February 18, 2025 | By Matthew Cavanaugh
Are Phone Bans a Band-Aid?
About the Author
Matthew Cavanaugh is the Director of Product at KindEd, where he leads the development of social media literacy curricula. His passion for education, policy, and academic research led him to the University of Chicago, where he earned his Master’s in Public Policy while teaching math part-time. Prior to that, he studied Economics, Applied Mathematics, and Asian Pacific Studies at Loyola Marymount University. When not writing curriculum, you can find Matthew projecting films at a local theater, playing guitar, or twanging away at a jaw harp.
Contributors: Benjamin Chaplin & Joe Hageman
In June of 2024, United States Surgeon General Vivek Murthy wrote an op-ed for the New York Times in which he called for a “surgeon general’s warning label on social media platforms,” stating that “social media is associated with significant mental health harms for adolescents.” He also explicitly stated that schools should be phone-free environments. The drastic warning brought even more attention to this ongoing issue in the education world and helped spark a new wave of schools banning cell phones. This phenomenon of phone bans warrants a closer look at what phone bans actually look like, the broader implications of cell phones in schools, and any alternative ways of addressing the negative mental health impacts on adolescents.
Phone bans began for very different reasons
US school districts have experimented with cell phone bans for over 30 years. In 1989, Maryland lawmakers made it illegal for students to bring cell phones to school, aiming to prevent drug sales at school. As cell phones became more common in the 1990s, schools shifted their focus to minimizing classroom distractions.
However, in response to national emergencies such as the Columbine High School massacre and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, schools eased up on cell phone bans amid safety concerns and for parental peace of mind, allowing students to contact their parents during emergencies.
By the 2010s, the rise of social media and gaming apps led schools to crack down on phone use again. Studies linking compulsive social media use and cyberbullying to negative student outcomes prompted bans to increase. With research showing that cell phones harm academic performance, 76% of U.S. schools had bans in place by 2020. In 2023, dozens of researchers and children’s advocates sent a letter to Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona to issue an advisory urging schools nationwide to ban cell phones.
Turning phone policies into practice is easier said than done
As of February 2025, nine states (Arkansas, California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, South Carolina, and Virginia) have enacted bans or restrictions on smartphone use in schools. However, these policies vary by state. Florida requires all public schools to ban cell phone use during class and block social media access on district Wi-Fi. In contrast, California requires school districts to create their own cell phone policies by July 2026.
Many school districts are hesitant to confiscate any students’ phones due to liability concerns. Some school districts purchase magnetic phone pouches (e.g., Yondr pouches) or “phone lockers” to secure students’ phones during the school day. However, these options are costly (e.g., Yondr pouches cost $25 to $30 per student) and not a viable option for many schools. Other schools use phone caddies—which are cheaper than magnetic pouches but still give teachers more control in their classrooms—while others limit access by having each teacher set their own classroom phone policies. However, the majority of educators are against leaving phone policies up to individual teachers. With almost all of these approaches, teachers end up bearing the responsibility of enforcing the bans, adding to their workload.
Debates continue over whether schools should ban phones only during classes or for the entire school day. While most Americans support banning phones during class, fewer believe they should be restricted all day. Regardless of how these phone bans are implemented, students often find ways to resist these bans and get around them, sometimes even going so far as to give teachers a secondary phone that they don’t actually use while keeping their actual phone with them. Until students see the necessity of banning cell phones, they will continue to find ways to access them in class.
Phone bans are paying off in the classroom
The main arguments for banning phones centers on three key points: their negative impact on students’ academic performance, cognitive development, and social skills.
Numerous studies show students retain more information when they do not have cell phones or other electronic devices in school. When students split their attention between classroom instruction and the irresistible pull of screens and notifications, their academic performance suffers. While students may think they can multitask, the same studies show that long-term retention declines dramatically when they use phones in class. One study found a marked improvement in student performance after schools implemented phone bans, providing strong evidence for their academic benefits.
Cell phones are a major distraction. Simply having a phone nearby reduces cognitive capacity, as the constant temptation to check it diverts attention from fully experiencing the present moment. This fact poses a significant threat to the healthy development of children’s cognitive abilities. In another study, one of the primary detrimental effects of habitual smartphone use is “on the ability to exert prolonged cognitive effort in tasks that do not involve smartphones.” The continual interruptions not only hinder learning and focus but also make it harder for students to develop deep thinking skills, ultimately impacting their academic performance and overall cognitive development.
Phones also diminish both the quantity and quality of social interactions and skills. Ubiquitous phone use allows students to avoid interacting or making small talk with peers, depriving them of this essential social practice. The mere presence of smartphones in a social setting can reduce engagement and enjoyment. Removing phones from a summer camp setting significantly improved students’ social skills, while phone restrictions in schools have led to a noticeable decline in bullying incidents among teens.
A weak case for allowing phone use in schools
The most common argument for allowing phones in schools is that parents should be able to contact their children at all times, especially in cases of emergency. Beyond emergencies, phones serve practical purposes, such as coordinating transportation with friends and family after school. That said, this argument assumes that constant contact is necessary during school hours. Schools already have communication systems and extensive safety protocols in place, and in some cases, phones can introduce additional risks during emergencies, such as revealing students’ locations in an active shooter situation.
Some educators believe cell phones can serve as valuable teaching tools. Instant access to information allows students to let their curiosity and research interests flourish. Phones can also serve an indirect educational role by allowing students to practice self-restraint. If students learn to manage having a phone without using it as a distraction, they may realize its potential as a tool for learning and productivity. But in reality, the widespread adoption of 1-to-1 technology in schools since the COVID pandemic has made phones unnecessary, as laptops and tablets are readily available to students.
If the primary concern with phones in schools is their role in cyberbullying and other negative online behaviors, removing them will not resolve the underlying causes of these issues. Similarly, the issue of phones being distracting will not be solved by completely cutting them out cold turkey. Instead of an all-or-nothing approach, schools should teach students how to manage phones responsibly, build self-regulation, and develop healthy digital habits. Practicing appropriate phone use in a structured environment better prepares them for career readiness, where managing distractions and using technology appropriately are life skills.
Lastly, some argue that phone bans exacerbate inequality. Phones are more accessible than laptops or other devices, allowing low-income students to access digital assignments more easily. If schools ban phones, students who rely on them for access may be shut out of learning and unable to participate in class. At the same time, research in 2023 found that children from low-income backgrounds spent more time on screens. Studies continue to link high screen time to poorer mental health, particularly in lower-income households, suggesting that limiting phone use during school hours is unlikely to hinder learning and may actually benefit students who already spend excessive time on screens.
Advocates and critics of phone bans aren’t so divided
Teachers and school administrators are generally consistent in their opposition to phones in schools. Teachers have expressed alarm over how phones have changed school social culture, citing them as distractions that contribute to mental health issues. A reported 83% of educators support banning phones for the entire school day.
Student opinions on phone bans are mixed. Many enjoy using their phones to listen to music or contact their friends and family while also recognizing the need for some regulation or ban. As students progress from elementary to middle to high school, opposition to phone bans increases.
Parents are the most divided of the major stakeholders. The majority of parents (56%) believe students should sometimes be allowed to use their phones in school, during lunch, recess, athletic events, or in class for teacher-approved academic purposes.
Unlike many national issues, banning phones in schools is not a partisan one. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents generally favor some form of a cell phone ban.
Banning phones was the 'easy' part
One reason schools enact cell phone bans is that they do not know how else to effectively address the issue. In Jonathan Haidt’s case for phone-free schools, he suggests educational programs as a solution. Schools can implement programs to teach students responsible smartphone usage, digital etiquette, online safety, and social media literacy. Some schools have also incorporated mindfulness and digital detox programs into their curriculum.
Restricting phone use in school is a step in the right direction, but it will not solve all the problems that phones and social media create for students. Banning cell phones during the school day only tackles a fraction of the challenges they present in academic environments. Problems that start online outside of school often find their way into classrooms the next day.
Phone bans should be accompanied by social media literacy or digital literacy education to better educate students on how to use devices in ways that develop healthy habits, strengthen relationships, and support personal growth, contributing to long-term success beyond the classroom. If parents and educators want students to thrive in the digital age, they must focus just as much on education as on restriction.