Our students are spending more time on memes than on math.
At least, that’s partially the concern behind Gov. Bob Ferguson and Superintendent of Public Instruction Chris Reykdal’s recently proposed K-12 cellphone ban. And given the state of Washington’s educational outcomes, it’s a concern worth taking seriously. According to a recent report from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Washington’s K-12 education system now ranks 31st nationwide, down from 20th just over a decade ago. Seventy percent of eighth graders lack proficiency in math, 68% of fourth graders in reading, and 17% of high school students fail to graduate on time.
Responding to these trends, Ferguson and Reykdal announced plans on June 9 to pursue an “away for the day” cellphone ban in Washington schools during the next legislative session. Their argument is straightforward: Cellphones have become a major source of distraction and contribute to declining academic performance. They deserve credit for recognizing and acting on a real problem.
However, while restricting cellphone use in schools is a step in the right direction, a bell-to-bell ban that even applies between classes and during lunch periods may not deliver the outcomes we hope for.
There are good reasons to believe that limiting cellphone use can improve the school environment. Research has found that limiting phone use leads to happier teachers and improved student engagement. While schools see more disciplinary incidents initially, these effects fade over time as students’ subjective well-being improves. These benefits matter. Calmer classrooms, happier teachers and more face-to-face interaction make schools better places to learn.
However, the evidence on academic performance is less encouraging.
In an April study examining schools that implemented bell-to-bell cellphone bans using locked pouches, researchers found only a modest increase in math performance among high school students and a slight decline in overall test scores among middle school students. Other studies have similarly found limited academic benefits. Whatever their merits, cellphone bans cannot be viewed as a silver bullet capable of reversing years of academic decline.
One reason may be that highly restrictive cellphone policies only change when students use their phones rather than how much they use them.
Researchers at the University of Birmingham found that banning cellphones during school hours does not necessarily reduce overall usage. Instead, students frequently shift that usage to after-school hours, reducing time for homework, physical activity and sleep. By deferring rather than reducing phone use, restrictive cellphone bans create new academic and health challenges outside the classroom.
That is why, instead of a full bell-to-bell cellphone ban, Washington should pursue a less restrictive policy limiting unauthorized cellphone use in schools during instructional time while permitting use during designated periods like lunch breaks or planned learning activities.
As a Fulbright Scholar studying comparative education policy, I have reviewed how states across the country have approached student cellphone use. Generally, states have adopted one of several approaches. Some states have no statewide policy on cellphones or simply encourage districts to create their own rules. Others encourage districts to limit cellphone use — Washington’s current approach. More restrictive approaches limit phones during instructional time while allowing access during lunch or planned classroom activities. The most restrictive option is a complete ban during school hours. Ferguson and Reykdal’s proposal would move the state toward the most restrictive end.
To their credit, Ferguson and Reykdal have indicated that exceptions may exist for emergencies and planned learning activities. But even in this form the ban goes too far. A more effective approach would limit unauthorized cellphone use during class while permitting access during designated periods. This would reduce distractions during learning while teaching students to self-regulate phone use in line with workforce demands and possibly mitigate the counterproductive outcomes of deferred phone use after school.
This balanced approach recognizes an important reality: Cellphones are not disappearing from students’ lives. Today’s students will enter a workforce and society increasingly shaped by digital technology. Preparing our students for life requires cultivating responsible use of technology rather than relying primarily on prohibition.
Ferguson and Reykdal are right that Washington’s K-12 cellphone policies need updating. Limiting cellphone use during school hours is a sensible step forward. But if we want to do right by our students, a more limited approach will serve us better than an outright ban.
