According to this BBC report, schools across England are increasingly banning mobile phones in the classroom, with the usual claims about improving discipline and mental health. Predictably, this is hailed as a triumph of common sense over modern distractions. But, as with so many educational reforms, it’s little more than a power-grab by adults who never seem themselves to have been children.
A Manufactured Crisis
Let’s start with the so-called problem. The claim is that mobile phones are undermining education by encouraging distraction and worsening student mental health. But this is less about the evils of technology than about the failure of schools to earn the attention of their pupils. If a teenager prefers scrolling through Instagram to listening to yet more propaganda dressed up as teaching about the evils of the British Empire, the fault lies not with the phone but with the curriculum.
I’ve had a mobile phone since I was twelve. In that time, it has served as a library, a notepad, a calculator, and a lifeline. It hasn’t made me less curious, and I can’t see how it has made me less intelligent.
The Real Problem
The push to ban mobile phones isn’t about improving education; it’s about control. Schools, increasingly incapable of maintaining order or inspiring their students, reach for bans and restrictions as a substitute for real teaching. Instead of creating environments where learning is natural, they go for the lazy solution: removing anything that might compete for attention.
Schools are happy to waste time and money on enforcing these bans, even as they complain of tight budgets. Resources that could be spent on books or competent teachers are diverted to monitoring confiscated devices. This isn’t an education system; it’s a theatre of bureaucracy.
A Broken System
Of course, the fixation on mobile phones is just one symptom of a deeper sickness. Exams have become meaningless exercises in regurgitation, coursework is routinely outsourced to tutors or AI, and lessons are diluted by endless “discussions” intended to make us happy with the slavery intended for us as adults. Education has been reduced to a poisonous stew of lies and mediocrity.
Banning mobile phones won’t fix any of this. It won’t make exams less formulaic, teachers more inspiring, or students more engaged. What it will do is give schools one more excuse to avoid confronting their real failures.
A Better Way
If schools genuinely cared about education, they would stop micromanaging their pupils and start focusing on the basics: rigorous teaching of real subjects and meaningful assessments. They would give up on trying to create perfectly controlled environments and instead trust students to manage their own distractions.
Ultimately, education should be about cultivating independence and critical thought, not about imposing arbitrary restrictions. A system that treats students like prisoners—confiscating their phones and policing their behaviour—doesn’t teach responsibility; it teaches resentment.
A Distracted System, Not Distracted Students
Mobile phones aren’t the enemy of education. They are a scapegoat for a system that has lost sight of its purpose. Instead of banning them, schools should focus on making themselves worth paying attention to.
If they need a place to start, here’s a modest proposal: spend less time dreaming up bans and more time buying books and pencils.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Two ways of looking at it, depending on what you see as the source of liberty. Is it discipline and structure that make liberty possible, or is liberty defined by some sort of free range autonomy? It’s a debate between positive and negative ideas of freedom.
In the positive sense, freedom requires a prior structure. An indentured slave could be experientially freer than a nominally free man if the freeman is a pauper or destitute while the slave enjoys all the home comforts, including access to a well-stocked library and days off with travel opportunities. In that hypothetical, it is the structure and its discipline that facilitates the slave’s greater actual freedom compared to the ‘free man’.
In the negative sense, freedom means to be left alone and develop under your own steam. There are no slaves, as such, everybody can do as they please, but if I spend my time driving too fast along narrow country roads on my way to working as an upside down clifftop trapeze artist and eating hamburgers from McDonald’s on my lunch breaks, what sort of freedom am I exercising? I am going to die, pretty quickly. Well, we all die eventually. Does it make a difference if it’s now or in 30 years? Cosmically speaking it doesn’t, but in terms of my own life I am in a sense throwing away my freedom when I make irresponsible or dangerous choices.
I think the negative view when applied to education lacks a sense of realism. A child has to be stopped from running into a busy carriageway. This is an exercise of force involving a judgement of what is best for the child’s welfare. It is a denial of autonomy and it could be argued that it is also a denial of the normal course of Nature because the child’s naivety or stupidity in running into the road may imply a lack of genetic fitness. Perhaps the adult should have left the child to get run over and die, thus helping to improving the genetic fitness of the group as a whole? A tragedy and a terribly cruel way of thinking when looked at in isolation, but its purpose is to spare greater cruelties and more suffering later for many more people.
What I think I am getting at (I’m not always sure what I’m getting at) is that your position in sneering at the busybodies in schools amounts to a sort of social eugenics, when you consider it ultimately. I agree with you that they are busybodies; they are bossy and annoying people, and I don’t like them any more than you do (perhaps I dislike them even more). I am also someone who leans more to the deschooling/home education ‘school’ of thought [is that a pun?]. But I also think there is room for structure and discipline in a free society and it is worth considering the extent to which human freedom is contingent on a bit of constructive tyranny and bossiness here and there to guide as many of us as possible towards genetic fitness. It’s a sort of inclusive fitness, if you like, in which some people (admittedly very annoying people who harbour varying motives) impose paternalistic, welfarist diktats on immature, unformed minds because it is vaguely believed to be in their best interests, this belief being based on broad life experiences and, in this case, pedagogical insight.
I must admit, I don’t like the idea of little children being allowed to do what they like all the time. Summerhill embodies a great philosophy for the sons and daughters of the liberal middle-classes, but even A. S. Neill baulked at the idea of applying it to everyday kids. Let them do what they like some of the time, and let them feed their own imaginations with play, colour and fun, but let them also fall under the rigours of a bit of structure, direction and discipline – and a bit of tyranny too – in which they acquire hard knowledge and hard habits, so that they can cope with adult life.
I will bear this in mind, but can’t reply to every response you make.