The same little choreography can be seen in practically every middle school hallway between bells. Heads inclined downward. The half-conscious, practiced movement of the thumbs. A child watching something flicker on a cracked screen while leaning against a locker with earbuds in. Instructors avoid them. They have consistently done so. However, more of those educators are now looking up and posing a question that would have sounded almost charming ten years ago: what would happen if we simply took away the phones?
It is no longer a hypothetical question. Approximately 77% of American schools had made the decision to forbid cellphone use for non-academic purposes by 2020, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. In 2018, France passed laws pertaining to children under the age of fifteen. China banned schoolchildren nationwide. This is an intriguing and somewhat unsettling moment because the policies came about more quickly than the evidence.
When you read the research rather than just skimming the headlines, you’ll see that it’s more cautious than the policy momentum implies. Teachers regularly report fewer behavioral incidents, less bullying, and classrooms that feel more like classrooms again, and studies do show quantifiable improvements in academic achievement when phones are prohibited. However, the evidence is actually conflicting when it comes to mental health. Improvements in well-being have been reported by some researchers. Almost nothing has been discovered by others. The truth might be somewhere in the middle, waiting to be discovered by more extensive research.
Speaking with educators, it is evident how worn out many of them sound. According to a nationwide survey conducted in the spring of 2024, over 90% of educators believe that student mental health is a significant problem in their classrooms, and a sizable majority identified social media and phones as contributing factors. That is a serious complaint. That was developed in the depths of fifth-period algebra and is more akin to a quiet professional consensus.
However, not everyone in education research or at Harvard is jumping on the bandwagon. Following the pandemic, students returned to school with phones incorporated into almost every social ritual they had left, according to Victor Pereira, a lecturer at the Graduate School of Education. Abruptly removing that isn’t a neutral act. Some educators believe that using technology to teach could benefit students more than fighting it. It’s still unclear if they’re correct. Whether courteously or not, many seasoned educators would likely disagree.
Subgenres of the policy debate have also emerged. The strictest type of bans, known as bell-to-bell bans, call for lockable pouches, signage, training, and an administrative backbone that isn’t always present. Bans during instructional times are more lenient and simpler to implement, but by November, enforcement usually wanes. According to a Pew Research Center survey, only 46% of parents support a complete bell-to-bell ban, while 74% support keeping phones off during class. It turns out that parents want to be able to text their children during lunch as well.
This has a cultural undertone that is difficult to overlook. The same parents who insist on concentration in the classroom are frequently the ones who look at their own screens while eating. Adults now attempt to impose the discipline they find difficult to maintain at home in schools. That is more of an observation than a critique. It is the contradiction that lies at the core of the entire discussion.
In the end, the research’s findings are less satisfying than either side would prefer. Bans are beneficial. Bans don’t work like magic. Ideology is not as important as implementation. As they observe everything from the other side of the desk, the students are developing their own opinions that will ultimately influence the next set of regulations. It’s another matter entirely whether anyone is paying attention.⁖※
