and were more likely to attempt suicide than those who had not experienced such forms of peer aggression” (Hinduja 2010). The safety of students on- and offline is a priority in today’s technology-reliant society and many studies show the emotional toll mediums like social media have on the mental health of subscribers (Twenge, 2017). Other studies have been done to examine the academic realities of technology and cellphones on students. The Journal of Communication Education, stated that more specifically students without cellphone access “wrote down 62 percent more information in their notes, were able to recall more detailed information from class and scored a full letter grade-and-a-half higher on a multiple choice test than those who were actively using their mobile phones” (Kuzenkoff and Titsworth, 2013). Even the temptation of looking at cellphones caused a significant difference in performance according to a study by the University of Chicago (Hess, 2019). Contrastingly, according to one review of literature, cellphones are becoming known as the “swiss army knife” of technology due to the number of tools and apps they hold (Thomas, O’Bannon, and Bolton, 2013). In fact schools were finding their no-tolerance cellphone policies difficult to enforce so many teachers and principals found themselves looking to find educational uses for the technology (Higgins, 2013).

In 2015 the state of New York repealed a ten-year ban on cell phones in high schools prompting a study by Beland and Murphy (2016) looking for correlations between student academic performance and cell phone availability; interestingly they found that students at schools with a ban achieved higher test scores and “that low-achieving students are more likely to be distracted by the presence of mobile phones, while high achievers can focus in the classroom regardless of the mobile phone policy” (Beland and Murphy, 2016). Looking more closely at Beland and Murphy’s study into students’ test scores before and after cellphone policies were implemented in schools can perhaps give an impression of France’s motivation behind their recent ban on cellphones in schools. Looking at four high schools in London, Birmingham, Leicester, and Manchester, Beland and Murphy were not only able to view students’ test scores over time via the National Pupil Database (NPD), but were also privy to student characteristics such as gender, race, eligibility for free meals, and any special education needs. The researchers state, “Although we do not know which individuals owned mobile phones, it is reported that over 90% of teenagers owned a mobile phone during this period in England; therefore, any ban is likely to affect the vast majority of students” (Beland and Murphy, 2016). The study found that students’ scores improved in general 6.41% of a standard deviation, which the most impacted group of students being those coming from disadvantaged and low-achieving quintile. Interestingly, students in the highest quintile were found to be unaffected by the ban. Beland and Murphy then make the claim that “The results suggest that low-achieving students have lower levels of self-control and are more likely to be distracted by the presence of mobile phones, while high achievers can focus in the classroom regardless of the mobile phone policy” (2016), and suggest that schools could effectively close the wide achievement gap by banning cellphones in school. This alone could have appealed to the French government and enticed policymakers to enact the current ban.

The study by Beland and Murphy followed students in secondary school (age 11-16) and tracked their General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) scores across that time, these are high stakes assessments rather than everyday formative work samples, which could be a limitation of this study. Perhaps other factors such as hunger, extra-curricular activities, after-school jobs, test anxiety, or sleep deprivation, could have contributed to students’ test scores. As previously mentioned before the greatest benefactors of cellphone bans were those from disadvantaged and low-achieving backgrounds; is it really plausible that the only or highest impacting factor on the test scores of these students was their test scores? The researchers admitted to not having a way of knowing whether students did or did not own cellphones, couldn’t it be assumed that disadvantaged students would be among those who did not own a mobile phone? Beland and Murphy’s study followed students’ scores from 2001-2011. While the history of the smartphone can be tracked to the 1970s, the first iPhone was debuted by Steve Jobs in 2007 (Jackson, 2018). It could be argued that the findings from this study are starting to look outdated as the majority of the time-frame included in the data was pre- easy access internet, with only four years of the study taking place after the iPhone and Android phones were introduced to the public. The early prices of these devices would have also made it more unlikely that disadvantaged students could afford to own such a device. Research could potentially be done now and show how the access to the internet is just as effective in helping students learn as a ban was almost a decade ago when cellphones were still primarily used for calls, texts, and simple games. The study could also be criticized for its small sample of just four schools in England; is the data found an indicator of the more general public? Many would argue that more studies in other areas should be done before basing laws and policies on such evidence.

It is unclear whether the study by Beland and Murphy Ill Communication: Technology, Distraction & Student Performance was influential in the decision in France to ban cellphones from primary and secondary school students. However, their findings could be compelling if policymakers were looking for backing on distracted students and ways to close achievement gaps. Although there are some criticisms on Beland and Murphy’s study that would perhaps encourage follow-up studies to be done before policies were implemented, perhaps even comparison studies between schools who implemented bans and those who have policies outlining the use of mobile phones for specific tasks in schools. This type of research might be more beneficial to lawmakers around the globe in deciding how cellphones should be treated in various levels of schooling.

Word count: 1,136

References

Beland, L.P. and Murphy, R. (2016). Ill communication: technology, distraction & student performance. Labour Economics, 41, pp.61-76.

Chrisafis, A. (2018.) French school students to be banned from using mobile phones. The guardian [online]. 7 June. [Viewed 4 November 2019]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/07/french-school-students-to-be-banned-from-using-mobile-phones

Higgins, J. (2013). More schools use cellphones as learning tools. USA Today. 7 August.

Hinduja, S. and Patchin, J. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of suicide research, 14(3), pp.206-221.

Jackson, K. (2018). A brief history of the smartphone. Science node [online]. July 2018. [Viewed 27 November 2019]. Available from: https://sciencenode.org/feature/How%20did%20smartphones%20evolve.php

Kuznekoff, J.H. and Titsworth, S. (2013). The impact of mobile phone usage on student learning. Communication Education, 62(3), pp.233-252.

Twenge, J.M. (2017). Have smartphones destroyed a generation? The Atlantic [online]. September 2017 Issue. [Viewed 19 November 2019]. Available from: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/has-the-smartphone-destroyed-a-generation/534198/