Researchers say findings are not reason to shy away from restrictions as MPs consider ban in England’s schools

Strict bans on mobile phones in schools have “close to zero” impact on student learning and show no evidence of improvements in attendance or online bullying, a study has found.

Researchers at US universities including Stanford and Duke looked at nearly 1,800 US schools where students’ phones were kept in locked pouches and found little or no differences in outcomes compared with similar schools without strict bans.

The report concluded that among schools instituting a ban: “For academic achievement, average effects on test scores are consistently close to zero.”

The results will come as a disappointment to teaching unions and campaigners in England who backed the government’s recent move to restrict the use of mobile phones in schools. A ban is likely to come into force next year.

  • reallykindasorta@slrpnk.net
    2·
    12 days ago

    Keep in mind the paper is a white paper (not peer reviewed) and it is sponsored by the Bezos Family Foundation and Walton Family. Personally taking it with a grain of salt and waiting for some experts to weigh in who are not economists (like most of the authors are) since I don’t feel like combing through this 100 page document.

    • spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org
      1·
      11 days ago

      it gets even stupider than that:

      We acknowledge funding from Arnold Ventures

      an American company that is the philanthropic vehicle of billionaires John D. Arnold and Laura Arnold

      who is this John Arnold guy anyway…let’s see…and…oh

      since February 2024, is a member of the board of directors of Meta.

      oh, and fun fact, it’s not even a real fucking charity:

      The Laura and John Arnold Foundation was initially created as a philanthropic organization, but was restructured as a limited liability company and renamed Arnold Ventures in January 2019. The organization’s LLC structure is intended to allow it to operate with more flexibility.

      so he’s on the board of directors for Meta, which among other things owns Instagram…and he has a side business that pretends to be a charity even though it’s not, and it funds publication of a “study” saying no, teenagers having cell phones 24/7 is totally fine actually.

      the tobacco industry used to pay people to wear white lab coats and say cigarettes didn’t cause cancer. it’s tempting to think of ourselves as more savvy than they were, and look back in hindsight and say “how could people have fallen for such obvious bullshit?”

      well…

      • its_me_xiphos@beehaw.org
        0·
        11 days ago

        This paper is of the same caliber as all of those cigarettes are safe papers from the 70s. Funded propganada with a PR firm plying it to a willing news source.

        As an aside, is the Guardian becoming a shit rag? Lately (last year or two) I’ve noticed a huge dip in their quality.

        • spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org
          1·
          11 days ago

          As an aside, is the Guardian becoming a shit rag? Lately (last year or two) I’ve noticed a huge dip in their quality.

          what I’ve heard previously is that the Guardian’s UK edition sucks, and that the US edition is somewhat better, but at this point I’m comfortable lumping them together.

          the article that flipped the “assume everything they publish is bullshit” switch for me was Number of AI chatbots ignoring human instructions increasing, study says from a few months ago.

          it’s written with the tone you’d expect from “serious” journalism:

          AI chatbots and agents disregarded direct instructions, evaded safeguards and deceived humans and other AI, according to research funded by the UK government-funded AI Security Institute (AISI). The study, shared with the Guardian, identified nearly 700 real-world cases of AI scheming and charted a five-fold rise in misbehaviour between October and March, with some AI models destroying emails and other files without permission.

          but if you read carefully…it’s tweets. it’s just fucking tweets. they released a “study” that is a graph of “tweets over time” and claimed that it says something about the prevalence of AI “going rogue”.

          and in particular, they take the one story about the Meta executive who allowed an AI “agent” to delete all their emails, notice that there’s a bunch of tweets discussing it, and conflate that with an increased occurrence of it happening.

          it’s the equivalent of saying that there were 10,000 moon landings in 1969 because you looked back at newspaper archives and found 10,000 “man lands on moon” headlines. just complete fucking amateur hour data analysis, and for the Guardian to publish it uncritically is shameful.