Letter to the Editor: For School Phone Bans, Tech Is Not the Answer — Storage Is

Something remarkable happened in 2025: about 18 states banned smartphones for the entire school day (bell-to-bell). More followed in 2026. This shift reflects growing awareness that phones are designed to steal our children’s attention - negatively affecting school environments and obstructing learning.

The early results are in. Disciplinary incidents are down, grades are improving, and students are more connected (Figlio, 2025; Campbell, 2024). The reason: these schools gave students a 6- to 7-hour break from the notifications, addictive pulls, and social drama of their screens. And, students no longer fear having their most vulnerable moments permanently digitized. This is a win-win.

Recently, the Massachusetts House passed its own bell-to-bell bill - but with a catch. Massachusetts is the only state in the country proposing to pilot a tech option to restrict phone use by blocking Wi-Fi access - while leaving camera, video, and for some, texting capabilities intact. Rendering phones semi-accessible to students throughout the day.

That may not sound so bad – until you see the research.

The 2017 Brain Drain Study found that having a phone in the room distracts students. In 2023, the study was repeated and results confirmed. “Based on the available research findings, it seems advisable that Smartphones should not even be near learners at periods of learning.” Inaccessible storage is what experts like Jonathan Haidt, Jean Twenge, and Jared Cooney Horvath recommend. It untethers students from devices and eliminates concerns of privacy, bias or surveillance risk (Marsh, 2024; O’Daffer, 2025). The recent Alcott paper (2026) affirms: strict storage works best.

Watertown High School piloted a tech-blocking app this year. Six months in, school committee members and parents raised concerns: camera, video and some messaging remain unblocked, updates disrupt instruction, enforcement is complex, and not all students "tap in."

So why is Massachusetts proposing to pilot an option that avoids inaccessible storage? That is the question every Massachusetts resident needs to ask legislators before it’s too late. Find your state legislators at: malegislature.gov/Search/FindMyLegislator, and let them know you want nothing less than the research-supported, best practice for our children.

Deb Mann Schmill (Canton) and Kara Lopez Salvi (Watertown)

About: Deb Mann Schmill is the Founder and President of the Becca Schmill Foundation and Co-Founder of Distraction-Free Schools Policy Project, and Kara Lopez Salvi is a Watertown High School Parent and works as an educator/school counselor in a Boston area public high school.

Author Contact Information:
Deb Schmill, 236 Dedham St., Canton, MA 02021, 781-724-5653
Kara Lopez Salvi, 45 Adams Ave., Watertown, MA 02472, 617-821-5877

Sources:
Alcott, H., Baron, E.J., & Jacob, B. (2026). The effects of school phone bans: national evidence from lockable pouches. National Bureau of Economic Research working paper series. http://www.nber.org/papers/w35132.

Campbell et al., (2024). Evidence for and against banning mobile phones in schools: A scoping review. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools. 34(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/205563652412703

Figlio, D.N., Özek, U. (2025). The Impact of Cellphone Bans in Schools on Student Outcomes: Evidence from Florida. NBER Working Paper 34388, https://doi.org/10.3386/w34388.

Marsh, S., Chu, J. T. W., & Calder, A. J. (2024). ‘I tried to take my phone off my daughter, and I got hit in the face’: A qualitative study of parents’ challenges with adolescents’ screen use and a toolbox of their tips. BMC Public Health, 24, 217.

O'Daffer, A., Liu, W., & Bloss, C. S. (2025). School-based online surveillance of youth: Systematic search and content analysis of surveillance company websites. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27, e71998.

Ward, A.F., Duke, K., Gneezy, A., Bos, M.W. (2017). Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of Owe’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research. 2(2). www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691462#d1e327.1086/691462#d1e327