I sometimes feel like I am repeating myself. But the effects of the smartphone ban debate in schools continue to make for interesting research. For instance, a new NBER working paper by Henry Saffer attempts to causally investigate, for the first time, the effects of school-wide smartphone bans in the United Statesfor the first time . Jonathan Haidt is likely already reading along. The conclusion will likely be somewhat frustrating for both proponents and opponents of smartphone bans: for the time being, the study finds no clear evidence that school bans on smartphones improve young people’s mental well-being. That does not mean that smartphones cannot be a problem. But it also does not automatically mean that a ban is *the* solution.

The study uses data from the National Survey of Children’s Health between 2016 and 2024. It links it to recent smartphone bans in US states such as Florida, Indiana, and Louisiana. The researcher examines screen time and various indicators of psychological well-being, including interest, concentration, calmness, social relationships, and bullying behaviour.

The key finding? No significant improvement in screen time or mental health was observed after the introduction of the bans. And honestly, that is perhaps less surprising than it seems at first glance.

After all, a school ban obviously does not mean that young people suddenly no longer have a smartphone. Other studies actually suggest that young people simply shift usage to outside school hours . This paper also refers to that. A ban at school can therefore perfectly well lead to less screen time during class without the total screen time over a week actually changing.

That is also an important nuance in the broader debate. Very occasionally, it is suggested that a smartphone ban automatically causes a kind of mental reset. But if problems are related to social media, sleep deprivation, online comparison, cyberbullying, or constant availability, then those processes largely continue outside the school walls.

At the same time, the study also reveals another important point. Research into smartphone policy is methodologically more difficult than some hasty conclusions might suggest. The author himself emphasises several times that this is still “early evidence.” There are simply a few states with sufficient years since the introduction of such a ban to draw strong conclusions. Moreover, the models are statistically too weak to reliably detect small effects. The results are therefore compatible with “no effect,” but also with “a small effect that is currently still difficult to measure.”

At the same time, studies do find positive effects. In Norway, for example, smartphone bans were linked to better results and improved well-being among girls. In Florida, other researchers found better test scores in the second year after the introduction of a ban. But there, too, questions remain regarding mechanisms, context, and possible alternative explanations.

Perhaps that is the safest conclusion for now: smartphone bans are probably not a magic solution, but neither are they a pointless measure. A school (or, in our case, a region) can have good reasons to restrict smartphones during lessons. Less distraction. Fewer interruptions. And less social pressure during the school day. More focus on classroom interaction. These are legitimate pedagogical goals in themselves, even if the impact on mental health remains limited.

However, we must be careful not to turn such a ban into a miracle cure for broader societal problems surrounding youth well-being. The history of education is full of examples of measures that sound logical in themselves but ultimately have less effect than hoped because the underlying problem turns out to be larger and more complex. Or, to put it more simply: a smartphone ban might help create the preconditions for learning and living together at school. But it will likely not solve the mental health crisis of young people on its own.