By Maija Mustaniemi-Laakso, Lisa Grans, and Elina Pirjatanniemi
Introduction
Finland has recently joined the increasing number of states that have introduced a legal ban on the use of mobile phones in schools. Through the amendment of the Basic Education Act suggested in a government proposal of early 2025 (HE 212/2024 vp), the use of phones and other mobile devices during lessons is restricted to certain limited situations, such as personal healthcare. In addition, schools are to provide the necessary rules and regulations for the use and storage of phones and other mobile devices during the school day. While restricting the use of mobile phones in schools was already possible previously, the reform seeks to clarify the tools that schools and teachers have at their disposal to limit the use of digital devices during the school day. The reform, which takes effect in August 2025, aims to facilitate concentration for pupils at school and is as such welcomed by many children, parents, special education professionals and teachers.
The legislative reform process has given rise to debate on what children’s rights to and within the digital world are. This discussion brings to the fore some key issues regarding children’s rights and underlines that in many ways, the divide between the digital and the non-digital worlds in the interpretation of children’s rights is fading. Some of these points are addressed below with a reminder that the discussion on the downsides of digitalization should not overshadow the clear benefits of digital access for the realization of children’s rights nor the school’s important role in fostering children’s digital literacy. The focus in the below text is on the guidance provided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and the Committee on the Rights of the Child on this issue.
The obligation to balance between risks and opportunities of the digital sphere
While the benefits of access to the digital sphere for children are beyond doubt, digitalization also entails potential risks and raises important questions regarding children’s development, wellbeing and safety. In addition to mobile phones affecting concentration at school, children’s right to privacy as guaranteed by Article 16 of the CRC, for example, may be undermined through digitalisation, and new forms of bullying and abuse present themselves in the digital sphere (OECD 2022).
At the same time, whether we want it or not, mobile devices are an important part of children’s everyday life and social relations, as the Finnish Ombudsman for Children reminds us in a statement on the government proposal. The digital sphere offers vast opportunities for children to both realise and claim their rights. As such, digital tools have in many ways become an entry point to many of the rights that children are entitled to, as the Committee on the Rights of the Child notes in General Comment No. 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment. This is reflected in how children increasingly see equal access to the digital sphere as essential for the realisation of their rights to, among other things, information and education (Third et al., 2014, p. 8). To support such access, state parties should, according to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, ‘take all measures necessary to overcome digital exclusion [… including by] providing free and safe access for children in dedicated public locations and investing in policies and programmes that support all children’s affordable access to, and knowledgeable use of, digital technologies in educational settings, communities and homes’.
As a result, the so-called digital leap confronts both guardians and societies with complex questions of responsibility and rights. As per Articles 4 and 5 of the CRC, the responsibility for weighing the benefits of the digital sphere against the risks that it entails lies with the guardians and states. Where different rights are in conflict with each other, a weighing exercise is needed to ‘find the solution that is in the best interests of the child or children’ with a view to ensuring ‘the full and effective enjoyment of the rights recognised in the Convention and its Optional Protocols, and the holistic development of the child’ (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2013, paras 81-82). In assessing children’s access to the digital sphere, the bottom line is that the ‘use of digital devices should not be harmful’ (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2021, para. 15).
Weighing the right to education against the right to use of mobile device
The move towards banning mobile phones in schools can be seen as a case in point illustrating such a balancing act. While the clear benefits of children’s access to digitalization are recognised in the government proposal, it holds that the negative effects of using mobile phones in schools, such as their impacts on the safety of the learning environment, outweigh these benefits. This gives rise to the question how the use of mobile devices negatively affects the right to a safe learning environment, which according to the Basic Education Act (Section 29) requires that the facilities and equipment intended for teaching are safe, and that the education provider ensures that pupils are not subjected to violence or bullying at school (HE 86/1997 vp, p. 64). The government proposal defines this only loosely, referring e.g. to reduction of bullying as one of the rationales for the ban (e.g. p. 7 and 28). As the ban is applicable only during lessons, it remains to be seen how efficiently the reform will address this concern.
According to the government proposal (p. 46), this legislative reform limiting the use of mobile devices in schools may ‘somewhat’ interfere with children’s fundamental rights in the interest of education providers, principals and teachers to enable a safe learning environment. Rights that may be affected by the ban include the right to property, the protection of private life and freedom of expression. In this balancing exercise, the effective and equal access to education and to a safe learning environment is in other words given more weight than children’s access to their mobile devices during school hours. In the opinion of the Constitutional Law Committee (para. 3), this is not a matter of restricting or interfering with fundamental rights as the Committee finds it clear that where the use of mobile devices is not related to learning or health care and where the use interferes with teaching or learning, it does not enjoy protection of fundamental rights. The opinions of the Constitutional Law Committee guides the interpretation of fundamental rights in Finland.
Equality concerns to be taken seriously
While weighing between different rights is a natural part of the interpretation of human rights, care should be taken that the interpretations do not give rise to unequal outcomes for some children. The amended law will allow exceptions to the ban with the teacher’s permission for learning purposes, or with the permission of the principal or teacher as an assistive device or for personal health care, such as for diabetes treatment (government proposal, p. 38).
Concerns have been expressed in this regard, for example, as to whether the said exceptions to the ban embrace the different needs and interests that children may have in relation to their different health concerns and learning needs. As noted by Unicef, the reform must be assessed from the point of view of whether it ensures every child’s right to education and learning or whether it stands in the way of the realisation of rights for some pupils. Importantly, the reference to ‘personal health care’ would need to cover the use of mobile devices as an assistive tool or as a communication device for children with learning or language difficulties. In line with this, the government proposal (p. 24) notes that the ban does not restrict the use of phones or other mobile devices used as an aid for students with disabilities to study, move around school or search for information. It can, however, be asked whether the teachers and principals have the necessary qualifications and expertise to assess the different needs arising from personal health care to make equal decisions about exceptions to the use of mobile devices. Children’s right to privacy may also be at stake if children need to specify to teachers why they need to use a mobile device, as noted by the Mannerheim League for Child Welfare.
The government proposal (p. 38) does foresee procedures for the use of mobile devices for long-term medication needs during the school day, but for shorter or sudden health concerns, it appears that decisions are to be made on an ad hoc basis by teachers or principals. According to the newly updated guidance to schools by the Finnish National Board for Education, where the use of a phone or other mobile device is necessary for the pupil’s personal health care, the teacher or principal can, with the permission of the pupil or legal representative, obtain information about the child’s illness and the required measures from the parents, specialised medical care or school health care. Based on this information, the teacher of principal can give permission for the use of a phone or other mobile device during the lesson, the entire school day or a longer period. Only long-term permissions are recommended to be recorded in the student information system, while case-by-case verbal permissions do not need to be recorded. According to the guidance, it is, however, a good practice to inform all involved teachers of the permission to avoid pupils themselves having to do this repeatedly. This is not a requirement, however, neither does the guidance set forth a requirement for the schools to describe their standard permission procedures in their student welfare plans. From the perspectives of transparency, children’s privacy and equality, it can be asked whether more standardised procedures for giving and recording the permissions would be advisable. If such procedures are developed, it would be essential that children are heard, as in all decision-making concerning them (CRC, Art. 12).
Further, as bullying is a key problem that the ban seeks to address (HE 212/2024 vp, p. 28), equality concerns may arise from the fact that the reform leaves it up to each school to decide on mobile device use outside of lessons. As school rules will inevitably vary between different schools and bullying happens also outside lessons, the outcomes for children in different schools may be different. In this regard it could be noted while access to a mobile device can be a source to bullying, the device can also be instrumental for children to be able to access support in a situation where they are being bullied. Children themselves see mobile phones as helpful, for example, in dealing with loneliness and in addressing unexpected situations where they need to reach their guardians (HE 212/2024 vp, p. 5). As Unicef points out, if school rules enable banning the use of mobile devices during the entire school day, not only during lessons, in particular the needs of children in vulnerable positions should be considered in drafting those rules. In this context it is important to remember that when children’s rights are weighed against each other, or other people’s rights, the assessment of the best interests of the child always requires an individualised consideration of each child’s needs and circumstances (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2013). The Ombudsman for Children reminds also that the threshold for allowing pupils to contact their guardians should not be set too high and that the starting point for assessing such a threshold must be the child’s view of the necessity of contacting them.
Equality requires ensuring digital literacy for all children
Another equality concern that needs to be taken on board when assessing the proposed ban relates to the development of children’s digital literacy skills that are seen as instrumental for children’s access to rights. While banning the use of mobile devices during lessons, states need to ensure that schools fulfil their duty in educating children on and in the digital sphere. This is necessary as the level of digital literacy education children receive at home varies greatly. Surveys indicate that whereas children want ‘parental oversight to mitigate a range of harms’ in the digital sphere, at the same time, they are worried that their guardians ‘often don’t have the necessary skills to support them online’ (Council of Europe, 2017, p. 16; Our Rights in a Digital World: A Snapshot of Children’s Views from around the World, n.d., pp. 30-31). As such, the level of parents’ digital skills can be an important unequalising factor in facilitating children’s agency in the digital sphere, with family background, education and economic status affecting the support for and the attitudes towards children as users of the digital environment at home (Zhang & Livingstone, 2021, p. 1).
Yet, at the European level, many children regret that issues such as online safety, privacy rights and digital literacy are not included in school curricula (Council of Europe, 2017, p. 17). In this light it is positive that the government proposal (pp. 22 and 26) underlines that the objectives set in the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (Section 3.3) regarding training pupils in the responsible, safe and ethical use of digital devices, including phones, remain in force. If the mobile phone ban during school hours is not combined with strong efforts by schools to teach children to navigate the digital environment, as recommended by the Committee on the Rights of the Child (para. 104), the result may be increased polarisation and easier spreading of disinformation. Cooperation between the adults in schools, children and homes is crucial in supporting responsible and safe use of digital devices and a culture that sustains sustainable digital well-being (MIELI). In Finland, and other countries, these efforts might now merit priority.
Maija Mustaniemi-Laakso is a post-doctoral researcher at the Institute for Human Rights at Åbo Akademi.
Lisa Grans is a Researcher in International Human Rights Law at the Institute for Human Rights, Åbo Akademi University. She currently conducts research within the project The many faces of special protection: Unpacking the roles of vulnerability in human rights and criminal law (ROVU). Her research interests focus on gender-based violence, protection of vulnerable groups, and the interaction between domestic law and international law.
Elina Pirjatanniemi works as a Professor of Constitutional and International Law as well as a Director of the Institute for Human Rights at Åbo Akademi.
Photo by Grant Davies on Unsplash