What Phones in Focus Research Reveals About Cell Phones in Schools

Across the country, dozens of states have introduced or passed legislation restricting cellphone use during the school day, and the public debate has intensified alongside them. Researchers are asking an important grounding question in this ongoing national conversation: What does the current research actually show?

Angela Duckworth, professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania and founder of the Character Lab, has been leading Phones in Focus, a large-scale national initiative examining how different phone policies affect student and teacher experiences across thousands of schools. Matthew Gentzkow, an economist at Stanford University, is working in collaboration with Duckworth alongside Hunt Allcott (Stanford University), Tom Dee (Stanford University), Brian Jacob (University of Michigan), and Jason Baron (Duke University).

We sat down with researcher partners Duckworth and Gentzkow to talk through what they are learning, what questions remain, and what it means for the educators, parents, and policymakers trying to make good decisions right now.

What is the most important misconception in the national debate about school phone policies?

Duckworth: Perhaps the greatest misconception is that the “right answer” for phones in schools is clear. In fact, policies vary enormously, not just in when students are allowed to use their phones but where they are allowed to use them, and it is not yet known which combination of when and where produces the best student outcomes.

Gentzkow: One misconception is that we have rock-solid evidence and know what the perfect phone policy is. Another misconception is that we should wait to act until we have that evidence. This is a domain where we need to choose policies carefully, recognizing both the uncertainty and the urgency of addressing the challenges we are facing.

Early findings suggest that “away-for-the-day” policies are associated with higher teacher satisfaction and that classroom disruption may increase initially but eventually decrease. What evidence would convince you that these policies are also improving long-term student outcomes? What metrics should the country be watching over the next several years?

Gentzkow: First, it would be great to see longer-term improvement in standardized test scores, beyond the horizon we were able to measure. Second, I would love to see a richer set of learning outcomes: in-class performance, grades, and better measures of focus and attention. If we saw clear movement on those measures, that would be encouraging. Third, I am eager to see much richer evidence on social interactions and outcomes. We are also looking to extend the work beyond lockable pouches to examine a wider range of policy tools.

We are learning that while phone bans dramatically reduce in-school phone use, the effects on test scores, attendance, and mental health are less clear. How should school leaders interpret these findings?

Gentzkow: Our results do not say “phone bans are good,” or “phone bans are bad.” They show that policies can be effective in reducing use, they show that teachers are broadly satisfied with them, and they provide some reasons to be optimistic about the social and emotional benefits.

At the same time, they should temper some of the more extreme enthusiasm about academic benefits. The jury is still out on what the benefits may be for learning broadly. But our results suggest that if there is a good case for phone bans, it probably should not be built on near-term test score gains as a main expected benefit.

If you were advising a superintendent in a large, diverse district today, what are the two or three implementation decisions that matter most?

Duckworth: Our data shows that some policies are enforced more consistently than others. In general, the stricter the policy, the more consistently it is enforced by the adults in the school. We also see that teacher satisfaction varies. Many teachers say the policy in their school is not strict enough. A handful say it is too strict.

Regardless of policy specifics, we know from other evidence that teacher buy-in matters enormously. And in our one-on-one conversations, it is clear that educators feel that parents and students matter too. Not only do they need to hear clearly what the school wants to do, but they also need to be listened to. What families think, and how they are going to respond to a policy, matters enormously.

What is the phone debate missing? What are we not paying attention to that we should be?

Duckworth: The fact that in our analysis phone usage goes down without a corresponding increase in standardized test scores suggests that reducing the distraction of phones is not sufficient for increasing academic achievement. K-12 education has a long history of searching fruitlessly for silver bullet solutions.

We are disappointed when a single policy change fails to produce dramatic effects. But the challenges are manifold, and include curriculum, professional development, teacher recruitment and retention, and more. We should think more holistically about K-12 education and reckon with the complexity and the plurality of its challenges.

Looking ahead five years, do you think the conversation will still be about phones, or about a broader challenge of managing technology in schools?

Gentzkow: A huge part of the conversation in the coming years is going to be about student and teacher use of AI. Phones will continue to be a significant topic, but mainly about how students are using them outside of class. Inside the classroom, a major focus will be on laptops and other devices that are needed for instruction but can be used for other things as well.

Your team invested heavily in building a national dataset from scratch. What did you learn from that process?

Duckworth: Enormous effort was invested in obtaining data on student outcomes, particularly by Professor Brian Jacob at the University of Michigan and his team. This was necessary because no existing database brought together diverse student outcomes across the entire country, including not just standardized test scores for elementary and middle school students, but high school test scores, attendance data, and survey data on student well-being and engagement. We hope this investment pays dividends not just for this study but for future research.

Where do you want to take this research next?

Duckworth: We would like to bring the same scientific rigor to other technology issues. For example, how are laptops being used in K-12 education, and what are the causal effects of laptop use on student outcomes? The same questions apply to AI.

Angela Duckworth is a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, founder of the Character Lab, and a research partner of the Bezos Family Foundation. Matthew Gentzkow is a professor of economics at Stanford University. Their ongoing collaboration, Phones in Focus, has collected responses from educators in approximately 46 percent of schools nationwide.

A note on scope: The Phones in Focus initiative is a large-scale observational and survey-based study. While it provides some of the most comprehensive data available on phone policies and educator experience, the researchers note that causal conclusions about student outcomes require continued data collection and analysis. The work is ongoing.