Colorado school districts post cellphone policies. But do they match research?

By Jenny Brundin/CPR News

Hart Van Denburg/CPR News -A student uses a cell phone for research reference during a class at Cripple Creek-Victor Junior/Senior High School.

Despite early research on school cellphone bans suggesting stricter, bell-to-bell policies can sharply reduce phone use and may bring small gains in attendance and test scores, many of Colorado’s largest districts have taken a softer approach for high school students, allowing phones during passing periods or lunch.

This contrasts with recent findings presented to the State Board of Education, which indicate a clear trend: the greater the physical distance between the student and device, the better the educational outcomes.

New state law

To comply with a new state law, all Colorado school districts and charter schools were required to post their phone policies by July 1. The legislation stems from efforts to reduce the impact of social media on youth. Local school districts each developed their own policy.

Colorado’s biggest school districts generally fall into three categories: bell-to-bell bans in all grades; classroom bans that allow high schoolers access to phones during passing periods and lunches; and decentralized policies that give individual schools the ability to determine policies. All policies must include exceptions for medical needs and special education plans.

What the early days of research show

A research analysis of 40,000 schools found strict cellphone bans dramatically reduced phone use in schools using lockable pouches. While there was little immediate increase in academic proficiency, many researchers agree: Cellphone-free schools create better learning environments.

Another study of a large Florida district  — one of the first to ban phones all day — found that a well-enforced, bell-to-bell ban can improve student learning, though not right away. After two years, students used their phones less, missed fewer unexcused classes, and posted slightly better test scores. Suspensions rose in the first year but then returned to normal. Policies that allow phones during passing periods and lunch are more flexible, but there is less clear evidence they produce the same benefits.

Which policy schools choose matters, according to psychologist and researcher Angela Duckworth who leads the national Phones in Focus survey on what school policies support student outcomes. In May, Duckworth told the Colorado State Board of Education that stricter rules and consistent enforcement are linked to fewer classroom distractions and higher educator satisfaction.

Drawing on years of research on self-control and academic achievement, Duckworth said the issue comes down to a choice between long-term goals and immediate rewards. “One is about a long-term future, and the other is about instant gratification,” she said, comparing social media to highly processed junk food. “They’re supernormal stimuli that are so hyperpalatable, it’s very hard to stop.”

The willpower myth

Duckworth’s point is that cellphone distraction isn’t just a student willpower problem — it’s a design problem. She said schools should focus on “situational agency,” or making the right choice easier by changing the environment. Instead of asking students to resist distractions, schools should remove them. Relying on willpower alone is ineffective, she said. “Digital distractions for my generation require physical solutions,” said Duckworth, echoing a student. “You can’t ask kids to just use mental willpower to resist temptation. You have to physically separate yourself from temptation.”

She also pointed to preliminary study results showing a simple pattern: the farther a phone is from a student, the better the academic outcomes tend to be, including higher GPAs and fewer distractions. That research looked at where students in one of the nation’s largest school districts kept their phones, from face-up on a desk to in another room.

“The farther the phone, the higher the GPA.”

Students face daily trade-offs between long-term self-control and immediate temptation, she said.  Schoolwork may not feel rewarding at the moment, but students know it’s long-term value, according to data. Phones, by contrast, offer constant access to social media, making self-control harder.

Colorado survey results reflect that tension. Educators in schools with stricter phone policies, like bell-to-bell bans or locker storage, reported about 70% satisfaction, along with more consistent enforcement and fewer disruptions. That compares with about 50% satisfaction for schedule-based restrictions. Duckworth said the stricter the policy, the happier the educators.Colorado ranked eighth nationally in educators responding to the survey, with 3,545 educators participating in the five-minute survey. (This preliminary data is based upon surveys conducted before many school districts had rolled out newer policies.)

Policies that let students keep phones in their pockets often fail because the temptation stays within reach, she said.

The paradox of high school policies

Duckworth noted a gap in high schools, where policies often have been looser even as teachers report the most serious phone problems. CPR found that many large districts still let high school students keep phones in backpacks and use them in hallways or at lunch. She said stronger, more consistent enforcement could help close that gap. Duckworth was also more cautious about laptops, saying they can support instruction but also invite distraction and cheating. Colorado educators say more than one-third of students use laptops for non-academic purposes during class.

Duckworth also urged schools not to abandon paper, citing research that students learn nonfiction better from print than screens. The Phones in Focus survey and study will continue through next school year, with more findings expected in the coming months.

#    #    #