The Phone-Free Schools State Report Card 2025

WHY STATE POLICY MATTERS

Although nearly every state has enacted some form of restrictions on phones, many of the laws fall short of driving meaningful change. Some only apply to the time that students are in class, others simply mandate that districts adopt a policy with no guidance on what it should contain. A majority lack clear implementation or enforcement mechanisms. Alarmingly, some states have yet to pass any legislation at all, or have carved out exemptions for high schools.

The results: uneven access to the benefits of a truly phone-free school day and a false sense of progress.

State-level action ensures every student – regardless of zip code or district resources – has access to a healthier, more focused learning environment.

Just as states set uniform standards for safety, wellness, and clean environments in schools, it’s time to do the same for digital health, recognizing that smartphone use poses both public health and educational challenges.

THE REPORT CARD PROJECT

The Report Card offers the first comprehensive assessment of how every state’s and Washington D.C.’s laws or executive orders measure up against the evidence-based gold standard 2025 Phone-Free Schools Model Bill. Through this analysis, the Report Card:

Highlights gaps in state legislation (at a national level and individual state level)
Clarifies key distinctions between types of phone restrictions — distinctions that significantly influence outcomes
Equips policymakers, educators, and families with clear insights and practical resources to drive effective action

The Report Card goal is to inspire lawmakers and advocates to foster thriving school communities by passing phone-free school legislation based on the 2025 Model Bill in all fifty states and Washington D.C.

This initial report evaluates policy design, not implementation. Future editions may expand to measure implementation and real-world impact, enabling states to monitor progress toward learning environments where every student can learn, connect, and grow – free from the unnecessary digital distraction of phones and personal devices

‍

WHAT THE EVIDENCE INDICATES

When experts cite the benefits of phone-free schools, they’re primarily referring to bell-to-bell policies that keep students off their phones and personal devices for the entire school day. There is a fast-growing body of evidence supporting that when schools go bell-to-bell – storing devices in secure, inaccessible locations for the entire school day – outcomes advance across several key areas:

‍

➡️ Academic performance improves

Test scores rise as distractions decline – especially among the lowest-performing students, students of color, and boys. Instructional time increases as teachers regain the minutes once lost to managing student’s phones and other personal devices. When classrooms are phone-free, focus and participation climb and learning improves for everyone.

Mental and physical health strengthens

Reducing students’ screen time during the school day significantly lowers their exposure to the well-documented harms of social media and prolonged device use– including anxiety, sleep disruption, and body image concerns. Fewer hours on phones mean healthier, more present students.

‍

➡️ Relationships deepen

Freeing students from the constant pull of their devices restores real, in-person connection. In phone-free schools, students talk and collaborate more with peers and teachers. Incidents of fighting, harassment, and cyberbullying decline. Students’ sense of belonging increases.

‍

➡️ Teacher satisfaction increases

Educators can teach, not police. In phone-free classrooms, teachers report less conflict and more connection with students. The stricter the policy, the happier the teacher. Eighty-three percent of educators support a bell-to-bell phone-free policy recognizing that it empowers them to focus on what they do best: teach and inspire students.

‍

➡️ Safety and privacy improve

When personal devices are out of reach, schools can better protect students from privacy violations, cyberbullying, pornography exposure, and sexual exploitation linked to non-consensual photos and videos. Phone-free environments enhance emergency response by enabling staff to maintain student safety more effectively, minimizing confusion, and concentrating student focus.

This low- or no-cost intervention consistently benefits learning, well-being, and school climate. Unfortunately, millions of students are still missing out on those advantages.

The criteria used to assess state policies for the Report Card was based on the Phone-Free Schools Model Bill released in 2025 by the Distraction-Free Schools Policy Project. The Model Bill was written to establish a gold standard for preK-12 schools that is grounded in research on the mental and physical health effects of social media and screens on children, as well as research on child development and learning processes. It was also based on input from legislators, school administrators, and educators – many of whom had already implemented phone-free school policies.

‍

For more information about the 2025 Phone-Free School Model Bill, and to view the enhanced 2026 version, visit distractionfreeschools.com.

‍

The Model Bill was drafted by the Becca Schmill Foundation in collaboration with The Anxious Generation, the USC Neely Center (Stanford), Fairplay, Smartphone Free Childhood U.S., Phone-Free Schools Movement.

‍

State grades were calculated by reviewing each state’s phone-free school law or executive order passed in 2024 or 2025 against the six criteria outlined in the Model Bill. Point values were assigned to each criterion based on how imperative that criterion is to supporting the best possible outcomes.

States with pending bills as of November 2025 received an “incomplete,” states with failed 2025 bills received a flat score of 50 points (F), and states where no law or executive order was introduced or enacted received a “0.” Pending or failed bills were not reviewed against the Model Legislation.

Covered Time Period & Storage Requirements (50-90 points)

The period of time during which personal electronic devices are prohibited, combined with how those devices are stored, is the strongest predictor of student and school community success with a personal electronic device-free policy. Evidence continues to support that the stricter the school cell phone policy and the less accessible the phone is from the student, the better the outcome for classroom focus and teacher morale.

‍

There are four general categories under this criteria. Each is assigned a different point total, which serves as the base grade for each state.

‍

Bell-to-bell with inaccessible storage (90 points)

This is the gold standard starting point for personal device-free policies. States with laws that prohibit PEDs from the start of the school day (i.e. the first bell) to the end of the school day (the dismissal bell) are setting their students and educators on the surest path to marked improved outcomes. Bell-to-bell with inaccessible storage is the single, research-backed approach that supports outcomes that every policymaker, educator, and parent wants to see: focused students, engaged classrooms, healthier relationships, and safer schools.

‍

Exact language varies slightly state-to-state, but North Dakota sets a strong example with the following:

‍

“Each school district or applicable governing body shall adopt and implement a policy for schools which: a. Requires all personal electronic communication devices be silenced or turned off, securely stowed away, and inaccessible to students” from the start of the school day until dismissal.

‍

Bell-to-bell with no storage stipulation or allowing accessible storage (80 points)

Bell-to-bell is key, but allowing devices to be stored in places like lockers or backpacks does not properly set students and teachers up for success. Students with the strongest habituation will likely have a very difficult time resisting the physical urge to access their device if it’s in their backpack or locker. Where PEDs are accessible, teachers still end up having to police student use. For these and other reasons, policymakers would do well to leave no ambiguity on this critical point.

‍

Class instructional time only (70 points)

This type of law recognizes that phones and other personal devices interfere with academic success, but fails to acknowledge the potential social and emotional harms caused by student use of devices during all other times of the school day, as well as the cognitive interference caused by intermittent use between classes.

‍

Requires schools/districts to have a policy related to personal electronic device use at school (60 points)

Some states merely require that schools have a policy in place but do not offer any additional guidance or information about what those policies must include. Wide variations in the types of policies implemented throughout the state will lead to inconsistent and inequitable student outcomes.

‍Devices Included (up to 2 points)

The most effective personal device-use policies include all personal electronic devices. This means smartphones and non-internet-connected phones, smartwatches, Bluetooth earbuds and headphones, gaming devices, personal tablets and laptops, and any other electronic device that is not school-issued. It’s important to keep this definition broad enough to encompass emerging technologies, such as AI companion bots and wearables (e.g. smart glasses)..

‍

Necessary Legal & Medical Exception (up to 2 points)

There are two main exceptions that should be included in every personal device-use policy. They are:

Special education exceptions – Individualized Education Plans (IEP) and 504 Plans are legally-binding agreements between schools and students/caregivers that arise out of a formal special education determination process. If a student’s plan requires the use of a personal device, that use must be permitted.
Student health monitoring – if a student has specific mental or physical health needs that have been documented by a licensed medical professional, and which necessitate a personal device, that student’s use of a personal device for that purpose must be permitted.

These exceptions should be narrowly crafted to provide the clearest guidance possible to school personnel. States did not receive full credit for medical exceptions that do not require a determination by a licensed medical professional.

‍

No Common Loophole Provisions (up to 4 points)

There are a few common loopholes that have made their way into several state laws but actually undermine the purpose and goals of those laws and decrease safety for students..

Emergency use exception – A number of current laws provide an exception for emergencies, meaning that students may use personal electronic devices in emergency situations. This provision is often rooted in the understandable yet misplaced anxiety that caregivers and students feel about school shootings, but school safety experts clearly state that students are safer in schools without cell phones.
Educational use exception – This exception is often worked into laws as a catch-all to avoid unintended consequences, however it opens the door for myriad unnecessary uses that are not actually educational. If a teacher needs to show an example of an online “tool,” that can still be done on a screen that is shared with the entire class and controlled by the teacher’s device. Any educational use that necessitates a student’s personal device is, by its nature, inequitable and inappropriate.

‍

Enforcement Provision (0.5 points)

Researchers looked for language that referenced student compliance with the policy. The 2026 Model Bill has been updated to clarify that this provision must prohibit the use of any form of exclusionary discipline (suspension or expulsion) where a violation of the personal device use policy would be the only reason for such discipline.

‍

Data Collection (0.5 points)

It is imperative that states require data collection to ensure the law is being implemented properly, to measure outcomes, and to better identify any changes that may need to be made as the policy is implemented.

‍

Glow and Grow

This section highlights legislative provisions or language that researchers found to be exceptional and wanted to elevate (“Glow”), as well as recommendations for improvement (“Grow”). Examples of “Glow” include prohibiting school personnel from using social media to communicate with students (as Vermont did - setting a national standard) and requiring schools to implement a comprehensive internet safety policy (as they did in North Carolina). Examples of “Grow” may be as clear-cut as advocating that states specify that storage should be inaccessible or ensuring legislation is not limited to K- 8 students (as it is in Florida and Georgia).

The following resources provide additional tools for lawmakers, educators, and advocates in drafting, implementing, and evaluating phone-free schools policies at the state, district, and school levels.

‍

Draft Legislation

2025 Phone-Free Schools Model Bill: The Model served as the basis for evaluating state laws for the Report Card. Note that an enhanced 2026 Model Law is available based on newly available research and evidence.

Package of Model Bills: Distraction-Free Schools Policy Project provides extensive resources and support for policymakers and advocates seeking to protect students’ focus, learning, and well-being. Visit their “Take Action Now” page for an enhanced version of the Phone-Free School Model Legislation and other model laws for social media in schools, school devices and education technology, etc.

Make the Case for Legislation

Phone-Free Schools on a Budget (webinar with transcript): School administrators share successful, low-budget strategies that have worked – including using manila envelopes. (Sponsored by Becca Schmill Foundation and Smartphone-Free Childhood US, in collaboration with The Anxious Generation Movement)

Addressing Concerns About Emergencies: Podcast: Why School Safety Experts Want Phone Bans and a letter from the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASPRO) in support of bell-to-bell bans as the safest option for students and school personnel.

Phones-in-Focus National Survey: Over 20,000 educators share insights on school cell phone policies. Preliminary results suggest that stricter cell phone policies are linked to fewer distractions and greater teacher satisfaction. (Dr. Angela Duckworth, best-selling author and professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, in collaboration with Stanford University economists Matt Gentzkow and Hunt Allcott).

Governors’ Focus on Distraction-Free Learning Statements from governors and a video from the National Governors Association annual Governors’ Education Policy Advisors Institute.

How to (and How NOT to) Mandate Phone-Free Schools by Deb Schmill: A guide for legislatures looking to make their states’ schools phone-free, and not just during class time

Implement Legislation or Create District-Level Policies

A Phone-Free Schools Administrator Toolkit: Tools to Implement a Phone-Free School Environment: Includes supporting data, implementation materials (model policy), and guides for stakeholder communications. (Fairplay and Phone-Free Schools Movement)

International Best Practice Model Policy for School Districts: this is a template that Boards of Education, superintendents, or school principals can adopt if the state does not have a law, or the law is not bell-to-bell with inaccessible storage.

Evaluation

Toolkit for Assessing Phones in Schools - TAPS: a free, ready-to-use toolkit designed to help elementary, middle and high schools evaluate their phone policy. (Stanford Social Media Lab and the Tech and Society Lab at NYU Stern)

Phone-Free Schools State Report Card

Breakdown of States by Grade

Overview

Methodology & Criteria Rationale

Resources

Take Action

Disclaimer