What New National Evidence on School Phone Bans Means for Special Education Personnel Preparation
Authors: Trey Vasquez, Ph.D.; info@ciddl.org
Roughly two-thirds of U.S. states have enacted legislation restricting student phone access during the school day, and more than half of countries worldwide have followed suit (D'Addio, 2025; Prothero et al., 2026). Nearly 5,000 schools deployed them by 2026 (Allcott et al., 2026). The pace has outstripped the evidence.
A new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper from Allcott, Baron, Dee, Duckworth, Gentzkow, and Jacob (2026) supplies the most rigorous national assessment to date. The authors deploy a staggered difference-in-differences design across Yondr's administrative records, GPS pings from roughly 35 million devices, statewide test scores, attendance and discipline data from dozens of states, and original surveys of nearly 108,000 educators and 2,000 parent–child dyads, isolating the causal effect of pouch adoption on a battery of student outcomes. The team pre-registered the analysis (Allcott et al., 2026, p. 1).
The headline findings invite cautious optimism and serious concern in equal measure. Phone use plummets. Disciplinary incidents spike, then fade. Subjective well-being dips, then recovers. Average test score effects hover near zero, masking a striking divergence: high schoolers gain modestly in mathematics while middle schoolers lose ground.
For faculty in special education personnel preparation programs, the implications run deeper than the working paper's own framing. The authors do not disaggregate by disability status. The silence in the data is itself a finding, and a charge.
The Study in Brief
Allcott et al. (2026) compare schools that adopted Yondr pouches between 2023 and 2025 with observationally similar non-adopters, using the doubly robust estimator developed by Callaway and Sant'Anna (2021). The treated sample includes 1,777 schools across the pooled test score panel; the comparison pool draws from roughly 40,000 never-treated public schools. The authors document substantial pre-treatment differences. For example, participating schools tend to be larger, more urban, and serve higher proportions of Black and Hispanic students, and use inverse probability weighting to build a balanced comparison group (pp. 24–26).
Outcome measures span four domains: in-school phone use (GPS pings, teacher reports), academic performance (standardized math and ELA scores), behavior and climate (disciplinary incidents, attendance, perceived online bullying), and student-reported well-being (Panorama Education survey indices for subjective well-being and classroom attention). The authors report effects in school-level standard deviations and translate the estimates to approximate student-level effect sizes using intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.1 for behavioral and survey outcomes and 0.2 for test scores (p. 19).
What the Evidence Shows
Phone use falls sharply. GPS-measured net visits during instructional hours decline by roughly 19 log points in the pooled sample, reaching nearly 30 percent by the third post-adoption year (Allcott et al., 2026, pp. 27–28). Teacher reports indicate the share of students using phones in class for personal reasons drops from 61 to 13 percent following adoption, reflecting an 80 percent reduction (p. 3).
Disciplinary incidents rise in year one, then fade. The disciplinary index increases by approximately 0.085 school-level standard deviations in the adoption year, corresponding to roughly a 16 percent increase in suspension rates (p. 32). The estimate moves toward zero by year two and turns slightly negative by year three, though later coefficients carry wider confidence intervals.
Subjective well-being follows a J-curve. Student well-being declines by 0.6 school-level standard deviations in the adoption year before rebounding to a positive 0.485 by year two — equivalent to roughly 0.16 student-level standard deviations (Allcott et al., 2026, pp. 32–33). Deactivating Facebook for four weeks increased adult well-being by 0.09 student-level SDs (Allcott et al., 2020).
Test scores tell a heterogeneous story. Pooled effects on combined math and ELA scores are statistically indistinguishable from zero. High schools register a modest positive math effect of 0.048 school-level SD (roughly 0.024 student-level SD, or about a 0.9 percentile point gain; p. 36) — a magnitude roughly one-fifth the achievement gain a one-standard-deviation improvement in teacher value added produces (Chetty et al., 2014). Middle schools, in contrast, show small negative effects reflecting approximately half the magnitude of the high school gains, concentrated in mathematics.
Attendance, attention, and online bullying barely move. Attendance estimates are precisely zero. Self-reported classroom attention turns negative and statistically significant in year two, though pre-trend evidence counsels caution. Perceived online bullying shows no measurable change (Allcott et al., 2026, pp. 33–34).
The international literature offers context. Beland and Murphy (2016) found test score gains in England, particularly among lower-achieving students. Beneito and Vicente-Chirivella (2022) documented improvements in Spain. Abrahamsson (2026) reported gains for Norwegian girls. Kessel et al. (2020) found null effects in Sweden. Figlio and Ozek (2025) found short-run spikes in discipline followed by second-year academic gains in Florida. The new U.S. evidence sits squarely within — and helps adjudicate — a contested empirical record.
The Assistive Technology Paradox
Smartphones are not merely social platforms. For students with disabilities, the device in the pouch may serve as an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) system, a real-time captioning tool, an executive function scaffold, a continuous glucose monitor, a hearing aid controller, or an anxiety regulation support. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) requires IEP teams to consider assistive technology for every student with a disability. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act extends parallel obligations.
A cellphone ban policy implemented without a robust accommodation framework risks placing schools in conflict with federal law. Allcott et al. (2026) note, in passing, the policy heterogeneity across schools and the role of teacher discretion (pp. 2–3), but do not engage the AT question directly. The omission is consequential. Personnel preparation programs must equip candidates to navigate three predictable scenarios: a student whose IEP specifies smartphone-based AAC; a 504 plan documenting phone-mediated medical monitoring; and the gray zone of executive function supports such as timers, reminders, scheduling apps, and an expanding suite of AI-enabled tools embedded in mobile devices (Marino et al., 2023).
Software is a technology. The phone is a technology. Personnel preparation must teach candidates to evaluate competing technologies against student need, federal mandate, and the school's behavioral ecology; not as a one-time module but as an ongoing professional disposition.
The Disciplinary Spike
The 16 percent suspension increase deserves particular scrutiny through a special education lens. Decades of research document the overrepresentation of students with disabilities in exclusionary discipline (Skiba et al., 2011). The Allcott et al. (2026) data do not permit disability-disaggregated analysis. The disparate-impact question remains open.
Two mechanisms warrant preservice attention. First, the enforcement of new rules creates new disciplinary opportunities (Figlio & Ozek, 2025). Students who struggle with self-regulation face an elevated risk of being caught in the enforcement net. Second, removal of phones may shift attention toward other off-task behaviors (Jacob & Lefgren, 2003), and students with behavioral support needs may bear disproportionate consequences when peer interactions intensify.
Faculty preparing future special educators should foreground three competencies: (a) functional behavior assessment during policy rollout, (b) data collection protocols disaggregating outcomes by IEP and 504 status, and (c) collaboration with general education colleagues on tiered response frameworks. The disciplinary spike fades in the aggregate. Whether it fades equally across student subgroups is an empirical question the field cannot yet answer with current data.
The Research Gap
Allcott et al. (2026) acknowledge that their outcome measures capture "only certain dimensions of student performance and school climate" (p. 4). The authors do not name disability status as one of the omitted dimensions. The omission is the field's invitation.
Doctoral students seeking dissertation topics, OSEP-funded project teams, and IHE–LEA research partnerships have a clear opportunity. Researchers can query state longitudinal data systems for special education status, examine Panorama subscores within IEP populations where consent allows, and deploy single-case designs to document AT–phone–policy interactions at the student level. CIDDL's mandate to advance technology integration in personnel preparation positions the network to coordinate such inquiry across programs.
Implications for Personnel Preparation Programs
Curricular audits should ask four questions. Does the AT course address phone-as-AAC explicitly? Does the law and policy course distinguish blanket policies from individualized accommodations? Does the behavior course prepare candidates to monitor disproportionality during policy rollouts? Do field placement supervisors model collaborative IEP-team conversations about phone access? Simulated environments offer a low-stakes setting for candidates to rehearse IEP team negotiations, AT denial appeals, and disciplinary de-escalation before encountering these situations in live classrooms.
Faculty should also consider candidate dispositions. Future special educators will inherit a policy landscape that Haidt's (2023) influential work helped shape. Candidates need both the skill to implement evidence-based restrictions and the courage to advocate for individualization where the evidence demands it.
K-12 leaders preparing for adoption should consider three companion structures: a written accommodation protocol, a disaggregated data collection plan, and a Tier 2 behavioral support framework ready to absorb the year-one disruption documented in Allcott et al. (2026).
The new evidence neither vindicates the bell-to-bell movement nor refutes its skeptics. Lockable pouches substantially reduce in-school phone use. Short-run disruption is real. Average academic effects are small, and they cut in opposite directions for middle and high schoolers. Long-run effects remain unknown.
For special education personnel preparation, the working paper is a teachable case more than a settled answer. Faculty should bring it into seminars, dissect its methods, scrutinize its silences, and ask doctoral students what the next study should look like. Policy is moving faster than the evidence. The professoriate's responsibility is to keep the gap visible — and to prepare candidates to teach inside it.
Join the conversation in our community!
CIDDL is committed to providing high-quality resources to support the growing knowledge, adoption, and use of educational technologies by educators, related services, and leadership preparation programs. For more resources, including videos and blogs, subscribe to our newsletter and follow us on YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn. The most important part of our CIDDL community is YOU. Join our community and share the innovative ways you are using technology, ask a question about technology integration, or participate in our bi-weekly live AI Community Chats. We look forward to seeing you in our community!
References
Abrahamsson, S. (2026). Smartphone bans, student outcomes and mental health. Journal of Human Resources.
Allcott, H., Baron, E. J., Dee, T., Duckworth, A. L., Gentzkow, M., & Jacob, B. (2026). The effects of school phone bans: National evidence from lockable pouches (NBER Working Paper No. 35132). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w35132
Allcott, H., Braghieri, L., Eichmeyer, S., & Gentzkow, M. (2020). The welfare effects of social media. American Economic Review, 110(3), 629–676. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190658
Beland, L.-P., & Murphy, R. (2016). Ill communication: Technology, distraction & student performance. Labour Economics, 41, 61–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2016.04.004
Beneito, P., & Vicente-Chirivella, Ó. (2022). Banning mobile phones in schools: Evidence from regional-level policies in Spain. Applied Economic Analysis, 30(90), 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEA-05-2021-0112
Callaway, B., & Sant'Anna, P. H. C. (2021). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 200–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2593–2632. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2593
D'Addio, A. C. (2025). The "quiet" revolution in schools: More and more countries are locking up phones – Part 1. UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report.
Figlio, D. N., & Ozek, U. (2025). The impact of cellphone bans in schools on student outcomes: Evidence from Florida (NBER Working Paper No. 34388). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Haidt, J. (2023, June 6). The case for phone-free schools. After Babel. https://www.afterbabel.com/p/phone-free-schools
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).
Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2003). Are idle hands the devil's workshop? Incapacitation, concentration, and juvenile crime. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1560–1577. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655446
Kessel, D., Hardardottir, H. L., & Tyrefors, B. (2020). The impact of banning mobile phones in Swedish secondary schools. Economics of Education Review, 77, 102009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.102009
Marino, M. T., Vasquez, E., Dieker, L., Basham, J., & Blackorby, J. (2023). The future of artificial intelligence in special education technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 38(3), 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434231165977
Prothero, A., Langreo, L., & Klein, A. (2026). Which states ban or restrict cellphones in schools? Education Week.
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2011.12087730