Concerns about non-academic screen use in schools are compounded by screens’ seeming ubiquity. Students use their personal smart devices (e.g., smartphones and smartwatches) along with now-common school-issued devices (e.g., laptops and tablets). Most recently, debates have led to restrictions on smartphones and other personal smart-device use, with dramatic changes to the policy landscape in a remarkably short period of time. As recently as 2018, smartphone restrictions in US schools were largely a matter of individual teacher discretion; by late 2025, 35 states and the District of Columbia had enacted laws or policies addressing student cell phone use in K-12 schools, with 22 of those passed during 2025 alone.

While a great deal of attention has focused on schools’ increasing use of ed tech, this brief takes on an equally important issue, reviewing what is known about the effects of non-academic screen use in schools and the emerging evidence on policies that restrict it. The brief draws upon the broader literature on non-academic screen use related to four areas: developmental neuroscience, adolescent mental health, classroom behavior, and academic performance. Also included is initial evidence from early evaluations of smartphone-restriction policies in the United States and abroad.

Several conclusions can be drawn with reasonable confidence. Adolescents spend substantial time in school on smartphones and other personal devices (perhaps as much as one-third of the school day), most often to access social media and entertainment platforms. Non-academic screen use on personal or school-issued devices during class is associated with lower academic performance not only for the student using the device but also for classmates seated nearby, a “secondhand” effect that carries classroom-level implications. Adolescents’ neurodevelopmental profile, marked by heightened social sensitivity paired with still-developing impulse control, likely makes it especially difficult for youth to disengage voluntarily. Moreover, meta-analyses concerning digital-detox studies suggests that even brief periods without social media are associated with reductions in depression, anxiety, and loneliness. Preliminary evidence also links heavy screen use with disrupted sleep and with differences in adolescent brain structure and function, though these findings require replication and long-term follow-up.

Evidence on the effects of smartphone restrictions themselves is more limited. Most policies have been enacted only within the last two to three years, few studies use rigorous designs, and no published study has evaluated a personal smart-device restriction while also systematically limiting access to non-academic content on school-issued devices. Available evidence nonetheless suggests small but meaningful improvements in academic performance following restrictions, often appearing one to two years after implementation, with effects concentrated in schools that, prior to reform, had policies that were least restrictive. Disciplinary incidents tend to spike in the short term as enforcement begins, then abate. Current evidence offers little insight into the comparative effectiveness of different policy designs: bell-to-bell versus instructional-time-only restrictions; storage in pouches versus classroom caddies versus student-carried but powered off; and phone-only versus all-smart-device bans. The effects of restrictions on students’ social and psychological functioning are also largely unstudied.

The evidence reviewed here establishes that non-academic phone use in school is associated with a range of academic, cognitive, and psychological impacts. Where the evidence of impact is substantial and the cost of inaction is borne by students, policymakers can reasonably act on the best available evidence while building the record needed to evaluate their choices. The recommendations below are offered in that spirit and can be taken individually, piecemeal, or collectively to improve outcomes. 

State Legislators:

• Specify what the restriction is intended to accomplish—protecting instructional time, reducing social conflict and disciplinary incidents, supporting student mental health, or some combination—and select a design suited to those aims. Restrictions limited to instructional time address learning-related harms; bell-to-bell restrictions target a broader set of social, emotional, and behavioral harms that extend beyond the classroom.
• Include clearly defined policy exceptions for documented medical needs, learning accommodations under an IEP or Section 504 plan, emergencies, and verified family-communication needs.
• Authorize and fund independent evaluation of the policy’s effects, and require that the evaluation address academic, psychological, social, and behavioral outcomes.

State Education Agencies:

• Issue implementation guidance that anticipates predictable first-year enforcement challenges, incorporates equity safeguards, and requires annual public reporting of disciplinary actions taken under the policy, disaggregated by race, gender, and disability status.
• Support the collection of data on the academic, psychological, social, and behavioral effects of any restriction implemented, providing the information necessary to evaluate policy choices going forward.
• Partner with federal research agencies such as the Institute of Education Sciences, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation to fund and coordinate research and to support cross-state sharing of de-identified implementation and outcome data, so that evidence accumulates faster than any single state could achieve alone.

District Leaders:

• Extend any personal-device restriction to non-academic use of school-issued laptops and tablets, including by blocking social media, gaming, entertainment, and general-purpose AI platforms on school-provided networks and devices. A restriction on phones alone leaves the same content available through a second channel.
• Choose storage and enforcement designs deliberately, recognizing that the evidence does not yet identify an optimal approach and that designs leaving phones on students’ persons—including lockable pouches—do not eliminate the distraction associated with a device’s proximity.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of any digital-literacy curriculum adopted alongside a restriction, since no commercially available program has been tested for effects on student attitudes or behavior.

School Leaders:

• Provide teachers and staff with training and ongoing support for consistent, equitable enforcement; communicate policy clearly to families, including channels for legitimate mid-day contact.
• Preserve documented individual accommodations and ensure due-process protections for disciplinary actions.
• Attend to the social climate of phone-free settings rather than assuming that restriction alone will improve student connection or well-being. For example, ensure that landline phones or email access is possible to ensure students have contact with others when safe and appropriate.