Response to interpellation 2023/24:663 on a total mobile phone ban in primary school
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerns a total mobile phone ban in primary school. L believes that it should be the norm for schools to be mobile-free all day because mobile phone use negatively affects learning, impairs discipline, and increases the risk of cyberbullying 1. L argues that a ban promotes physical activity, mental health, and reading time 1, as well as leads to fewer problems with sleep, concentration, and social interaction 2. L believes that the school day should be mobile-free as a principle since research shows reduced screen time 2. S argues that the legislation already gives principals the authority to introduce a total mobile phone ban 3 4 5. S argues that the government is using populism by exploiting the fact that the public does not know that a ban is already possible 3 5 6. S argues that the school should balance screen use with digital competence 4 and that they share the government's concern regarding screen use 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! Linus Sköld has asked me how I intend to act to totally ban mobile phones in primary school and when we can expect supplementary directives to the ongoing investigation on permanently strengthened safety and study in school (dir. 2023:154).
It is correct that the Sweden Democrats, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals agree that it is time to make it the norm that all schools shall be mobile-free during the entire school day. The principal shall be able to decide on exceptions from this rule.
The use of mobile phones in school can have a negative impact on learning and thus also affect knowledge results negatively. From the latest PISA survey from 2022, it appears, among other things, that Sweden has a worse disciplinary classroom climate than many other countries. At the same time, reports from the Public Health Agency, among others, show that cyberbullying, like other forms of bullying, has become increasingly common during the last decade.
Having a mobile phone ban throughout the entire school day has several advantages, not least that the instances of digital harassment during school hours will decrease or disappear completely. Furthermore, it is likely positive for physical movement, mental health, and reading time if screen time is reduced.
The question and its ongoing handling are currently being prepared within the Government Offices, and I look forward to returning on how the government intends to proceed.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! On November 2, the government decided on directive 2023:154, that is, the inquiry on safety and study environment that the government has commissioned. It can be read from the directive that there will be tougher measures now. Teachers' powers are to be increased, even though as recently as a couple of years ago we legally regulated teachers' right to physical interventions. It shall become easier to throw students out of the classroom, to suspend students, and to relocate students temporarily or permanently. There shall be more emergency schools. There shall be reduced student influence. There shall be consequence ladders and expectation contracts, and there shall, similar to when Jan Björklund's parents went to school, be grades in order and behavior.
But in the directive to the special investigator, there is not a single word about mobile phones or technical equipment. Not even once does "mobile" or "phone" appear - I have searched the directive. Still, Lotta Edholm communicated a little over a month later that the school shall become completely mobile-free.
It has almost been half a year since then, and we have still not seen any amendment directive for the investigation that Lotta Edholm had just commissioned when she realized that the school is to become completely mobile-free.
I have also not seen anything else that has substance. So far, the announcement is just a press conference. One might wonder why the government is doing this. In fact, it is a non-issue since the legislation already has a generous scope to make the school mobile-free. As it stands now, that decision shall be made by the principal.
There is, of course, reason to have a lively debate about what the school's role is. Should it prepare students for the society in which they will operate, or should it be a protected workshop modeled after how society looked when Jan Björklund's parents went to school?
Of course, it should prepare for the future society. How does it do this best? I would say that this debate is best led by the teacher and principal collectives. I think that Lotta Edholm should regulate in detail what should apply in every school and in every classroom seems to be a worse idea. The question remains: Why is the government doing it in this way?
Over the weekend, I met a man who, when I started talking school policy with him, exclaimed: How hard can it be to implement a mobile phone ban? I replied that I, who have worked as both a teacher and a principal before starting my service as a member of Parliament, have not worked at a single school where there has not been a mobile phone ban. Lotta Edholm knows this very well – both that it is the principal who decides and that there are generous opportunities to have a completely mobile-free school.
Lotta Edholm knows this very well, but the government has probably understood that people do not know it. That was why I received the question this weekend, because people do not know that the question of a mobile phone ban is a non-issue. That is why the government goes out and pretends that a ban is needed. I can only say: Hats off, Lotta Edholm, well played!
Paula Örn (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Education, for the answer! I feel that there is not really an answer to the question. There is an investigation that has been commissioned, and the government is free to determine the directives that the investigation has to work from. The Minister does not, however, say that an additional directive will be issued or that this will be introduced, but rather that the matter is being prepared in the Government Offices. One then becomes a bit curious about what is being prepared, since all four parties are in complete agreement.
One is also a bit surprised because we are currently in the Education Committee handling motions from, among others, Patrick Reslow regarding a total mobile phone ban in schools, where the committee's majority rejects the motion by referring to the provisions in the Education Act stating that the principal already has the powers required to, as it stands, "decide that mobile phones and other electronic communication equipment shall be collected at the beginning of each school day". In such cases, "the item shall be returned at the latest at the end of each school day" – i.e., a total mobile phone ban.
Then I would like to take the opportunity to raise the reasoning. I have two teenage daughters myself who spend an enormous amount of time on their mobile phones, and I believe that we, both as politicians and, not least, as parents, are broadly in agreement regarding the concern over children's screen use, where we see that more research is emerging regarding very young children's screen use. My view, however, is that it is a societal problem and a parenting problem.
School is the institution where we are to prepare our children and young people for the society – the now very digital society – that we live in. How are we to manage to meet the requirements at the same time? I know that, among others, SKR is requesting a real digital strategy for school where we can balance the dangers and risks of screen use while at the same time we need and demand increased knowledge about digitalization, digital tools, and AI and all the conditions they create. Where is it?
The Minister also mentioned the PISA study in their speech. It is entirely true that there is a criticism and that we are slightly higher than the average when it comes to distractions from digital tools. Another interesting point that is also raised in the PISA study, however, is that the highest scores in mathematics are reported for those students who use the mobile phone for up to two hours per day for leisure in school, i.e., not as a teaching tool but during free time. They have the very highest scores in mathematics. This then decreases with more use than that.
Using digital tools for learning also seems to lead to a positive development in knowledge. For those who never use mobiles, i.e., zero – if that is what the minister suggests – compared to those who have up to five hours of use of mobile tools for learning, it rises from 455 to around 480 points.
I want to ask the Minister if she sees any risks with the dichotomy that we perceive the Minister and her party are trying to create between digital tools and learning. How can the Minister of Education instead act to find a balance in the management of digital learning tools, including mobile phones?
Last but not least: Does the principal not already have the mandate required for a total ban on mobile phones when that is desirable?
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! When I first read the interpellation, I was positively surprised, because I thought that the Social Democrats might now finally realize that mobile phones are a problem in the school world. But when I then heard Linus Sköld, I understood that he considers that school without mobile phones would be a protected workshop, that it is a non-issue, and that we are not preparing for a future society if we totally ban mobile phones.
I think we must see this from the perspective of children and students. Paula Örn raises a completely different question which concerns whether one should have digital tools in school or not. Naturally, one should have them.
When it comes to small children, I think one should follow the Swedish Society of Pediatrics' recommendations that children under two years of age should not be exposed to screens and so on. With increasing age, they should be able to use screens, based on a scientific foundation, nota bene. It is not always the case, but this actually has nothing to do with children's own private mobile phones. One must nevertheless assume that a school that, for example, considers it important to use digital aids also ensures that these are available so that it is not dependent on what individual students have with them in the school.
Regarding what we now know from the research, I would say that there has been a change in attitudes in these issues just in the last half year, where country after country now sees the major problems that much use of screens actually entails for children and young people.
We know that children and young people sleep to an all-too-small extent. It is also the case that children who have different types of NPF diagnoses sleep significantly less than other children and young people. We see how mental ill-health is increasing and that there is a direct connection to screen use itself. We also know that in schools that have a total mobile ban, students use their mobiles less during their free time than students who attend schools where mobiles are permitted do.
We see that children move far too little. Of course, I think that children should move during recess instead of looking at their mobile phones. It has enormous health effects, and it will become apparent if we do not do something about this.
When the government began to look seriously at this issue, it felt like we were treading quite uncharted territory, but now one and a half years later we see that country after country is taking these issues seriously. There is much research showing that especially small children should not be exposed to screens unnecessarily.
That we from this side - from Sweden's government and parliament - agree with that and ensure that we protect our children, I don't actually think is wrong. When I read the interpellation, I thought, as I said, that even the Social Democrats had now understood this, but I was obviously mistaken.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! Lotta Edholm and I have met quite a few times in the speaker's chairs at this point, and I have certainly made myself guilty of exactly the way of debating that Lotta Edholm is now using, that is, attributing a different opinion to the opponent than he has expressed and attacking that instead of addressing what he actually says.
I want to remind Lotta Edholm that the legislation I am referring to – and which I therefore consider to be sufficient given that one can have a mobile-free school and that mobiles are prohibited by default during teaching time – was implemented by the Social Democrats. We developed that legislation together with the Liberals after we too had gone to the election on this. Lotta Edholm therefore has no grounds to attribute views to me that I have not expressed.
Lotta Edholm refers to the positive health effects that a total mobile phone ban can lead to, and I think she needs to consider where that knowledge comes from. It comes, in fact, from the fact that the legislation that currently exists allows for a total mobile phone ban, where principals and teachers have made the assessment that it is what is most effective. It is this that gives Lotta Edholm the task of referring to it, which also underlines my thesis that the legislation that exists is sufficient.
Anyway! I think Lotta Edholm should be able to account for how it happened. What was it that happened between November 2 and December 9, 2023? Between November 2, when the decision was made regarding the appointment of the investigation on safety and study environment, and December 9, something must have happened that makes the Liberals, the other government parties, and the Sverigedemokraterna agree on something that obviously should have been included in the investigation directives. I would like to know what it was that happened during those five weeks.
If Lotta Edholm cannot answer what it means that the question of a total mobile phone ban is being prepared in the Government Offices and when we will receive an amendment directive to the ongoing investigation, I will think that Lotta Edholm confirms my conclusion that this is a game. In that case, it is about Lotta Edholm and her government having seen that the man I met this weekend does not know that it is possible to have a mobile phone ban in all schools—and playing on that. A press conference is held to sound tough and stern and to pick up populist points.
If I am wrong, Lotta Edholm can provide factual information regarding the questions she has received in the interpellation and this debate, that is to say: What happened between November 2 and December 9, and when will we receive the amendment directives?
Paula Örn (S)
Madam Speaker! There is, of course, always a risk of it becoming a bit of "cake on cake" when two of us from the same party are debating an issue, but I still want to emphasize what Linus Sköld raises regarding the legislation that already exists.
I also want to once again ask the Minister for Education how she views the Education Committee's handling of the issue. This concerns, for example, motions on mobile phone bans, which one is now in a position to reject while simultaneously being in complete agreement on introducing it – yet still cannot say whether one intends to issue a supplementary directive. It is somewhat unclear what it is that is going on.
I still thought we had a fairly good tone in the debate and a consensus regarding the problems with screens, so I also somewhat recoil from the Minister for Education's statement that she believed the Social Democrats thought this was important but that we do not think so at all. We do think it; both Linus Sköld and I say so. We share the concern for what screens do to our children, not just in school but in a broader societal sense.
In politics, we sometimes talk about being able to hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time, and I hope that we can do that too in the debate about digital tools, mobiles, and other things. I hope that we can talk both about what our society requires – and what it requires of the school – regarding digital tools such as mobiles and other things, and about how we as a society should succeed in limiting children's use of screens during their free time.
As said: This is absolutely not uncharted territory. The legislation entered into force in 2022, before the election and before the government took office. The principal has the authority to introduce a total ban on mobile phones. We therefore repeat the question: What is it that is supposed to change?
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! Linus Sköld is now saying that he did not express the opinion that mobile phone use is not a problem. But to stand here in the Swedish Riksdag and talk mockingly about that school should not be a protected workshop, that we should not go back to a school that is like Jan Björklund's parents' school, that this is a non-issue and so on, naturally gives the impression that the Social Democrats have not changed a millimeter since the day when just Jan Björklund was school minister and the Social Democrats mocked the idea of a mobile phone ban in school.
Then it was very much about the phones disturbing the teaching, and today the research in the area has come much further. We know now that it also leads to completely different types of problems, for example that children sleep far too little and that they have very difficult concentration. The mobile phones disturb the possibility of social interaction, reduce children's imagination and so on. There is a lot of research in this area.
Linus Sköld also says that the fact that we can compare and see that children attending schools where there is already a total mobile phone ban today use mobile phones less – have less screen time – even at home, is an argument that the legislation works. I can think like this: If we see that it is in that way, shouldn't all children be given that opportunity? Shouldn't we influence society in the ways that we can actually influence society, that is, by ensuring that the school day is mobile-free as a principle? Then, principals can of course decide on deviations from this, but this shall be the principle – precisely because we see positive effects in the schools that actually have it in that way.
When it comes to the second question, it is currently being prepared in the Government Offices. They are looking at supplementary directives concerning this issue. I naturally look forward to also having a discussion about this with the Social Democrats.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! I think that Lotta Edholm is avoiding answering the question of what happened between November 2 and December 9. Why was it not relevant to include a total mobile phone ban in the directives for the ongoing investigation if the government parties, a month later, could come forward with a joint announcement about it? And why have we not seen any mobile phone ban since then?
"The question is being prepared in the Government Offices" is government speak for "We are putting it off". I therefore assess the probability that there will be any mobile phone ban during the current mandate period as very small, unless Lotta Edholm can provide a decision on the matter at this time.
This leads me to the same conclusion once again: The government knows that the man I met this weekend, who wondered how difficult it would be to implement a mobile phone ban—and that men and women like him, who do not follow school policy closely and who do not work in schools—do not know that it is already fully possible to have a mobile phone ban in schools. They do not know that mobile phones are prohibited in teaching already as it is, in the starting position. And the government is capitalizing on this.
Statsrådet Lotta Edholm (L)
Madam Speaker! I think the entire discussion is strange. On one hand, the Social Democrats seem upset that a supplementary directive is not coming fast enough, and on the other hand, they think this is not a problem. It is a non-issue, as Linus Sköld has said. With those thoughts, the Social Democrats should be happy that we have not yet produced a supplementary directive in this matter. Obviously, a total ban on mobile phones is not a problem in the Social Democrats' world.
I see that it is a major problem that many children and young people use their mobiles for far too long every day. In the schools that have a total mobile ban, one can see that the young people use their mobiles less. We see major problems when we read the PISA results - actually bigger problems than in most other countries in the world. Should we then not do something about this? If the Social Democrats think that we are then retreating into the past, that the school becomes like a protected workshop or that the school will become like it was in Jan Björklund's parents' time, then of course we will not do it. But I actually thought that the Social Democrats had come a bit further in this issue.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.