WATCH: The Fulham Boys School banned smartphones and is thriving - what are the lessons for Guernsey?
- The Fulham Boys School implemented a comprehensive smartphone ban in September 2024, prohibiting devices on site and during travel for all students under 16, with confiscation lasting six school weeks.
- Head David Smith defended the strict policy citing moral duty, noting students dealt with eating disorders, self-harm, gang activity, and exposure to violent pornography through phone use.
- A pre-ban survey revealed 56% of students got smartphones at age 9-10, with 42% receiving nearly 50 daily notifications and over 15% receiving more than 200 notifications daily.
- The policy resulted in 80% of year seven students not having smartphones, with parents of younger children expressing the most gratitude for the decision removing pressure from family negotiations.
- Smith urged Guernsey schools to adopt similar policies regardless of context, arguing that smartphone harm affects all children equally and that schools should lead rather than wait for government action.
In September 2024 The Fulham Boys School made headlines for a smartphone ban.
All those aged up to 16 faced the restriction on the school site, but it went further than that.
Their pupils were also banned from using them going to and from school - so on the bus, the tube, on school trips.
Wireless headphones and smart watches were also prohibited.
Only basic “brick” phones were allowed.
And the sanctions were strict.
The phone and sim card would be taken from the pupils for six school weeks. One pupil who had their phone confiscated on 2 July did not get it back until the next academic year.
It is just that kind of approach that some parents are lobbying for Guernsey’s secondary schools to take as evidence points to the damaging impact of smartphone use on children.
“Why such a strong policy? Why, as a headmaster, did I decide to stick my neck on the line and be the first to do such a thing? Why didn't I go from middle ground, perhaps use Yonder pouches in school, or students just keeping their phones switched off in their bags?” said David Smith, who had only been in place as The Fulham Boys School’s leader for two years when the ban came in.
“Because I believe it's a moral duty to do something for the boys in my care, that the next generation is being ruined through social media and smartphone use, and it's something I will die on a hill for.”
He was talking at Unplugged, an event organised by Smartphone Free Childhood Guernsey.
The move was a risk for a school that had only existed for nine years, in an area where parents have a wide choice of where they can send their children.
FBS is a free school, but for Smith, that context, so often thrown back as a challenge from other schools and parents, should not matter.
Co-ed, private, large catchment, small catchment, large proportion of special educational needs or not.
“I firmly believe that context does not apply here,” he said.
“Why? Because all children suffer in the same way through smartphone use. The color of their skin, the area of the country they live in, the money in their back pocket does not affect the challenges that they face and the harm that can be caused.
“Do not be fooled by context. I lead an all-boys school in Central London. My daughter goes to a State comprehensive all-girls school on the fringes of London. My son attends an alternative provision for children with autism.
“All of these schools have a strong policy of being smartphone free. I'm working with a group of seven secondary schools in the Brighton area. All of those head teachers have come together and united in this course. They will be going smartphone free in September. Their context is different to mine. Their context is actually similar to here.
“You don't choose your school, you are given one, but again, context in my view does not apply. We have to look past this. You have a real opportunity here in Guernsey to show you mean business and to truly care about young people.”
He understood that there may be nervousness about introducing such a strong policy.
“But my goodness, it's worth it. And I was alone, I did it on my own. You are not on your own. My neck was on the line. Your neck is not on the line. You can ride on the wave that's going across the UK, and it's making a difference to young people's lives.”
In his case the decision was not made to support academic outcomes or better behaviour.
“I care about the whole person, I care about who they are, what they achieve, and what they become, and clearly something needs to be done. But what the media did not see was what was behind the decision. They did not see who we are as a school, the process that we took, and the research that we delved into before making such a strong call.”
As a school they believe academic grades matter, but do not define a young person.
“We want men of character, who have integrity, who will do well in society.
“We talk about them all the time, being really good husbands one day and really good dads. It's important that you know this. My stance is clear. I'm not going to wait for the government to tell me what to do if I believe something is right for young people in my care. I will just get on and do it. We believe that education should allow our students to be lost in the moment to create memories that last a lifetime.”
He worked with the school community for a year about the dangers and what could be done.
Staff briefings about the online world uncovered how they had been impacted themselves.
A survey of all 800 pupils before the ban showed that 56% got a smartphone aged nine or 10, 93% had a smartphone, 49% used them in school, 42% received almost 50 messages or notifications each day, and over 15% received over 200 notifications a day. 38% had unrestricted access and could look at anything they wanted.
“All of this after years of education around phone use to our parents,” he said, arguing that while they continue to try to educate, sometimes clear rules were needed to do the right thing.
“I've dealt with eating disorders, drug use, drug trafficking, gang-related activity, self-harm, suicide attempts, acts of violence and aggression, misogyny, pornography, addiction, and sexting. The list goes on, all of this through phone use, and I don't buy into only affecting a certain type of person or a certain type of family. It hits everyone.”
He said that data from the World Health Organization in 2025 showed that our children are lonely, many of them don't have any friends at all, that they are wasting time they will never get back and creating habits that will continue into adulthood.
Children are also living a life where their own sense of identity and purpose is wrapped up in who others say they are, that they are never satisfied in how they look, how they speak, and what they achieve, and they are seeing things that can never be undone.
“We now run sessions at school on violence and sex, particularly strangulation, as that is what pornography so often displays, 85% of pornography involves violence towards women. It makes me sick that we are spending time having to frantically undo the damage. Wouldn't it just be amazing if we could just deal with the roots, the cause?”
You could look to government or external agencies to drive change, but he asked people in the room to take control.
“I'm fed up with talking to head teachers who point to other people, we can make the decisions, we are able to make the decisions.”
It was about controlling the narrative.
“We create a life for a young person where we can decide what they see, decide what they hear and what they do now. Some here will say this sounds oppressive, but I think it's the absolute opposite.
“I want young people to love life, and I want them to be loved. I want them to be able to be excited about getting up in the morning, be happy with the person they see in the mirror, have memories that last, and wholesome relationships.
“I always say it's important we educate about sex before young people are having sex. It's exactly the same about the world. I want to get there first. I want to show the boys in my care that they matter.
“I want to give them the tools to handle society, so when they see it all, and my goodness, one day they will see it all, they know how not just to survive it, but to thrive within it. When culture and society goes in one direction, I want to train young men who are courageous enough to go in the other direction, and that starts with me and my teachers and my staff.”
Staff eat with the students every day in the canteen, run clubs with them, watch them perform in sport and music, and turn up on results days to celebrate.
“We surround them, we emphasize who they are and what they are and who they could be, because we want them to become wonderful men of good character.
“You have to focus on identity, you have to focus on being part of something. We are not the school of banned smartphones, although to the world we probably are.
“We're the school of doing a load of great things and it's important a young person has a sense of community that they are not an island on their own, and that starts with boundaries. We talk about standards a lot. The mantra is standards, standards, standards. We care about what they look like, we care about how they behave, we care about their manners, we care they say thank you, we care they don't lie, and they are honest when they make a mistake. Compared to other local schools where I work, we do not have as many issues with gang involvement or affiliation or county lines. Why? Because we work to have a strong sense of identity.”
If a parent pushed back on phones, he would talk to them about all the other things the school does, but also emphasising that the school needed to look at what was best for all their students collectively.
He never received a round of applause from parents when the school moved from the bottom 20% to top 2% academically.
But he did from parents of younger children at open evenings grateful that a decision had been made for them so they could be a better parent.
“The biggest issue parents have is about safety. Is my child going to be safe? But it’s the parents of the youngest children who are the most happy, and it's the younger children who, in theory, are least safe. It's not about safety. The issue is the parents who have already bought their child a smartphone don't now know how to maneuver through life and to do anything, because we're now saying you should be taking that phone away.
“That's really hard for a parent, but we're not making the decision now for your children. Your child is not the most important child in the world. My child is not the most important child in the world. We are making the decision for the next 5,10, 15, 20, 50, 100 years.”
He understood that it can be awkward and difficult, and pupils would find ways to sneak a phone in.
“But 80% of my year sevens this year didn't have a smartphone. 20% did leave it at home. We slowed it down. They are children for longer. It is making a difference.” He urged schools not to waste money on pouches, which would lock the phones away.
“If you're a leader in education here, if you need a pouch in order to have a really good school around phones, you're not a very good leader. We never had pouches. It didn't affect the behavior, really. It didn't affect the academics. Don't waste taxpayers' money, £30,000, £40,000, £50,000 a year on pouches that could be spent on education, because you're too weak to say keep it switched off in your bags. But ideally they shouldn't have a phone at all.”
Perhaps it is the message from the pupils themselves that is the strongest.
When asked when they would get a smartphone for their own children,they always reply that it is two or three years older than when they got one themselves.
“Why is that? Because they are starting to realise as much as they love their phone, they know the dangers, and for their children, that they are going to love to death, they are not going to let them experience the same thing.”
Q&A
Q: What specific restrictions does The Fulham Boys School's smartphone ban include?
A: The ban prohibits smartphones for all students under 16 on school grounds and during travel to and from school (including buses, tubes, and school trips). Wireless headphones and smartwatches are also banned. Only basic 'brick' phones are allowed. Violations result in confiscation of both phone and SIM card for six school weeks.
Q: What data convinced the school to implement such a strict policy?
A: A survey of 800 pupils showed 56% received smartphones at age 9 or 10, 93% had smartphones, 49% used them in school, 42% received nearly 50 daily notifications, over 15% received more than 200 daily notifications, and 38% had completely unrestricted access. The school also dealt with serious issues including eating disorders, self-harm, suicide attempts, gang activity, and exposure to violent pornography.
Q: How have parents and students responded to the smartphone ban?
A: Parents of younger children have been most supportive, expressing gratitude that the decision was made for them. By the policy's implementation, 80% of year seven students didn't have smartphones, with 20% leaving them at home. Students themselves said they would give smartphones to their own children two or three years later than they received theirs, recognizing the dangers despite enjoying their devices.
Comments ()