10 Policy Recommendations To Address Cellphone Use in Schools

Cellphones, particularly smartphones, have become ubiquitous among teens and tweens since the first iPhone was introduced in 2007.¹ Today, nearly 95 percent of teens ages 13 to 17 have access to a smartphone, up from 73 percent 10 years ago.² These devices are also growing in popularity among elementary-age students, with 43 percent of tweens ages 8 to 12 owning their own mobile device.³ While smartphones can help children stay connected with family and friends, expand their knowledge of various topics, and sharpen academic skills through educational apps, these devices are increasingly distracting students, who are on their phones during the school day as opposed to engaging in instruction. Concerns from district leaders and calls from teachers unions and state lawmakers to ban smartphones and mobile devices in K-12 settings are igniting a national debate on cellphone-free schools.⁴

State and district policies regulating cellphone use in K-12 schools have surged over the past two years.⁵ These policies can look very different in practice but generally range from cellphone-free schools,⁶ where phones are stored away for the entire school day and sometimes not allowed on school property at all,⁷ to limited-use policies that prohibit the use and sometimes possession of cellphones during instructional time.⁸ Limited-use policies provide students more flexible access between classes and during free periods such as lunch and recess.⁹

Studies have found that excessive cellphone use in children negatively affects academic performance,¹⁰ long-term learning retention,¹¹ and mental health.¹² Yet teens report checking their smartphones more than 100 times per day, with 97 percent reporting use during school hours,¹³ which suggests that most parents are not using parental control features to limit their children’s cellphone use during the school day.¹⁴ In fact, more than half of parents support their children being able to use cellphones at school during noninstructional periods and for educational purposes permitted by their teacher.¹⁵ However, more students are using their smartphones more frequently during school hours and mostly for social media (32 percent), YouTube (26 percent), and gaming (17 percent).¹⁶

Since social media platforms are built to maximize user engagement by studying users’ data and behaviors to serve more targeted content, students are likely to spend more time on their devices using social media platforms.¹⁷ The excessive use of these platforms leads to poor sleep quality and negative self-body image, as well as eating disorders, which are more prevalent in girls.¹⁸ Due to the harm social media platforms cause children,¹⁹ Australia has passed legislation banning social media use for anyone under age 16, the first country in the world to do so.²⁰

In the United States, former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory about the impact of social media use on children and adolescents and, in 2024, called on Congress to require that warning labels be added to social media apps, noting that the harms far outweigh the benefits when appropriate guardrails are not in place.²¹

This report reviews the current state of cellphone use in schools and offers recommendations for federal and state policymakers to better support students’ academic performance and mental well-being.

Over the past two years, 17 states plus Washington, D.C., have banned the use of cellphones and other mobile devices in schools for all grades,15 states have implemented policies that limit use, and four states have implemented policies requiring districts to adopt their own rules on cellphone use but do not explicitly require the rules to limit or ban use. Eight states have taken a different route: They have not implemented a mandatory policy but instead are allowing districts to make the decision on their own while providing agency guidance, grant programs, or resolutions to encourage school systems to take action. Just six states have yet to take official action regarding cellphone use in schools.²²

At the individual school level, 77 percent of public schools have policies that ban cellphone use in the classroom.²³ While policies range in their implementation and enforcement plans, many states and districts provide exceptions to their policies if a teacher gives permission to use devices for educational purposes, if device use is required to manage health needs or permitted in a student’s individualized education program or 504 plan, or in the case of an emergency.²⁴

In 2025, Florida passed legislation expanding a statewide cellphone policy that school boards must adopt.²⁵ The policy requires districts to prohibit cellphone use during the entire school day for elementary and middle school students and during instructional time for high school students.²⁶ The legislation provides some details on the roles and responsibilities of enforcing this policy, including requiring high school educators to designate an area for devices to be stored during instructional time and mandating that school boards designate locations in school buildings where devices can be used with a school administrator’s permission.²⁷ In Ohio, the new state budget includes a requirement for district boards to adopt their own policies that prohibit device use during the entire school day for all grades.²⁸ The legislation requires that districts make their policies publicly available but mostly leaves it up to district boards to determine the details of their policies and how they will be implemented and enforced.²⁹

Arizona has taken a limited-use approach when it comes to cellphone policies. The state passed legislation last year that requires district boards to enforce policies that govern student access to the internet and limit the use of cellphones during the school day.³⁰ The legislation also requires district boards to create procedures for parents and students to contact each other during the day and mandates that each school provide a copy of the policy to parents, teachers, and students at the start of the school year.³¹ Connecticut has taken a different approach: Its guidelines were developed by its State Board of Education and are voluntary rather than mandated through legislation.³² The guidelines recommend developing age-appropriate restrictions on device use by removing devices from elementary and middle school classrooms and requiring devices to be powered off during instruction in high schools.³³ The guidance goes a step further, though, by listing roles and responsibilities that local boards of education, school leaders, educators, families, students, and others should have in the implementation and enforcement of cellphone policies.³⁴ These responsibilities include embedding an intentional digital educational strategy to give students the skills and knowledge necessary to practice safe online engagement³⁵—providing them with the skills necessary to navigate device usage outside of school and in their postsecondary endeavors.

Limited-use policies often allow students, particularly high school students, to use their devices between classes and during lunch periods. Yet this access opens opportunities for students to engage in negative online behavior during these times instead of socializing in person with their peers.³⁶ Limited-use policies may also allow students to keep their device throughout the day, which can be a distraction for students and may create enforcement challenges for educators.³⁷

Efforts to regulate cellphones in schools expand beyond U.S. borders. Countries including France, Hungary, and the Netherlands have all passed laws restricting cellphone use in schools, with some positive effects on mental health and academic performance.³⁸ In a recent study, Dutch educators reported that cellphone bans during instructional time have improved students’ concentration (75 percent) and the learning environment (59 percent) in secondary schools.³⁹

However, in England, where there are a mix of schools with cellphone ban policies and others with limited-use policies, a study found no significant difference in overall mental well-being between students in schools with cellphone bans and students in schools with limited-use policies.⁴⁰ Although the study did find that increased cellphone and social media use is associated with decreases in mental well-being, there were no significant differences in anxiety, depression, and problematic social media use between the two groups.⁴¹ Students in schools with cellphone ban policies spent less time on their phones and social media during the school day, but their reduced phone use did not carry over outside of school.⁴²

In a Norwegian quasi-experimental study, researchers found a decline in bullying incidents after cellphone bans were implemented in middle schools and stronger effects of cellphone bans on middle school girls than boys, including increased academic performance for girls, with larger effects for girls from low socioeconomic backgrounds.⁴³

While most U.S. states have recently introduced legislation to ban or limit cellphone use in schools, there have been notable challenges with implementation and enforcement of these policies.⁴⁴ For example, New York City first introduced a cellphone ban in 2005, but it was lifted in 2015 due to inconsistent enforcement, student searches that posed equity concerns, and pushback from parents who wanted to have the option to contact their children directly during the school day.⁴⁵ Despite ongoing opposition from parents around cellphone bans, particularly in the wake of school shootings,⁴⁶ New York state has enacted a new policy banning the use of cellphones and other mobile electronic devices in schools.⁴⁷ Other states have done the same given the enormous distraction and catastrophic effects that mobile devices pose to student learning and engagement.

Emerging results from statewide bans show some promising signs. A recent study examining the effects of Florida’s statewide cellphone policy on student outcomes found significant improvements in student test scores during the second year of implementation.⁴⁸ Overall average test scores increased by 0.6 percentiles, with larger effects on male students and secondary students.⁴⁹ Students also had fewer unexcused absences, contributing to test score gains.⁵⁰ The findings of this study suggest that districts should prepare for initial challenges when implementing cellphone ban policies, including discipline infractions associated with enforcement.⁵¹ However, these challenges dissipated after students and schools adjusted to the policy requirements.⁵²

Federal and state officials developing student-centered cellphone ban policies can draw on successful international examples and lessons learned from implementation and enforcement challenges in the United States.

1. Establish federal regulations for cellphone bans in schools. Although the U.S. Department of Education issued guidance in 2024 recommending states develop their own cellphone policy and offering principles for policy development,⁵³ the current administration must build on this effort by requiring school districts to develop their own cellphone ban policies given the negative impacts of mobile devices on students’ academic performance and well-being. These regulations should offer a framework and establish a policy baseline for states while providing flexibilities for special considerations, including how states and districts ensure equity in ban enforcement and exemptions for students with unique needs and circumstances.
2. Establish a national grant program. Given the limited finances and staffing that states and districts have to execute a cellphone ban policy successfully, the Department of Education should establish a discretionary grant program that would help states support the design, implementation, and evaluation of their policies. Funds would also cover the costs of mobile device storage solutions such as locked phone pouches for students, an accessory that’s commonly used in phone-free spaces.⁵⁴ Alongside this, given the dearth of current U.S. studies,⁵⁵ the Department of Education should conduct national research on the effectiveness of cellphone policies to best inform state and local leaders in their policy design and implementation. Policymakers can look to the Focus on Learning Act, a bipartisan bill that was first introduced in the 118th Congress to create a similar grant program and study that would support schools in creating phone-free school environments.⁵⁶
3. Create a national education trust fund for digital citizenship. Fines paid by technology and social media companies for privacy violations or other infractions against children and youth using their platforms and services⁵⁷ should be directed to a national education trust fund to be distributed to state and local education agencies for the use of public education, including to expand access to digital literacy skills in schools.
4. Require social media warnings. Congress should enact legislation to advance the recommendation of the former U.S. surgeon general to require social media companies to place mental health warning labels on their platforms.⁵⁸ These labels would increase students’ and parents’ awareness of the risks associated with excessive use of these apps. California and Minnesota have taken action on their own to require these labels; in 2025, both passed legislation to do so.⁵⁹ However, such efforts have faced legal challenges on constitutional grounds. The trade association NetChoice has sued Colorado over the state’s social medial warning label law, H.B. 24-1136, arguing that requiring platforms to display state-approved warnings constitutes unconstitutional compelled speech under the First Amendment.⁶⁰ As noted above, U.S. teens commonly use social media during school hours and also on weekday nights, leading to a host of behavioral health challenges that negatively affect learning.⁶¹ Social media warning labels in isolation are unlikely to change youth behavior when it comes to the use of these platforms. However, warning labels could potentially lead to behavioral change if they are accompanied by interventions that educate youth and parents about the harmful effects of social media platforms when used excessively and inappropriately.
5. Increase the minimum age for personal data collection. Under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), operators of websites or online services must obtain verifiable consent from a parent or legal guardian before collecting personal data from children under age 13.⁶² In practice, however, this safeguard is limited, as most social media platforms avoid these requirements by simply setting their minimum user age at 13 and often relying on self-reported birthdates, which users are not required to verify to create a profile.⁶³ Once a user turns 13, companies can legally begin tracking the user’s online activity, building data profiles, and targeting them with ads, although some state laws place limits on certain practices.⁶⁴ Congress must increase the minimum age requirement for personal data collection, including on social media, to close this loophole and delay the point at which companies can begin tracking children’s online activity and monetizing it through targeted and third-party marketing.⁶⁵

Raising the minimum age for personal data collection would not necessarily prevent minors from accessing social media, but it would extend privacy protections to a broader group of young users, including teenagers who are more active on social media and in need of these safeguards.⁶⁶ This change would reduce the ability of platforms to monetize children and teens through behavioral profiling and ad targeting while giving families more control over how their teens’ data are collected, shared, and retained. Sen. Ed Markey’s (D-MA) Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act (known as COPPA 2.0), reintroduced in the Senate in 2025, would expand COPPA protections to users under age 17, prohibit targeted advertising to children and teens, and create an “eraser button” for parents to delete personal data collected from children and teens.⁶⁷ In the House of Representatives, a similar Children and Teens’ Online Privacy Protection Act⁶⁸ was also introduced in 2025 and received an initial subcommittee markup.⁶⁹ While both bills aim to strengthen online privacy protections for teens, they differ in key respects. The House version includes a knowledge standard that largely retains the “actual knowledge” threshold for most operators, meaning they would only be liable if they affirmatively know a user is under age 17. In contrast, “high impact social media companies” would be subject to an actual knowledge or willful disregard standard, which would hold platforms liable not only when they have direct knowledge of a user under age 17 but also when they consciously ignore clear indicators of a user’s age. The House bill also includes broader federal preemption language that could affect many existing state privacy and online safety laws. Additionally, the House text adopts expanded definitions of personal information—specifically, biometric identifiers—and explicitly includes different provisions on consent and data minimization.

By limiting commercial surveillance, this change would reduce young users’ exposure to ads and content that exploit insecurities, impulsivity, and social pressures.⁷⁰

Children do not typically begin to develop the cognitive capacity for abstract thinking and reasoning until at least age 12, and for many children this could be later.⁷¹ This means that some 13-year-olds lack the ability to fully engage in online networking safely and may not know how to respond effectively to cyberbullying, misinformation, and harassment on social media sites. Other countries have relied on cognitive development research to establish age requirements above 13. Germany, for example, requires parental permission for personal data collection for users ages 13 to 16.⁷² Some states have also recently passed legislation aimed at strengthening online protections for minors by restricting their access. In 2024, Utah passed the Minor Protection in Social Media Act, which restricts access to social media sites for minors; however, the law has been blocked by the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah and is now before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.⁷³ In 2025, Texas and Utah passed app store accountability acts⁷⁴ that will require app stores to link accounts for users under age 18 to a parent’s account and require parental permission before apps can be downloaded or purchased or before any in-app purchases can be made.⁷⁵ Enforcement of Texas’ act, however, is on pause as it faces ongoing litigation.⁷⁶ California has also passed legislation creating age restriction requirements, but its policy differs in that it relies on mobile device operating systems to collect self-reported age information rather than requiring app stores to conduct formal age verification, which has helped with buy-in from major tech companies.⁷⁷

1. Establish phone-free school policies. State legislators should adopt phone-free school policies that include a ban on smartphones, smartwatches, and other mobile devices that are used for communications, social media, internet, images, and recording. These devices should not be used during the school day and must be kept out of reach unless authorized by a teacher or an administrator. How devices are stored will vary on a case-by-case basis, depending on what aligns with district needs and capabilities. This policy must also extend to educators to ensure that they are modeling policy expectations, a key component of Hungary’s policy.⁷⁸ Teachers should not be allowed to use their mobile devices during instruction or when supervising students, unless for educational, administrative, or safety reasons. Policies should clearly define expectations and enforcement methods, as well as emergency communication protocols so that parents, educators, and students understand how communication will occur during emergencies.
2. Embed digital citizenship in curricula. Rather than shy away from technology use, schools must provide students with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in the digital age. Local school boards should require and ensure the delivery of digital citizenship curricula in schools, starting in the elementary grades, to teach students the safe and responsible use of cellphones and other technology.⁷⁹ Digital citizenship focuses on both digital safety and media literacy, equipping students with skills to safely access, analyze, and evaluate digital content. Districts can also leverage resources such as PBS LearningMedia, a critical resource that has lost federal funding but, for now, continues to offer developmentally appropriate lessons on digital citizenship and technological literacy.⁸⁰
3. Expand experiential learning opportunities. As technology continues to evolve, schools should seize opportunities to expand experiential learning that focuses on future-ready technology and engineering skills in K-12 schools. Balancing prohibiting cellphone use to reduce distractions and educating students on the ways cellphones and other technologies can be leveraged as learning tools is critical to preparing students for postsecondary options. School districts should explore courses, partnerships, and programs that teach students skills such as coding, computer science, artificial intelligence, and mobile app development using simulators, computers, or school-issued devices in ways that do not violate cellphone policies.⁸¹ These opportunities will provide students with knowledge of emerging technological skills that will enable them to enter the competitive workforce immediately after high school.
4. Provide family training. In order to support behavioral change when it comes to students’ use of cellphones and social media, districts must prioritize educating parents and caregivers about the harms of excessive cellphone use and provide strategies to limit the time students spend on these devices. These trainings can be conducted through district online modules or held in partnership with local PTAs and other parent organizations.⁸²
5. Implement a digital advertising tax. State lawmakers should enact legislation requiring a digital advertising tax that would generate revenue from technology companies that advertise to children and use some of those funds to increase public education funding.⁸³ Currently, the state of Maryland is the only state that has passed a digital advertising tax on social media and other technology companies.⁸⁴ The tax revenues have been earmarked to support the state’s K-12 public education through the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future,⁸⁵ although the tax measure has been subject to ongoing litigation.⁸⁶

Since the rise of cellphones, children have become more exposed to nonacademic online content, some harmful and inappropriate. Parents and children alike anticipate the releases of new devices, but failure to establish restrictions that prevent the use of these devices in schools hurts students’ focus and cognitive performance.⁸⁷ While access to smartphones and social media can reduce feelings of isolation and promote social connection for some children, the risks of cellphone use in schools are greater than the benefits.⁸⁸ Excessive use of cellphones and mobile devices is damaging youth mental and physical health and disrupting learning.⁸⁹ There’s also convincing evidence that cellphone bans can increase standardized test scores and academic achievement,⁹⁰ but more large-scale research, which is currently limited, is needed to better understand what policies are most effective as states navigate this new terrain. In the meantime, policymakers should heed the recommendations of educators and health experts by banning cellphone and mobile device use in schools to protect children’s well-being and help reverse the decline in academic achievement across the nation.⁹¹

The authors would like to thank Adam Conner, Nicole Alvarez, Megan Shahi, Jared Bass, Sean Casey, Madeline Shepherd, and Alex Cogan of the Center for American Progress for their contributions to this report and Hailey Gibbs for her thorough fact-checking.