Smartphone-free norm spreads from homes to schools
After Özcan Akyol’s personal choice, a Leiden school board also comes out in favour of delaying smartphone ownership.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
The debate over smartphones for young children is receiving fresh impetus from two initiatives. Özcan Akyol says he does not want to give his children a smartphone until they are sixteen, while school board PROO in Leiden and Leiderdorp is embracing growing up smartphone-free as its guiding principle.
Akyol said on Monday that he and his partner had decided not to give their children a smartphone for the time being. Their son and daughter are reportedly eight and ten years old. At home, there is a limit on screen time. The writer says he is concerned about endless scrolling, online bullying and images that could affect children’s self-image.
The choice is not a general rule, nor is it proof that a smartphone-free family produces better outcomes. It is a parenting decision by one public figure, which was subsequently widely discussed. Akyol does say that other parents at his children’s primary school have joined similar arrangements, so that the children are not the only ones outside a group norm.
On the same day, PROO announced that the board of 21 state schools in Leiden and Leiderdorp would support growing up smartphone-free. The first school within the board is already operating along those lines. The other schools still have to work out the approach in discussions with parents, participation councils and external partners.
The practical implementation has therefore not yet been fixed. Among other things, the board wants to discuss how phones are handled in the school playground, which rules apply to staff and what example adults set. The measure is therefore not only about use during lessons, but also about what role a smartphone should have in and around primary school.
The movement fits into a broader policy debate. Official parliamentary documents distinguish between a smartphone, messaging services and social media. They also warn that research into screen use often shows an association, but does not automatically prove that a smartphone causes lower wellbeing.
Parents therefore face a twofold question: how do you protect children from peer pressure and harmful online stimuli without cutting them off from being reachable, information and contact with their peers? The new initiatives shift the conversation from individual discipline to collective agreements, but the effects of the different approaches still need to be evaluated.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- Akyol has chosen to delay giving his own children a smartphone.
- PROO supports growing up smartphone-free at 21 state schools.
- PROO’s practical implementation still needs to be discussed with parents and participation councils.
- The scientific evidence for causal effects is the subject of debate.
Left
Arguments Children should be protected from addictive design, online bullying and commercial pressure. Schools and the government should help parents reduce peer pressure collectively.
Values Children’s rights, public protection and equal opportunities.
Consequences Collective agreements can ease the burden on families, but require clear exceptions for being reachable and accessibility.
Centre
Arguments An age recommendation and a smartphone-free school environment can be useful, as long as a distinction is made between calling, messaging and social media and parents retain scope for a tailored approach.
Values Proportionality, digital skills and feasibility.
Consequences Phased agreements can limit risks without imposing one uniform solution on all families.
Right
Arguments Parenting is primarily the responsibility of parents. Schools can promote calm, but a broad ban or age limit could restrict families’ freedom of choice and responsibility too far.
Values Parental autonomy, freedom and restrained regulation.
Consequences Strict rules can exclude children from practical communication and lead to monitoring and enforcement problems.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
Akyol’s choice of age and PROO’s decision can be found in public publications. The text avoids medical or causal conclusions about smartphone use and explicitly states that the effects of the approach still need to be researched.
- confirmed Özcan Akyol does not want to give his children a smartphone until they are sixteen. — Reported by LINDA.nl on 12 October 2026. source
- confirmed PROO represents 21 state schools in Leiden and Leiderdorp. — Mentioned in PROO’s official vision document. source
- confirmed PROO wants to discuss the practical implementation with parents and participation councils. — Stated in the official vision document. source
- confirmed Research into screen use does not automatically prove a causal link with lower wellbeing. — This caveat appears in a Lower House document on smartphone and social media policy. source
Editor's note
Akyol’s personal choice and PROO’s decision have been confirmed. No evidence was put forward that this approach demonstrably produces better outcomes; it has therefore not been presented as fact.Sources
- Waarom Özcan Akyol zijn kinderen van 8 en 10 jaar geen smartphone geeft — LINDA.nl
- Visiedocument PROO smartphonevrij opgroeien — Stichting PROO Leiden
- Minimumleeftijd sociale media met leeftijdsverificatie — Tweede Kamer
More on this in Dutch media
- de Volkskrant — „smartphone kinderen”
- RTL Nieuws — „smartphone kinderen”
- NOS — „smartphone kinderen”