Education
Phones, devices, and the limits of control: Rethinking school device policies
Key points:
By now, it’s no secret that phones are a problem in classrooms. A growing body of research and an even louder chorus of educators point to the same conclusion: students are distracted, they’re disengaged, and their learning is suffering. What’s less clear is how to solve this issue.
Of late, school districts across the country are drawing firmer lines. From Portland, Maine to Conroe, Texas and Springdale, Arkansas, administrators are implementing “bell-to-bell” phone bans, prohibiting access from the first bell to the last. Many are turning to physical tools like pouches and smart lockers, which lock away devices for the duration of the day, to enforce these rules. The logic is straightforward: take the phones away, and you eliminate the distraction.
In many ways, it works. Schools report fewer behavioral issues, more focused classrooms, and an overall sense of calm returning to hallways once buzzing with digital noise. But as these policies scale, the limitations are becoming more apparent.
But students, as always, find ways around the rules. They’ll bring second phones to school or slip their device in undetected–and more. Teachers, already stretched thin, are now tasked with enforcement, turning minor infractions into disciplinary incidents.
Some parents and students are also pushing back, arguing that all-day bans are too rigid, especially when phones serve as lifelines for communication, medical needs, or even digital learning. In Middletown, Connecticut, students reportedly became emotional just days after a new ban took effect, citing the abrupt change in routine and lack of trust.
The bigger question is this: Are we trying to eliminate phones, or are we trying to teach responsible use?
That distinction matters. While it’s clear that phone misuse is widespread and the intent behind bans is to restore focus and reduce anxiety, blanket prohibitions risk sending the wrong message. Instead of fostering digital maturity, they can suggest that young people are incapable of self-regulation. And in doing so, they may sidestep an important opportunity: using school as a place to practice responsible tech habits, not just prohibit them.
This is especially critical given the scope of the problem. A recent study by Fluid Focus found that students spend five to six hours a day on their phones during school hours. Two-thirds said it had a negative impact on their academic performance. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 77 percent of school leaders believe phones hurt learning. The data is hard to ignore.
But managing distraction isn’t just about removal. It’s also about design. Schools that treat device policy as an infrastructure issue, rather than a disciplinary one, are beginning to implement more structured approaches.
Some are turning to smart locker systems that provide centralized, secure phone storage while offering greater flexibility: configurable access windows, charging capabilities, and even low admin options to help keep teachers teaching. These systems don’t “solve” the phone problem, but they do help schools move beyond the extremes of all-or-nothing.
And let’s not forget equity. Not all students come to school with the same tech, support systems, or charging access. A punitive model that assumes all students have smartphones (or can afford to lose access to them) risks deepening existing divides. Structured storage systems can help level the playing field, offering secure and consistent access to tech tools without relying on personal privilege or penalizing students for systemic gaps.
That said, infrastructure alone isn’t the answer. Any solution needs to be accompanied by clear communication, transparent expectations, and intentional alignment with school culture. Schools must engage students, parents, and teachers in conversations about what responsible phone use actually looks like and must be willing to revise policies based on feedback. Too often, well-meaning bans are rolled out with minimal explanation, creating confusion and resistance that undermine their effectiveness.
Nor should we idealize “focus” as the only metric of success. Mental health, autonomy, connection, and trust all play a role in creating school environments where students thrive. If students feel overly surveilled or infantilized, they’re unlikely to engage meaningfully with the values behind the policy. The goal should not be control for its own sake, it should be cultivating habits that carry into life beyond the classroom.
The ubiquity of smartphones is undeniable. While phones are here to stay, the classroom represents one of the few environments where young people can learn how to use them wisely, or not at all. That makes schools not just sites of instruction, but laboratories for digital maturity.
The danger isn’t that we’ll do too little. It’s that we’ll settle for solutions that are too simplistic or too focused on optics, instead of focusing not on outcomes.
We need more than bans. We need balance. That means moving past reactionary policies and toward systems that respect both the realities of modern life and the capacity of young people to grow. It means crafting strategies that support teachers without overburdening them, that protect focus without sacrificing fairness, and that reflect not just what we’re trying to prevent, but what we hope to build.
The real goal shouldn’t be to simply get phones out of kids’ hands. It should be to help them learn when to put them down on their own.
- Thousands of international students sent messages warning them that they will be “removed” from the country if they have no legal right to remain once their visa has expired.
- Home Secretary Yvette Cooper stresses that “abuse of the system” will not be tolerated.
- Critics hit back at the policy, accusing the Labour party of kowtowing to populist anti-immigration sentiment.
Some 130,000 students and their families in total are due to be messaged via text or email reminding them that their visa is coming to an end, with an explicit warning that bogus asylum claims will be refused.
The message, which has already been sent to 10,000 students, reads: “If you submit an asylum claim that lacks merit, it will be swiftly and robustly refused. Any request for asylum support will be assessed against destitution criteria. If you do not meet the criteria, you will not receive support.
“If you have no legal right to remain in the UK, you must leave. If you don’t, we will remove you.”
It forms part of a raft of measures announced today to crack down on what the Home Office has called an “alarming” increase in the number of international students applying for asylum when their visas are nearing expiry.
In May, the government’s immigration white paper took aim at this trend, pointing out that half of all asylum claims for people already in the UK on a legitimate visa route were people issued a study visa. However, a closer look at Home Office data shows that students only account for 16% of all asylum claims.
If you submit an asylum claim that lacks merit, it will be swiftly and robustly refused
Text to international students
Speaking to BBC Breakfast this morning, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper claimed that some international students were applying for asylum “even when things haven’t changed in their home country” and staying in the UK for years afterwards, which then has a knock-on effect on existing asylum accommodation.
She said that while the UK government wants to support “genuine refugees”, students should not be claiming asylum at the end of their program if nothing has changed in their country while they have been studying abroad.
“We need to clamp down on that kind of abuse, and that’s why we’re sending these messages – to be very clear to people the asylum system is not for people who just want to extend their visas,” she said.
In response, the University and College Union general secretary, Jo Grady, called the measures an “attack on international students” that had “very little to do with visa overstays” and more to to with the ruling Labour party “aping” the anti-immigration Reform party, which has been gaining popularity in the UK.
‘With [Reform leader Nigel] Farage talking up mass deportations and migrant prison camps, Labour continuing to demonise immigrants and refugees isn’t just immoral, it’s political suicide,” she added.
“Labour will never outflank Reform on division and bigotry. They should instead be making the case for a welcoming and economically strong Britain, of which international students and a world-leading higher education sector are an integral part.’
Although the latest data released around the time of the immigration white paper suggests students made up 16% of asylum claims, according to the Home Office this is six times as many students who claimed asylum five years ago.
This number has dropped by 10% since the immigration white paper was released – but the government is still keen for this trend to continue.
Those arriving on student visas, around 16,000, were the biggest group in this cohort.
The survey highlights a clear upward trend in institutional measures addressing the concerns, challenges and demands associated with the use of AI tools (See previous UNESCO article). 19% of respondents indicated that their institutions already have a formal AI policy, while a further 42% reported that AI guiding frameworks are under development. This trend is seen across both public and private institutions, though with regional variation: around 70% of institutions in Europe and North America have or are developing guidance, compared to 45% in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Among institutions with policies in place, implementation measures include awareness campaigns for students, publication of guidelines, and integration of AI rules into academic processes.
The interviews revealed contrasting approaches to AI framework adoption at institutional level: Some higher education institutions adopt a regulatory approach that focuses attention on detecting AI use and managing the consequences of use that are considered to be unethical. Others take an iterative emergent approach that involves systematic consultation and engagement with students and faculty, the introduction of AI literacy as a mandatory course for first year students and embarking on a process of redesigning the university’s assessment system.
The survey also found substantial investment in AI tools. About half reported awareness of institutional spending on AI tools, with two-thirds noting that these investments focus primarily on research. The majority also highlighted investments in AI tools for teaching and student learning, pointing to a recognition of AI’s potential in advancing both knowledge production and education delivery.
Together, these findings underline the urgent need for clear, actionable frameworks and institutional capacity to ensure ethical and human-centred use of AI in higher education.
International education has undergone seismic change in recent years. Technology has reshaped how students discover universities, how families make life-changing decisions, and how agents deliver trusted services. Yet, in this evolving landscape, one truth has become clear: success is no longer measured only by scale or speed, but by the integrity and impact of the ecosystem you build. Few embody this ethos better than Rahul Sachdeva, founder of Unizportal, UnizHome, and XTravel World.
Sachdeva’s story begins not in a global capital, but in Karnal, Haryana. From this small town, he has built ventures now valued at over ₹500 crores, connecting students with opportunities across 1,200+ global universities. His journey is compelling not because of the numbers, but because of the vision: technology as a bridge between aspiration and access, anchored in trust.
A platform beyond applications
Unizportal was conceived during the COVID-19 pandemic, when physical counselling offices were shuttered. Instead of seeing disruption as a setback, Sachdeva identified an opportunity: create a centralized, digital-first platform where students could safely engage with verified education agents and where agents could manage applications transparently.
But Unizportal has grown far beyond student applications. Today, the ecosystem includes UnizHome, offering secure, pre-verified student accommodation abroad, and XTravel World, a travel-tech solution designed for education consultants and agents to manage flights, group bookings, and commissions. By weaving these services together, Sachdeva is not just solving one pain point—he is building a comprehensive infrastructure that supports students before departure, at arrival, and beyond.
Building trust through transparency
One reason the study abroad industry has often faced scrutiny is the lingering perception of opacity in admissions, visas, and payments. Unizportal tackles this head-on by making every step 100% digital and traceable. Students and parents can track progress in real time; agents are held accountable through the system; even Sachdeva’s own team operates exclusively within the platform.
This commitment to transparency signals a model for the future—one where technology safeguards trust at scale.
From brain drain to brain gain 2.0
Critics often ask whether sending students abroad drains India of its brightest minds. Sachdeva offers a different lens. The diaspora, he notes, contributes over $100 billion annually in remittances. Many return as entrepreneurs, innovators, or university collaborators. The industry also fuels job creation within India – spanning visa experts, EdTech teams, and travel services. Platforms like Unizportal amplify this by empowering thousands of small-town agents to grow sustainable businesses, extending the benefits of global mobility deep into India’s economy.
Success with purpose
Perhaps what sets Sachdeva apart most is his insistence that impact is inseparable from business. UnizHome, for example, has pledged its first two years of profits to support girl child education in India. This is not a CSR afterthought; it is embedded in the business model itself. “Success is not just numbers or revenue,” Sachdeva reflects, “it is when a student from a small town says, ‘Because of your team, I made it to Canada.’”
A voice of the future
Rahul Sachdeva represents a new kind of leadership: visionary, yes, but also deeply values-driven. He is creating ecosystems that enable growth while insisting on accountability and social responsibility.
In an industry sometimes criticized for being transactional, Sachdeva reminds us that the real measure of success lies in the lives transformed and the trust sustained. His story is not just inspiration – it is a blueprint for what the future of international education should look like: impact with integrity.
-
Business4 days agoThe Guardian view on Trump and the Fed: independence is no substitute for accountability | Editorial
-
Tools & Platforms3 weeks ago
Building Trust in Military AI Starts with Opening the Black Box – War on the Rocks
-
Ethics & Policy1 month agoSDAIA Supports Saudi Arabia’s Leadership in Shaping Global AI Ethics, Policy, and Research – وكالة الأنباء السعودية
-
Events & Conferences3 months agoJourney to 1000 models: Scaling Instagram’s recommendation system
-
Jobs & Careers2 months agoMumbai-based Perplexity Alternative Has 60k+ Users Without Funding
-
Funding & Business2 months agoKayak and Expedia race to build AI travel agents that turn social posts into itineraries
-
Education2 months agoVEX Robotics launches AI-powered classroom robotics system
-
Podcasts & Talks2 months agoHappy 4th of July! 🎆 Made with Veo 3 in Gemini
-
Education2 months agoAERDF highlights the latest PreK-12 discoveries and inventions
-
Education2 months agoMacron says UK and France have duty to tackle illegal migration ‘with humanity, solidarity and firmness’ – UK politics live | Politics