The presence of cell phones in K-12 schools has long been a topic of public and academic debate. Supporters of restrictions contend that limiting access during school hours reduces distractions, increases engagement, and fosters better social interaction, while critics warn of unintended consequences such as more disciplinary actions and reduced emergency communication options. Over the past decade, states have tried varying levels of restriction, producing evidence that is suggestive, but far from conclusive.
Florida has moved aggressively in this policy space, beginning with HB 379 (2023), which required districts to block social media on school networks, allowed teachers to collect devices during instructional time, and mandated lessons on the effects of social media. This legislation focused on limiting in-class distractions while preserving flexibility for local decision-making. In 2025, the Legislature adopted HB 1105, expanding restrictions to prohibit student device use throughout the day in elementary and middle schools, limit high school use to non-instructional periods, and launch a six-district pilot to test full-day high school bans. The Florida Department of Education (FDOE) is to conduct this study in two small, two medium, and two large districts, using results – due by December 1, 2026 – to develop a model statewide policy.
The Florida pilot enters a research field marked by both promising findings and persistent uncertainties. In the United Kingdom, Beland and Murphy (2016) found that banning phones in schools led to measurable gains in standardized test scores, with the largest improvements observed among lower-achieving students. The 2023 Global Education Monitoring Report, published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), similarly documented a global shift toward more restrictive policies and suggested that limits can be beneficial where digital devices are not integral to instruction. Another study from Australia found modest reductions in problematic phone use and some improvements in engagement and belonging, though effects on achievement were less consistent. A 2024 rapid review synthesized these studies, concluding that benefits tend to be small, but more pronounced for social well-being than for academic outcomes. Critics, however, caution that early statistics from some jurisdictions show little to no improvement, and that increased disciplinary actions for noncompliance can offset intended benefits.
The rationale for a cell phone ban centers on reducing distractions, improving classroom climate, and maximizing instructional time by removing notification-driven interruptions, promoting face-to-face interactions, and reducing disputes over device use – factors expected to boost engagement, minimize disruptions, and curb cyberbullying. Long-term goals include higher achievement, better attendance, and improved well-being, but these depend heavily on clear rules, consistent enforcement, appropriate exceptions, and safeguards for instructional or assistive technology needs.
The FDOE’s evaluation will require careful selection of comparison schools, rigorous and reliable data collection, and transparent reporting. Key metrics should include academic performance (course grades, standardized test scores, etc.) attendance and chronic absenteeism rates, disciplinary referrals (particularly device-related incidents), bullying and harassment reports, measures of student engagement and well-being, and indicators of school climate. Cost data for items such as storage pouches and training should also be collected to enable cost-effectiveness analysis.
The effectiveness of a cell phone ban relies on more than simply writing the rules – it requires clear communication and thoughtful implementation. Policies should be tailored to students’ ages, with explicit provisions for medical or special needs, and parents should receive advance notice. Discipline should be progressive, beginning with non-punitive approaches to prevent disproportionate effects on certain student groups. Schools must also accommodate instructional requirements by providing alternative technology when needed and establish systems to track unintended effects, such as online conflicts shifting to after-school hours. Finally, emergency communication procedures must be clearly defined to address safety concerns during crises.
If implemented with fidelity, Florida’s pilot could yield meaningful improvements in academic performance and school climate, particularly for students who are easily distracted or socially isolated by phone use. If successful, the pilot may serve as a model not just for Florida, but for other states and countries grappling with the role of personal devices in education.
Florida districts working with Neola can be assured their policies comply with HB 1105, as Neola provides legally vetted language addressing student cell phone usage in policies 5136 – Wireless Communication Devices, 5136.01 – Technology Resources and Other Electronic Equipment, and 7540 – Technology.