highbeamSubscribe

Policy brief 07 · Kids + Social Media

School Phone Bans

Let the school day belong to learning.

All policy briefs

In a 2023 survey, 72% of high school teachers called phone distraction a major classroom problem. At least 39 states now require schools to restrict phones, but the rules vary widely and the evidence on results is thin. Congress should fund storage and honest evaluation, keep social media off school networks, back states that put phones away bell to bell, and keep enforcement from pushing students out of school.

The Problem

In a fall 2023 Pew survey, 72% of U.S. high school teachers said students' phone distraction was a major problem in their classrooms, compared with 6% of elementary teachers.1 School leaders agree: in a December 2024 federal survey, 53% said phones hurt academic performance and 73% said they hurt attention spans.2

A classroom runs on shared attention, and a phone rule is a group norm that no family can set alone. If every classmate is reachable at lunch, the student without a phone is the one left out. A schoolwide rule lifts that pressure from everyone at once and spares teachers a daily negotiation: 60% of high school teachers whose schools have a phone policy say it is hard to enforce.1

Yet the rules are loosest where the problem is worst. In December 2024, 86% of public elementary schools barred phones from every class, against 55% of high schools.2 At least 39 states and the District of Columbia now require some restriction,3 but three gaps remain:

  1. Rules end at the classroom door. In December 2024, 77% of public schools barred phones in class, but only 30% also kept them away between classes, at lunch, and elsewhere on campus.2
  2. School devices stay open. Nearly nine in ten public schools give every student a laptop or tablet.2 Federal E-rate rules require participating schools to filter obscene images and to teach students about social networking sites, not to block them.4
  3. Evidence trails the rules. In a 2025 study of 1,227 students at 30 English secondary schools, those at schools that restricted phones had no better mental wellbeing than peers at schools that allowed them.5 In a large Florida district, a 2025 working paper found that a ban raised suspensions in its first year, especially among Black students, before modest test-score gains in the second.6

Why legislation: Schools already have the power to restrict phones. What they lack is a consistent floor, money for storage, and evidence on what works. Federal authority over school phone rules is limited,7 so the bell-to-bell rule belongs to the states; Washington can fund pilots, attach clear conditions to E-rate support as it did in 2000,4 and measure results. Bipartisan Senate bills already take the first two steps.8 Under its $17 billion settlement with 51 attorneys general, approved by a federal court in August 2026, Meta will block notifications to minors during the school day by default;9 a phone in a locker does that for every app. Children's attention during the school day belongs to learning and to the people in the room.

The Solution

A four-step staircase: each step stands alone, and each step up asks more of schools. Scope: public K–12 schools during the school day. Nothing here governs phone use at home, and rules for the platforms themselves are addressed separately.

Step 1 — Fund the lockers and the evidence. Authorize competitive grants for secure storage, staff training, and parent communication, tied to independent evaluation of learning, attendance, discipline, and after-school use. Publish every result, including the disappointing ones. The bipartisan Focus on Learning Act pairs pilot grants for lockers with a Surgeon General study.8

Step 2 — Take social media off school networks. Require E-rate schools to block social media on school networks and school-issued devices, with exceptions a teacher directs for instruction. Florida has blocked social media on district internet since 2023,10 and the Senate Commerce Committee has reported a federal version.11 A stored phone means little if the school laptop opens the same feed.

Step 3 — Put phones away, bell to bell. States set a floor: personal internet-enabled devices stay stored from first bell to last, including lunch and passing periods. Guarantee exceptions for IEPs, Section 504 plans, medical needs, translation, and emergencies, and give parents a dependable way to reach their child. New York's law does all of this;12 federal grants can reward states that follow.

Step 4 — Enforce without pushing students out. Start with redirection and a call home. Bar suspension solely for a device violation, as New York does, and require annual public reports on discipline by student group.12 Florida's first-year jump in suspensions shows why.6

Where to start: Step 1 is the floor; it asks only for money and measurement. Step 3 is the heart.

Administration and enforcement: State education agencies set minimum rules effective the next full school year after enactment. The Department of Education runs the grants, with independent evaluation coordinated with HHS; the FCC administers the E-rate condition. Schools that fall short get corrective plans, and students never bear the penalty.

Risks and Mitigations

  • Mental health: The English study found no wellbeing difference.5 Granted; that is why this case rests on attention and learning, and why Step 1 publishes results either way. The gains may prove modest.
  • Safety and disability access: Parents worry about reaching a child in an emergency. Write the exceptions and a staffed contact route into law, as New York does; some families will still object.
  • Unequal discipline: Florida's experience shows a ban can widen discipline gaps.6 Step 4's limits and public reports answer that, but enforcement still depends on each school.

Similar Bills

Fit measures similarity to this proposal's mechanisms: High = direct precedent; Partial = useful component with material differences; Related = adjacent approach.

Federal

Proposal or bill Relevant provisions and fit Fit
S. 404 — Focus on Learning Act
Cotton (R-AR), Britt (R-AL), Kaine (D-VA), Kelly (D-AZ)
Referred to committee · Feb. 5, 2025		 §3 directs a Surgeon General study of phones' effects on learning, mental health, and behavior; §4 funds pilot grants for lockers, with exemptions for health needs, disabilities, and English learners and an assured way for students to reach parents ($5 million, FY2025–2029). Direct precedent for Step 1; a pilot, not a rule. High
S. 278 — Kids Off Social Media Act, Title II (Eyes on the Board Act)
Schatz (D-HI), Cruz (R-TX) + 11 bipartisan original cosponsors
Reported to the Senate · June 30, 2025		 §202 requires E-rate schools to certify that they block student access to social media on supported networks and devices, with room for teachers' instructional use. Direct precedent for Step 2; does not address personal phones. High
Children's Internet Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. §254(h)(5)
Enacted 2000; amended 2008		 Conditions E-rate discounts on filtering obscene and harmful images and teaching students about social networking. The funding-condition architecture for Step 2; no social media block or phone rule. Related

State

Proposal or bill Relevant provisions and fit Fit
New York — Education Law §2803
Policies required by Aug. 1, 2025 · First enforcement reports due Sept. 1, 2026		 Bars internet-enabled devices for the whole school day, including lunch and passing time, with exceptions (including IEP and Section 504 plans), storage, and parent contact; bars suspension solely for device use; requires annual reports with demographic data on discipline. Closest model for Steps 3–4. High
California — AB 3216, Phone-Free Schools Act
Enacted Sept. 23, 2024 (Ch. 500) · Policies due July 1, 2026		 Requires every district, county office, and charter school to adopt a policy limiting or prohibiting smartphone use at school, with exceptions for emergencies, physician determinations, and IEPs. Precedent for Step 3; leaves the choice between limiting and prohibiting to each district. Partial
Florida — HB 379 (2023), Ch. 2023-36
Enacted 2023 · Effective July 1, 2023		 Requires districts to block social media on district internet except when a teacher directs its use for instruction, and bars phone use during instructional time. Precedent for Step 2 and a partial model for Step 3; later Florida amendments not reviewed. High

What this adds: New York supplies the model rule, Florida the network block, and the Focus on Learning Act the pilots. This proposal joins them: a federal network standard through the E-rate, grants that reward state bell-to-bell floors, protections against discipline gaps, and public results so the country learns what works.

Notes

  1. Pew Research Center, "72% of U.S. High School Teachers Say Cellphone Distraction Is a Major Problem in the Classroom," June 12, 2024. Survey of 2,531 U.S. public K–12 teachers, October 17–November 14, 2023; the 60% figure is among high school teachers whose schools or districts have a cellphone policy. ↩ ↩2

  2. National Center for Education Statistics, "More than Half of Public School Leaders Say Cell Phones Hurt Academic Performance," February 19, 2025. School Pulse Panel data from 1,490 public schools, collected December 6–20, 2024; the 88% figure is schools with 1-to-1 computing programs in 2024–25. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  3. Education Week, "Which States Ban or Restrict Cellphones in Schools?" updated July 28, 2026. ↩

  4. 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(5)(B) (Children's Internet Protection Act, Pub. L. 106-554 (2000), as amended): filtering of visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or harmful to minors (clause (i)), and education about "social networking websites" (clause (iii)). ↩ ↩2

  5. Victoria A. Goodyear et al., "School Phone Policies and Their Association with Mental Wellbeing, Phone Use, and Social Media Use (SMART Schools): A Cross-Sectional Observational Study," The Lancet Regional Health – Europe (2025). Students ages 12–15 at 20 restrictive and 10 permissive schools; restrictive schools cut phone and social media time during school hours but not overall. ↩ ↩2

  6. David N. Figlio and Umut Özek, "The Impact of Cellphone Bans in Schools on Student Outcomes: Evidence from Florida," NBER Working Paper 34388, October 2025. Not peer reviewed. One of the ten largest U.S. districts; test scores rose about 1 percentile in the ban's second year, and unexcused absences fell. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  7. Lauraine Langreo, "A Federal School Cellphone Policy? Big Barriers Stand in the Way," Education Week, April 21, 2026. ↩

  8. S. 404, Focus on Learning Act, 119th Cong. §§ 3–4 (introduced text); see also S. 278, Kids Off Social Media Act, 119th Cong. tit. II (reported text). ↩ ↩2

  9. California Attorney General, "Attorney General Bonta Secures Transformative $17 Billion Settlement with Meta," August 26, 2026; NPR reported that Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers (N.D. Cal.) approved it the same day. Terms include default notification blocks for users under 18 during the school day (8 a.m. to 3 p.m., August 15 to June 15) and overnight; payments of up to $17 billion over ten years. ↩

  10. Florida HB 379 (2023), enrolled text, amending Fla. Stat. § 1003.02(1)(g) (social media on district internet) and § 1006.07(2)(f) (instructional time); Ch. 2023-36, effective July 1, 2023. ↩

  11. S. 278, Kids Off Social Media Act, 119th Cong. § 202 (reported by the Senate Commerce Committee June 30, 2025, Report No. 119-33). ↩

  12. N.Y. Educ. Law § 2803: school-day prohibition, exceptions, storage, and parent contact; policies due August 1, 2025; no suspension solely for device use; annual enforcement reports with demographic data from September 1, 2026. ↩ ↩2