Have you ever tried to talk to someone who wasn’t concentrating on what you were saying because they had a phone in their hand? It’s a frustrating experience, to say the least.
Daily, teachers face classrooms full of students who are seemingly permanently distracted by the exotic, delightful devices in the palm of their hand. In fact, one study found that students can spend up to a quarter of the school day on their phone. But do teachers find that a simple reminder to put the phones away is sufficient, or do they prefer other methods to keep their classroom smoothly running?
Early results from a new survey of over 20,000 public school educators suggest that stricter administrative phone policies are strongly related to higher teacher satisfaction and less in-class phone use.
The study was conducted by Phones in Focus, a nonpartisan research initiative supported by the National Governors Association (NGA). Angela Duckworth, the Rosa Lee and Egbert Chang Professor of psychology in Penn’s School of Arts & Sciences and the Wharton School, and a team of leading economists, led the survey. The initiative “aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for school phone policies that optimally support academic learning, healthy social relationships, and emotional well-being.”
These accomplished researchers found that teachers strongly favored stricter phone policies. Duckworth commented on her findings, saying that
So far two patterns stand out: The stricter the policy, the happier the teacher and the less likely students are to be using their phones when they aren’t supposed to. For example, ‘bell-to-bell’ (also called ‘away for the day’) policies are linked to more focused classrooms. We’re also finding that focus on academics is higher in schools that do not permit students to keep their phones nearby, including in their backpacks or back pockets. Our team looks forward to diving deeper and, in longitudinal analyses, establishing how changes in policies over time predict changes in outcomes like attendance and academic performance.
The study also found that the most effective policies carefully considered where students stash their devices. Students that were allowed to keep their phones on their person often found the temptation to check a notification irresistible. Students who kept phones in a locker, locked in a Yondr pouch, turned in to an administrator, or even at home didn’t contest the rules as often.
However, the survey results indicated that almost 1 in 2 phone policies were simple “no show” policies that told students to keep phones in their backpacks or pockets. These policies are largely ineffective, mostly because students do not yet have the cognitive ability to make accurate delineations between appropriate and inappropriate usage of their phone. Plus, teachers in large classrooms can’t keep their eye on every student and are often loath to involve administrators over minor infractions, meaning that sneaking a quick peek is easy to do without consequences. Duckworth called no show policies “psychologically foolish to do” because of their fundamental misunderstanding of how student behavior is affected by constant temptation.
One New Jersey middle school had a highly rated phone policy, putting it in the top 1 percent of schools nationwide in terms of teacher satisfaction. Duckworth visited the school to find out the secret. Their special sauce? A consistent, bell-to-bell requirement that phones are to remain in lockers, with a daily announcement creating a rhythm that reminds students to put their phones away. Duckworth praised the principal for her practicality, saying that
“She had the very good sense to realize that you cannot will yourself not to do something from first bell to last bell. You cannot solve the problem through individual will power.”
The study also found that bell-to-bell bans like the school in New Jersey are more common in elementary and middle schools than in high schools. Only 1 in 4 high schools hold bell-to-bell phone bans, with the remainder allowing phone use during lunch, passing periods, or during all times.
Even though the survey has already reached over 20,000 teachers (which is about half of Target Stadium’s capacity), the plans are that its influence will extend farther. Duckworth noted, “We are grateful to the thousands of educators who have participated so far, and we’re continuing to capture even more voices and experiences, with a goal to reach every public school in the country this year.”
Rising concern about cell phone usage has led many school districts to restrict or ban it. The by-design addictiveness of phones and social media inhibits focus and hamstrings classroom discipline. Australia enacted in 2023 a near-total ban on phones in schools, and the school system Down Under has benefited from lower levels of violence, behavioral issues, and issues involving social media. In America, 31 states and the District of Columbia require districts to either ban or restrict student’s cell phone usage.
Minnesota, so far, has only required that individual districts create a cell phone policy that works for their needs. A fully funded ban would need financial support from the legislature. Fully funded cell phone bans are significantly more desirable than unfunded restriction mandates because the funds are often used to purchase effective tools like the Yondr pouch, a magnetically sealed phone pouch that is locked and unlocked at the beginning and end of each school day.
A sealed phone or a phone placed in a locker might very well become a ubiquitous sign of academic excellence within the next half-decade. Teachers believe that strict phone policies have numerous positive effects on the classroom. Will Minnesota listen to their educators and fund their policies accordingly?