Ban on mobile phones in primary schools from 2027: Why mere repression is not the solution

The intention is legitimate: less distraction, less cyberbullying, a healthier relationship between children and technology. However, the tool is too crude. A blanket ban addresses the symptom and postpones the responsibility that the school, together with the family, should gradually build in the child himself, the ability to regulate his own behavior in the digital environment.

Context

On 21 July 2026, the government approved the bill and sent it to the Chamber of Deputies; The proposal is proposed to take effect on September 1, 2027. The proposal applies to the entire compulsory school year (from kindergarten to the end of the ninth grade) and allows exceptions only for health reasons (e.g. monitoring blood sugar in diabetes) or for educational purposes based on the school's decision. The ban would apply not only during classes, but also during breaks, lunch and after-school care. The opposition and the Public Defender of Children's Rights (Children's Ombudsman) have already spoken out against the proposal, according to which the measure is unnecessary and too broad.

Behind the proposal is a real and growing problem, for which the state has not yet formulated a clear policy. In 2022, 8% of Czech schoolchildren were struggling with problematic use of digital media, while four years earlier it was 5%. More recent data indicate that up to 6% of children show some features of digital media addiction, with the proportion of children with problematic use of social networks growing in particular between the ages of 11 and 15. Thanks to societal expectations, boys are more likely to play online games (almost half of them daily), while girls are more likely to use social media. It is precisely these data and the pressure on the state to respond to the growing crisis in children’s digital media use that is creating a political demand for a quick, visible solution. A blanket ban on phones in schools is exactly such a measure: it is visible, easy to communicate, and does not require systemic investment in prevention, teacher training, or long-term work with families. This is precisely why it is also a typical example of a political gesture that does not address the cause of the problem.

Moreover, the Czech Republic is not alone in this. This is a broader European and global trend. According to UNESCO, by the end of 2024, 79 education systems around the world had some form of ban or restriction on smartphones in schools, up from 60 a year earlier. The Netherlands has introduced a blanket ban on phones, tablets and smartwatches in schools from 2024 (first in second grade, and from autumn also in first grade) based on a national agreement, not a law. France has been testing a so-called digital break in 200 primary schools since September 2024 and in November 2025 announced the extension of the ban to secondary schools from the 2026/2027 school year. Italy has introduced a ban in kindergartens and secondary schools since September 2024, and Denmark approved a legislative framework in February 2025 requiring schools to have their own rules. The Czech proposal thus fits into a broader trend, but it is far from clear that it is a trend supported by clear evidence of effectiveness.

The evidence base is weak and mixed. A large review (Campbell et al., 2024, 22 studies from 12 countries) did not show a consistent effect of mobile phone bans on student achievement, behaviour or well-being. While a UK study found improvements in test scores, Norwegian and Swedish data across a large sample of schools found no difference. The picture for mental health is even more mixed – some studies report improvements, but often only according to the perceptions of teachers and parents, not the children themselves, while others report increased anxiety in children cut off from their phones. Taking a blanket national measure based on conflicting evidence is methodologically problematic.

Blanketness across age groups ignores developmental differences. The needs and risks of a preschooler and a 9th grader are quite different. A small child in kindergarten usually does not need a phone at all, while a fifteen-year-old student is already learning to navigate independently in the digital world, which will be an integral part of his adulthood. A single rule for both groups does not respect the fact that it is a gradually built competence, not a switched off switch that can be applied equally to a three-year-old or a fifteen-year-old child.

The ban does not teach self-control, it only temporarily bypasses it. Children will spend most of the day outside the reach of school rules – at home, on weekends, during holidays, and finally even after compulsory attendance ends, when no such regulation will apply. Without continuous training in healthy habits in a safe environment, the problem will not be solved, it will only move to a time and place where there are significantly fewer adults supervising it.

It increases the burden on schools without adequate support. Enforcing the ban (controlling, securing equipment, resolving conflicts with parents who want to have contact with their child during the day) will burden teachers with additional administration and conflict situations, without the state providing them with methodological support, training, or resources for real prevention. The responsibility is thus shifted to schools, which are not given the appropriate tools to overcome it.

It distracts attention from the real cause of the problems. This is not the presence of a phone in school, but the absence of systematic media and digital education, insufficient cooperation between school and family, and weak prevention of problematic media use from an early age. Banning one device in one place does not address these deeper causes.

Instead of a blanket ban, it is important to implement a systemic approach to digital education that builds on two levels: the role of the adult (parent, teacher) and the development of the child's own competences.

Adults should set clear rules for the child with calmness and genuine interest, not fear and prohibition. Age-appropriate and clearly explained rules of use work better than a blanket ban precisely because they are accompanied by an adult's interest in what the child does online, why they enjoy it, and what they experience there - not just control and restrictions without further discussion. This approach builds on the relationship between the child and the adult, not on the physical unavailability of the device, and therefore works outside the spaces and times that the school schedule allows – at home, on weekends, after school.

Children themselves need to gradually develop three things: digital literacy, the ability to notice their own experiences, and the ability to regulate their own behavior. They need to learn how the digital environment works and how to recognize risks in it; they need to be able to notice when a certain activity or content is harmful to them or when their use is no longer under control; and they need to be given the space to practice how to stop themselves or ask for help at such a moment. These are skills that a child will need throughout their life, not just until the end of the ninth grade, when the legal protection of the ban ends. Moreover, this approach also addresses what the ban itself does not address: risky behavior outside of school, cyberbullying among peers and outside the school building, addictive behavior patterns, and the role of the family as the primary environment where digital habits are truly formed. The content of the educational platform DigiRozhledna, which is run by the Clinic of Addiction Medicine of the 1st Faculty of Medicine of Charles University and the General Hospital in Prague, is also based on this framework and can be recommended to parents and schools as a specific source of materials.

Recommendation

• Replace the blanket ban with a framework recommendation with space for school educational programs to set rules according to the age of the pupils and the specific situation of the school.
• Introduce mandatory media and digital education as part of the curriculum from the first grade, built on a model of developing self-management, not just on bans.
• Invest in methodological support and training of teachers (and school psychologists) in the area of ​​preventing problematic media use, instead of the state transferring only the enforcement of the ban to them.
• Support school-family cooperation, because key habits are formed at home; without parental involvement, any measure at school will remain isolated.
• Target specific measures (e.g. stricter phone restrictions) at the most at-risk groups and situations (e.g. second grade, proven cases of cyberbullying), instead of a uniform rule for three- and fifteen-year-olds.
• If possible, formulate the law as a framework with an obligation for schools to have their own rules and prevention plan, not as a central ban with exceptions.
• Continuously evaluate the impact of the chosen measures based on data from students (not just teachers/parents), and adjust the policy according to the results.

Chomynová, P., Dvořáková, Z., Černíková, T., Orlíková, B., Grohmannová, K., Franková, E., Roubalová, M. & Galandák, D. 2024. Zpráva o digitálních závislostech v České republice 2024 

Kalman, M., Baďura, P., & Šmahel, D. (2023). Sociální sítě a gaming. Zdravá Generace (HBSC Česká republika). https://zdravagenerace.cz/report/socialni-site-a-gaming/ 

Lukavská, K. (2025) Od herní závislosti po mediální rodičovství: Komplexní pohled na digitální chování dětí a adolescentů. Habilitační práce.