Schools urged to tighten smartphone rules as classroom distraction harms wider learning

A new policy brief says recreational device use is linked to poorer performance for pupils and their classmates, while warning that schools should act before research on the best restrictions is complete.

A new policy brief argues that non-academic smartphone use in school is not a harmless distraction but a measurable barrier to learning, and it says education leaders should strengthen restrictions even as research continues to evolve. The review, by Mitch Prinstein and Corbin Evans, examines evidence on students’ use of social media and entertainment platforms during the school day on personal devices, as well as on school-issued laptops and tablets. It concludes that classroom screen use is linked with weaker academic performance for the student using the device and for nearby classmates, creating what the authors describe as a wider classroom effect. According to the brief, the policy shift has been swift: as recently as 2018, most rules were left to individual teachers, but by late 2025, 35 states and the District of Columbia had adopted some form of school phone policy, with 22 states moving in 2025 alone.

The brief says the evidence base is strongest on classroom behaviour and academic outcomes, where non-academic device use is associated with lower performance, distraction and reduced attention. It also points to research suggesting that adolescents’ still-developing impulse control and heightened sensitivity to peers may make it harder for them to put phones aside on their own. Beyond grades, the authors cite preliminary links to disrupted sleep and to differences in brain structure and function, although they caution that those findings need replication and longer-term study. The American Psychological Association has separately noted that screen time can displace homework and studying, and that multitasking with media while doing schoolwork is associated with distraction and lower grades.

Evidence on bans and limits is still early, but the brief says the direction of travel is encouraging. It finds that smartphone restrictions have produced small but meaningful academic gains in some schools, often appearing one to two years after rules take effect, with the biggest improvements seen in schools that had previously been the least restrictive. The downside, at least in the short term, is a rise in disciplinary incidents while schools and families adapt to enforcement. What remains unclear is which policy design works best. The brief says there is not yet enough evidence to compare bell-to-bell restrictions with rules that apply only during teaching time, or to judge the merits of different storage systems and device-wide bans. It also says no published study has yet assessed a personal-device restriction alongside systematic limits on non-academic use of school-issued devices.

The wider research record is broadly consistent with the brief’s warning that recreational screen use can carry academic and mental health costs. The US Surgeon General has said higher levels of recreational screen time are associated with poorer academic performance, while other recent research links excessive screen exposure with weaker focus, memory and sleep. Even so, the authors of the policy brief argue that waiting for perfect evidence would leave schools exposed to a problem that is already visible in classrooms. Their recommendation is straightforward: state lawmakers, education agencies and district leaders should act now on the best available evidence, while continuing to evaluate which rules are most effective and least disruptive.