As more legislation sweeps the nation limiting children’s phone use in schools, a new report card shows not all laws are created equal.
The “Phone-Free Schools State Report Card,” released late last month, gave only two states “A” grades out of the 40 with phone-free legislation. North Dakota and Rhode Island both received high marks for their stringent laws, dictating that devices be stored in inaccessible spots during the entirety of the school day.
The report card was born after a massive uptick in the number of states tackling potential over-use of personal electronic devices in the classroom. It’s a collaboration between entities advocating for limiting children’s exposure to technology: the Institute for Families and Technology, Smartphone Free Childhood US, the Becca Schmill Foundation and The Anxious Generation, a new nonprofit that emerged out of the best-selling book of the same name.
“There’s been so much movement, which has been very encouraging, however not all laws are created equal,” says Kim Whitman, lead researcher on the report card and co-lead for Smartphone Free Childhood US.
Some states initially adapted more lax laws, namely banning devices during instructional time, but allowing access during lunch or passing periods. The early adopters, including Florida, Louisiana and Indiana, widened the scope to become bell-to-bell banners in recent years, with 17 states adapting bell-to-bell policies straight away, according to Whitman.
From the perspective of the report card authors, the more comprehensive the ban, particularly when it comes to keeping phones inaccessible, the better. In the latest report, a majority of states (17, plus the District of Columbia) received a “B” rating for their “bell-to-bell” mandate, which requires devices to be put away during instructional time, but lost points for keeping phones accessible.
“We know phones are addictive and it’s hard for adults, let alone kids, to resist the ping in their pocket,” Whitman says, pointing toward research that teacher retention goes up when phones are in inaccessible places, since teachers do not have to police students’ usage.
Source: Phone-Free Schools State Report Card, compiled by the Institute for Families and Technology, Smartphone Free Childhood US, the Becca Schmill Foundation and The Anxious Generation
Students themselves support more of a ban in classrooms only (with 41 percent in favor) and are less in favor of an all-day ban (with only 17 percent in favor), according to new data from the Pew Research Center.
Eight states were not judged in the report because they are crafting current legislation. Only two states — South Dakota and Montana — received zero points for not having any legislation, with four states (Wyoming, Mississippi, Connecticut and Maryland) receiving an “F” on the report card after proposed legislation failed to pass.
Safety is the largest argument that opponents to bans make against keeping phones inaccessible, with parents voicing concerns about contacting their child during an emergency, such as a school shooting. Whitman pointed toward research from the National Association of School Resource Officers that states it is actually less safe for students to use cellphones in that scenario, as a phone chirping may alert a shooter to their location; distract students from listening to teachers during an emergency; or cause parents to flock to the school, impeding law enforcement.
“During school emergencies, worried parents understandably want desperately to contact their children and be reassured that the children are safe,” the National Association of School Resource Officers said in a statement. “The risks posed by phone access during school emergencies are even greater, however, than during normal times.”
There are laws that carve out exceptions for students with 504 plans and IEPs, which the report card does not fault, though Whitman says it becomes a slippery slope when the legislation begins to make exceptions for things like “educational purposes,” such as studying social media.
“If all teachers can decide when kids can use their phones for educational purposes, it erodes the policy,” she says.
Brian Jacob, the co-director of University of Michigan’s Youth Policy Lab, previously voiced concerns to EdSurge about legislation placing the onus on teachers.
“I fear a lot of schools will ban them but say ‘Kids have to keep them in their pockets and teachers have to police that,’ and that approach will be really tough to implement in any way,” he says, adding it is best to mandate keeping them in lockers or a centralized location.
As the organizations continue to advocate for phone-free schools, Whitman says there is also a focus on expanding that reach to school-issued technology in general. The Distraction-Free Schools Policy Project is working on introducing “Safe School Technology” legislation, which pushes for eliminating all screen technology in elementary schools, prohibiting sixth through eighth graders from taking their school-issued devices home with them and prohibiting technology that uses generative artificial intelligence across all grade levels.
“A lot of the issues with personal devices can move to the district-issued devices,” Whitman says, explaining if students do not have cellphones, they can still chat on their MacBooks, or through Google Docs. “There are definitely issues with school-issued devices as well. But removing phones is the first step.”
