Two years ago, schools across the Netherlands implemented a ban on smartphones for students, aiming to mitigate distractions, enhance concentration, and ultimately boost academic performance. Since its inception, this prohibition has extended to mobile phones, smartwatches, and tablets, disallowing them in classrooms, corridors, and even school canteens nationwide.
Building on the perceived success of this initiative, the Dutch government is now advocating for a more comprehensive approach: restricting social media access for children under 16. They are actively calling for a minimum age limit of 15 across the entire European Union for popular platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat.
The impact of the initial ban is visibly evident at institutions like Cygnus Gymnasium in Amsterdam, where a bright yellow sign at the school gates greets students arriving on their bikes with a clear warning: “Attention: from this point, your phone must be in your locker. Thank you.” This sentiment is encapsulated in the nationwide Dutch slogan, “Telefoon t’huis of in de kluis” (Phone at home or in the locker). Instead of enacting a formal law, the government strategically opted for a national agreement involving schools, parents, and teachers. This collaborative approach was chosen to garner broader support and ensure the rules could be implemented swiftly, bypassing potentially lengthy parliamentary debates.
Outside an English classroom adorned with Shakespearean-themed artwork, students Hena and Fena expressed mixed feelings about the ban. “Since the ban came into effect, we’ve had to be careful around teachers so our phones don’t get confiscated,” they admitted. While acknowledging it was “annoying,” they clarified that it didn’t feel like a violation of their rights. They observed a noticeable change: “Maybe now we pay a bit more attention. During breaks, nobody is really playing on their phones.”
Their teacher, Ida Peters, echoed these sentiments, noting a significant difference in the classroom environment. “As a teacher, I’m always trying to capture students’ attention. It’s always a challenge to get focus in class, and now, with their phones less visible, it definitely helps,” she stated.
In contrast to the Netherlands’ unified approach, smartphone use is also prohibited in classrooms across the United Kingdom. However, without a national policy on mobile phone use, schools and teachers are often left to improvise their own rules. Peters believes that the Dutch national agreement has significantly liberated staff, reducing the burden of enforcement. “There’s less friction in class management,” she explained. “Before, there were often phone checks in school; now the atmosphere is more relaxed, calmer, less anxious.” Peters further noted that phones are also not permitted during breaks or school parties, alleviating student concerns about being photographed and having images uploaded to platforms like Snapchat or Instagram. She concluded, “And when children are more relaxed, their learning outcomes improve.”
Initial data appears to support these observations. A government study involving 317 secondary schools revealed that approximately three-quarters of respondents reported improved concentration since the phone ban was introduced. Nearly two-thirds noted an enhanced social climate, and about one-third observed an increase in academic performance. Furthermore, other surveys have indicated a reduction in bullying when devices are not used throughout the school day, reinforcing the positive impact on student well-being.
The debate now extends beyond school gates, touching on the daily lives of teenagers like 15-year-olds Felix and Karel, who admit to spending between two to five hours daily on social media. Karel charges his phone by his bed and checks messages immediately upon waking, while Felix waits until after breakfast. Recalling their initial reaction to the school phone ban, one of them confessed, “When I first heard the news, I thought, ‘I want to change schools because this isn’t what I want.'” However, their perspective has evolved: “But I haven’t really felt the negative side of it. If this were to happen in the UK, I think it would have a positive impact on students.”
In the Netherlands, the conversation has decisively shifted towards social media regulation. The government now officially advises against social media use for children under 15. Going a step further, the new governing coalition is pushing for an enforceable, Europe-wide minimum age limit of 15-plus, supported by robust age verification mechanisms. Their argument is clear: if nations can regulate access to alcohol or gambling, they must also intervene when social media platforms are deliberately designed to be addictive.
Despite the new coalition holding only 66 of 150 parliamentary seats, requiring support from other parties for domestic implementation, the imperative for mandatory rules on children’s social media access necessitates complex negotiations at the European Union level.
Public opinion, however, appears to be aligning with their stance. A Unicef survey of over 1,000 Dutch children and adolescents revealed that a striking 69% supported a social media ban for those under 18. Within the same survey, 28% advocated for a complete prohibition of platforms for children under 12, reasoning that young children “should still be playing outside, not on their phones.” The survey report itself categorized social media as addictive, unsafe, and detrimental to mental health.
Further reinforcing this trend, an annual social media survey by the Newcom research institute indicated that 60% of 16-to-28-year-olds now support age restrictions, a significant increase from 44% the previous year. This data effectively challenges the widespread assumption that young people are inherently keen to be constantly online.
Koen Becking, a former education minister, underscored the “growing evidence” that intensive social media use negatively impacts mental health and social interaction. He pointed to Dutch data showing that children are more easily distracted and more anxious when they have access to their devices, adding weight to the arguments for stricter controls.
Back at Cygnus School, the prospect of a social media ban elicited different responses from students. Karel admitted he would be “a bit devastated,” acknowledging, “I’m a bit addicted; I immediately open TikTok when I wake up or check messages from friends.” Felix, however, appeared more sanguine: “I’ll get used to it and find other things to do, so I don’t think I’d mind too much.”
Concurrently, the Dutch Research Council is investigating the potential unintended consequences of the school phone ban, specifically whether being without phones all day increases the fear of missing out (FOMO) or leads to more intensive phone use after school. While students insist they don’t use their phones more before or after school, Felix conceded that despite some students still keeping phones in their pockets—out of sight from teachers—he believes removing screens from view genuinely helps students focus on learning. “People talk more, go to the shop instead of just sitting in the canteen playing on their phones,” he observed. “We socialize more; social connections have improved.”
For Dutch children, tapping on a smartphone screen is no longer a part of school life. The next pressing question for the Netherlands, and potentially for other nations watching closely, is whether access to social media applications should also become a relic of the past for younger generations.
Related articles:
- A child accesses the internet every half-second – How to keep them safe online?
- Bullying emergency in Indonesia – ‘My child died from bullying, what is the school’s responsibility?’
- From drug dealing hub to one of the world’s best schools – The story of a school in Brazil