From September 1 of this year, the maximum number of hours that students of various ages can study at school is no longer determined by the hygiene norm approved by the Minister of Health, but by the general education plans approved by the Minister of Education, Science and Sports. This decision has a rational basis – a similar learning load is regulated in other European countries, and the duration of lessons, breaks, lesson start times, and other safe learning conditions remain part of health requirements.
Read more You call a consultant, but AI answers: this is how millions of customers are already served
Therefore, I do not see much point in arguing about which ministry’s document should include the specific number of hours. It is much more important to me that, along with the administrative redistribution of competencies, we do not lose the perspective of the learning load as a child’s health issue.
However, we must be able to distinguish a healthy academic challenge from constant overload.
The real burden on a child is not just the number of lessons. Their day does not end when the last bell rings – after that come homework, preparation for assessments, tutors, clubs, the journey to and from school, and today also a significant part of life spent in front of screens and on social networks. Therefore, when assessing the load, we should ask not only how many lessons are scheduled but also how much time the child actually has for sleep, physical activity, family, friends, and simple rest. This is not a suggestion to make school easy. Learning must require effort; the child must learn to concentrate, work, overcome difficulties, and cope with failures. But we must be able to distinguish a healthy academic challenge from constant overload.
Data from the World Health Organization’s European Regional Office and the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children (HBSC) study show a worrying trend: almost two-thirds of fifteen-year-old girls (63%) and more than four out of ten boys of the same age feel school pressure. In 2018, just over half of the girls felt such pressure. At the same time, the support felt from family, teachers, and peers is weakening among some adolescents. PISA 2022 data also show that not all fifteen-year-olds in Lithuania feel a sense of belonging at school: about one in five feels like an outsider, and more than one in four feels excluded or out of place. This is an important signal because school is not just a place to gain knowledge – a child spends a very large part of their life there.
Another warning indicator for Lithuania is the 2024 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD) results. More than one in five 15–16-year-old students in Lithuania (22%) reported having used tranquilizers or sedatives without a doctor’s prescription at least once in their lifetime. This was the highest rate among the countries participating in the survey, where the average did not reach even one in ten students. Considering broader non-medical drug use, nearly one in three students in Lithuania reported this, and among girls, more than a third. It would be methodologically incorrect to say that children use these drugs because of excessive learning load – such a causal relationship is not proven by research. However, it would be equally wrong to pretend that school pressure, anxiety, lack of sleep, drug use, bullying, and the digital environment exist on separate shelves.
Considering broader non-medical drug use, nearly one in three students in Lithuania reported this, and among girls, more than a third.
To this picture, we must add bullying and life on screens. According to the World Health Organization, about one in nine adolescents experiences bullying at school, and about one in seven experiences cyberbullying. The proportion of adolescents showing signs of problematic social network use in Europe and Central Asia has increased from 7% to 11% over several years. Therefore, in discussions about a child’s well-being today, we can no longer separate school from mobile phones and social networks. It is one living environment, not three unrelated worlds.
In Lithuania, there are already general recommendations regarding the use of mobile phones and other smart devices in schools, but specific rules are largely left to the educational institutions themselves. In my opinion, we should go further and clearly establish the main principles of mobile phone use for all general education schools, of course, allowing justified exceptions for education, health, or other necessary cases. This is not just about administrative uniformity. It is much easier for a child to accept a rule when not only their class or school follows it but also friends in other schools. Then, not using phones during lessons or the school day becomes a common norm, not a feeling that “only I am forbidden.” Other countries are already moving in a similar direction – for example, Denmark agreed in 2025 to ban mobile phones in public schools.
However, the phone is just a tool. More importantly, what happens on its screen. In Australia, from December 2025, certain social network platforms must take reasonable measures to prevent persons under 16 years old from having accounts; responsibility here is shifted not to the child or their parents but to the platforms. The Danish Government has proposed restricting access to some social networks for children under 15, allowing parents to permit use from age 13. I do not suggest blindly copying one country’s model because we must address complex issues of age verification, privacy, technological feasibility, and digital literacy. However, we can no longer avoid discussions about this in Lithuania. If the state protects children from alcohol, tobacco, nicotine, or gambling markets, we must at least ask what responsibility platforms whose business model is based on keeping our, including children’s, attention longer have.
In this context, it is important not to make another mistake – not to shift all responsibility to the family and the child themselves. Of course, the role of parents is huge, but the child cannot be the strongest link in a system where professionally developed algorithms, advertising, and billion-dollar business interests compete for their attention. The same applies to schools: bans alone will not teach a child to live in the digital world, so we must also develop digital literacy, the ability to critically evaluate information, recognize manipulation, and consciously manage their attention.
This brings us back to the fundamental question – what are we preparing the child for. The certificate grade is important and should not be underestimated, but life will also ask for what is not found in the certificate: whether a young person can critically evaluate information, collaborate, make decisions when there is no single correct answer, respond to failure, learn new things, and adapt to a changing world. Whether they understand their body and mental health, recognize risks, and know when to seek help. In the era of artificial intelligence and rapid technological changes, these skills will only become more important. We can prepare a child well to pass today’s exam, but that does not mean we have prepared them for life in 2040 or 2050.
We can prepare a child well to pass today’s exam, but that does not mean we have prepared them for life in 2040 or 2050.
Read more France: drought and heat waves will have a limited impact on the economy
Therefore, I do not think we should oppose the discussion as “high demands or children’s well-being.” That is a false choice. A good school needs both: high academic expectations and an environment where a child can strive for them without losing health. An extra hour with a textbook does not automatically become an extra hour of knowledge if the child is sleep-deprived, cannot concentrate, and has no time for physical activity or recovery.
Therefore, with the change in learning load regulation, I would suggest not abandoning health criteria but modernizing them. We should regularly assess not only the number of lessons but also how much students of different ages sleep, move, how much time they spend on homework and screens, what school pressure they feel, how they evaluate their psychological well-being, safety, and relationship with school. We should agree on a few clear child health and well-being indicators to be jointly monitored by the education and health systems. If we change the exam system, homework rules, learning load, or mobile phone use, after a few years, we should be able to answer not only how grades have changed but also whether children sleep better, move more, feel better at school, experience less bullying, and less constant pressure.
We should also better integrate existing resources already in schools. A child’s physical and mental health should not be divided into separate offices: a public health specialist, psychologist, social pedagogue, class teacher, and teacher must work as one support system for the child. Similarly, clearer common principles for mobile device use in all schools and a serious national discussion about children’s access to social networks, age limits, and the responsibility of the platforms themselves are needed.
This is what the principle of “health in all policies” means to me. The Ministry of Health should not be making school schedules, but a child’s health cannot be only the concern of the Ministry of Health. Health policy begins long before a person first steps into a doctor’s office – in the family, kindergarten, school, sports field, cafeteria, and today inevitably in the digital environment. It is there that habits of sleep, movement, nutrition, stress management, addiction to substances and technologies are formed, which a person carries into adult life.
Therefore, when assessing the success of the education system, we should ask not only how many students passed exams and what average scores they achieved but also what physical, psychological, and social condition a young person leaves school with entering adult life. The certificate is important, but it is only one life document. School must prepare for life itself.
Main data sources:
World Health Organization European Regional Office and HBSC study – data on school pressure, teacher support, bullying, and problematic social network use.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), PISA 2022 – indicators of Lithuanian fifteen-year-olds’ well-being and school belonging.
ESPAD 2024 – data on 15–16-year-old students’ use of tranquilizers and other drugs for non-medical purposes.
Ministry of Education, Science and Sports and Ministry of Health documents – regulation of learning load, safe learning conditions, and mobile device use in schools.
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner – information on restricting access to social networks for persons under 16.
Danish Government documents – proposals on mobile phones in schools and restricting children’s access to social networks.
Read more Asta Meschino revealed how she takes care of her health: «I ask myself this question every day»
