Phone-Free School Policies Are Here. Time to Make them Stick.

By fall 2024, every Canadian province had introduced some form of restriction on personal device use in schools. The rationale was consistent across jurisdictions: mounting concerns about distraction and learning impacts, declining student wellbeing, and the erosion of school culture. Provincial policies established similar core expectations from coast-to-coast – phones off and out of sight during school hours. But how has it gone? 

Our team at The Dais has spent the past year digging into this question. A national survey of public attitudes found that Canadians overwhelmingly express support (81%) for school phone restrictions – and favor firmer policies like “bell-to-bell” restrictions. Yet, only 37% believe phone policies are actually working. The roundtables we held in all ten provinces – engaging over 150 educators, school board leaders, parents, researchers, and community advocates – and other evidence to date suggests a similar conclusion: the new phone policies are a good step, but translating those ministry or board level directives into effective, consistent practice at the classroom level has proven challenging.  

The Case for Phone-Free Schools  

The rationale for restricting phones during the school day is well-established. Research shows that unregulated smartphone use undermines academic performance and contributes to anxiety and depression among adolescents. Teachers and parents increasingly recognize these patterns, as do many students themselves. The rapid rollout of phone restriction policies across the country responded to the growing consensus, among educators and in public opinion, that schools cannot wait for perfect conditions to act.  

Yet, for education policymakers, the form and design of phone restriction policies is important, as are the ways in which they are implemented and enforced through boards or districts, within schools, and by classroom teachers. In short, success will require understanding “what works.” 

What We Learned from Year 1 

The broad goals and expectations of provincial phone guidelines seem comparable and straightforward; but in practice, implementation is uneven, labor-intensive, and highly dependent on individual teachers and school leaders. Four themes emerged: an enforcement dilemma, a technology paradox, the limited role of student voice, and equity concerns with one-size-fits-all policies. 

1. The Enforcement Dilemma

Enforcement is the most immediate and visible challenge. Provincial policies establish broad expectations—phones must be “off or on silent and out of sight”—but offer limited guidance on how to achieve that in practice. The result is significant inconsistency. Some schools require students to place phones in designated storage at the front of classrooms. Others direct students to keep devices in backpacks or personal lockers. Still others rely on students to keep phones in pockets, technically out of sight but readily accessible. 

Even within a single school, practices can vary by classroom. One teacher may use a caddy system; another may expect students to self-regulate. This inconsistency creates confusion for students and undermines the policy’s credibility. When rules shift depending on which classroom a student enters, enforcement becomes difficult to sustain. A Swedish study illustrated this tension: policies requiring device collection at the start of class broke down because the process was cumbersome, caused teacher-student tensions, and exceptions multiplied as phones had already become embedded in classroom learning activities. 

The enforcement burden falls heavily on individual teachers, who must monitor compliance on top of their existing responsibilities. Roundtable participants described this as enforcement fatigue: the exhaustion of constant vigilance, of being positioned as surveillants rather than educators. Without systematic tracking of which approaches work, schools are improvising in isolation, unable to learn from one another in any coordinated way. 

2. The Technology Paradox

Another challenge involves technology integration. Over the past decade, many schools built pedagogical practices around student-owned devices. As recently as 2019, 69% of secondary school principals in Ontario reported using a “Bring Your Own Device” model. Teachers designed lessons assuming phones or tablets would be available for research, collaboration, and assessment. Some schools invested minimally in computer labs or classroom device sets, relying instead on personal devices. 

Phone restrictions have disrupted those practices, often without adequate support for alternative approaches. Teachers accustomed to digital tools for formative assessment or collaborative work have had to redesign lessons quickly. In under-resourced schools, the lack of replacement infrastructure creates equity gaps between wealthier schools that can purchase device sets and those that cannot. The restrictions themselves are not necessarily wrong, but the assumption that schools could pivot seamlessly without pedagogical and infrastructural support was optimistic. 

3. The Missing Student Voice

Student voice has been largely absent from both policy development and implementation. Almost every provincial policy was designed without systematic student consultation, and implementation at the school level often proceeded the same way. Roundtable discussions consistently showed that schools involving students early experienced stronger buy-in and more sustained compliance. Students are not merely policy subjects; they navigate social and developmental pressures around technology in ways adults may not fully understand. When students feel excluded from decisions that directly affect their daily experience, resistance increases. 

4. When One-Size-Doesn’t-Fit-All

Equity concerns also complicate implementation. Most provincial policies allow exceptions for medical, or accessibility needs, such as glucose monitors for students with diabetes or screen-reading apps for students with visual impairments. These are relatively straightforward to accommodate, though processes vary widely across schools. 

More difficult are situations involving students with caregiving responsibilities, part-time employment, or family communication needs. A student who is the primary English or French speaker in their household may need to manage essential communications during the school day. A student working casual shifts may need to confirm hours. These are not outliers but realities for many students, particularly those from newcomer families or economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Policies that do not account for these circumstances risk deepening inequities. Schools need the authority and trust to grant exceptions based on professional discretion, without requiring students to disclose personal details in stigmatizing ways. 

Lessons from Early Successes 

Despite these challenges, many schools have made meaningful progress. Their experiences offer lessons for others navigating similar implementation hurdles. 

Schools that experienced success with phone policies shared common lessons: firm policies, clarity about expectations, consistency in enforcement, and a focus on student wellbeing rather than punishment. Schools that engaged staff early to co-create policies, communicated transparently with parents, and built shared tracking systems reported smoother rollouts and stronger compliance. These schools did not simply implement a policy; they worked to build a culture around it. 

Transparent School Policies with Clear Expectations 

Every school should develop a short, written phone policy tailored to its context and aligned with board and provincial rules. The most effective policies are clear enough that students can explain them in a sentence and specific enough that staff respond in the same way when expectations are broken. They are framed positively – phones away so we can focus, be together, and stay safe – and are co-developed with staff, students, and families so that people see themselves in the policy rather than experiencing it as something merely done to them. The goal is to build a stronger school culture, not a new system of surveillance or punishment. 

Schools must also choose an enforcement model that fits their instructional approach and staff capacity. While there will always be contextual variation, our engagements point to one clear pattern: bell-to-bell models – where phones are stored away for the full instructional day except for defined exceptions – are more likely to be sustainable. They simplify enforcement for teachers, reduce day-to-day negotiations with students, and align with what most families expect when they send their children to school.  

Engage Students Early and Often 

Where restrictions have been implemented well, the effects are visible. Educators across roundtables described more interactive hallways and cafeterias, with students talking to each other during passing periods rather than scrolling through devices. Teachers reported better participation in group work and extracurricular activities. The changes may seem modest (students simply being present) but the cumulative effect on classroom culture can be significant. Our roundtable engagement suggested these improvements were often most pronounced in schools that implemented comprehensive and consistent restrictions throughout the school day, including during lunchtime. 

Roundtable participants also noted reductions in cyberbullying incidents that spilled into the school day, fewer conflicts over filming and posting peers without consent, and a calmer atmosphere in hallways and common spaces. When phones are not accessible during breaks, there are fewer opportunities for those dynamics to escalate during the school day. Even students who initially resisted the policies have shown signs of acceptance when they understand the rationale and experience the benefits themselves. 

Build in Exceptions Thoughtfully 

Building in exceptions is essential for equity. Schools should establish clear processes for three types of exceptions: ongoing constant use for medical or accessibility needs, formalized through Individual Education Plans; ongoing intermittent use for work, caregiving, or family communication, granted through trust-based approval at the school level; and rare situational use for emergencies or time-sensitive decisions, handled through professional discretion on a case-by-case basis. The goal is not to create loopholes but to ensure that policies remain humane and responsive. 

Communication Is Everything 

Communication determines whether policies gain traction or generate resentment. Schools should dedicate time during professional development to align staff before the school year begins. Expectations should be communicated clearly to students and parents early, then revisited regularly—after breaks, long weekends, whenever reminders are needed. Engaging students directly through assemblies, advisory groups, or peer messaging helps build understanding of the rationale. Parent communication should remain supportive, focused on shared goals rather than blame. 

Several schools have found that language matters. Referring to “restrictions” rather than “bans” signals flexibility and balance, making the policy feel less punitive and more reasonable. 

Support Your Teachers 

Supporting teachers is most critical. Professional development should address managing digital distraction and navigating difficult conversations with students. Regular check-ins can help troubleshoot implementation challenges and address enforcement fatigue. Shared tracking systems, like the Google Form used by the Nova Scotia school, allow staff to identify patterns and escalate concerns when needed. Teachers should be empowered to grant situational exceptions, trusting their judgment about their students. 

Make It a Living Policy 

Finally, schools should treat phone policies as works in progress. Tracking implementation – violations per week, ongoing fine tuning of consequences and exceptions, feedback from students and parents – allows for continuous refinement. If repeat violations cluster among a small group of students, schools should investigate underlying causes rather than simply escalating discipline. If a particular storage method proves unworkable, schools should try something else. Effective policies evolve based on evidence and experience. 

Online Safety and Digital Literacy Are Essential Too 

Phone restrictions alone will not resolve the broader challenges young people face with technology. Stronger regulations on social media design are needed. Comprehensive digital literacy education must extend beyond schools into homes and communities. Adults must model healthier relationships with technology. 

Moving Forward 

As Canadian schools enter the second year of phone restriction policies, the basic debate is largely settled. Most systems now have policies on paper; what varies is how clearly those policies are expressed, how consistently they are enforced, and whether they are supported by the culture of the school. Moving forward will mean shifting from patchwork, classroom-by-classroom practices to simple, bell-to-bell expectations with well-designed exceptions, and then doing the day-to-day work of bringing students, families, and staff along. Ultimately, the work is fundamentally about culture change, not compliance. 

Reflection questions 

1. Reflecting on how your school or school district has implemented cell phone restrictions, what has gone well?  
2. How can the ideas in this article help your school or school district refine its approach to cell phone restrictions. 

Meet the Expert(s)

Rajender Singh

Senior Policy Analyst, The Dais, Toronto Metropolitan University

Rajender works as a Senior Policy Analyst at The Dais at Toronto Metropolitan University, where he leads a pan-Canadian initiative that supports students, educators, families, and policymakers in making phone-free classrooms work in practice.

Read More

André R Côté

Executive Director, The Dais, Toronto Metropolitan University

André has worked in a variety of roles at the intersection of policy, higher education and tech. As mission-driven consultant, offering strategic advice, research and other services to a range of clients. As senior advisor to Ontario’s deputy premier and minister of advanced education and skills development, and for digital government services.

Read More