What Students Are Teaching Us About Building Phone-Free Schools That Last

Over the past few weeks, I’ve had the opportunity to sit down with students at two high schools using The Commons.

I didn’t go into those conversations expecting students to love having restrictions on their phones... And they didn’t....

Students talked openly about things they wished they could still access, and how adjusting to the new normal was hard.

But they also told us:

They know why their schools want them to be off social media.

They are getting more work done.

They are more focused.

They are talking to each other more.

Some are even beginning to notice their own screen time and phone habits differently.

These were informal conversations with a small group of students, not a research study. But their feedback reinforced something we believe strongly at The Commons.

The goal of a phone free school shouldn’t simply be getting students off their phones. It should be creating the conditions for something better to happen when the distractions are gone.

→ Read the Student Perception Case Study Here

Students and adults don’t always see school cell phone policies the same way

If you are implementing a school cell phone policy, some student resistance should probably be expected.

Pew Research Center recently found that 74% of U.S. adults support banning cellphone use during class, compared with just 41% of teens. Support for restrictions across the entire school day is even lower among teenagers, at 17%.

That gap is interesting… We found that adults are often looking at phones through the lens of what they see happening in classrooms.

Another Pew Research Center survey found that 72% of U.S. high school teachers consider cellphone distraction a major problem in their classroom.

Students are experiencing the issue from a different perspective. Their phone is also how they communicate with family, hear from a coach, listen to music, check a schedule or access something they genuinely need.

That tension showed up in our conversations. What they challenged us on was whether every function of their phone should be treated the same way.

The distraction itself is real

The amount of phone use happening during the school day is significant.

A 2025 study published in JAMA Pediatrics used passive sensing to measure smartphone use among U.S. adolescents. Students averaged 90 minutes on their smartphones each school day with social media and entertainment apps accounting for much of that use.

The researchers also noted something important: phones can serve legitimate communication and learning purposes at school, but much of the use they observed did not appear consistent with those purposes.

What this study tells us is that the problem isn’t with blanketed ‘technology.’

The problem is that the phone is the same device holding a calculator, a medical app or a message from a parent, but also Instagram, TikTok, games, entertainment and an endless stream of notifications competing for attention.

Studies are also finding that this ‘co-location’ issue isn’t just impacting the individual student.

OECD data show that nearly one in three students reports becoming distracted by digital devices in class. About one in four reports becoming distracted by other students using them.

That is the environment schools are trying to change.

But removing the distraction isn’t the finish line

I keep coming back to an analogy from another challenge schools know well: chronic absenteeism.

The goal of improving attendance isn’t simply to make an attendance percentage go up.

We want students to be in attendance and present because being at school creates an opportunity to learn, participate, build relationships and belong.

I think we should look at phone free school policies the same way.

Whether a school uses phone pouches, classroom storage, a software based solution or another approach, restricting access is not the ultimate outcome.

A student staying off Instagram during algebra isn’t the ultimate outcome either.

It’s what becomes possible when Instagram is no longer competing with algebra.

Is the student getting more work done?

Are they participating more?

Are they talking to the person sitting next to them?

Can the teacher spend more time teaching and less time managing phones?

Does the student begin to notice something about their own attention or habits when the constant pull of the device isn’t there?

That is why the feedback we heard from students was so encouraging.

They weren’t all telling us they loved having restrictions.

They were telling us they noticed what happened when some of those distractions were removed, and they liked it.

→ Read our student voice case study

This is where student voice matters

Listening to students does not mean asking students to decide whether their school should have a phone policy.

Adults still have a responsibility to create environments where teachers can teach and students can learn.

But if we want phone free programs to last, we should understand what students are experiencing inside them.

The Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education identifies student interviews, focus groups, surveys and student voice groups as ways schools can bring student experiences into decision making.

That doesn’t mean every request becomes a policy change. It means we should listen.

Is a student asking for TikTok during class, or are they trying to figure out how they will know their soccer practice was canceled?

Is a student resisting a boundary, or did we unintentionally block a tool they need for school?

Where is a policy working?

Where is it creating unnecessary friction?

Where are students finding ways around it?

What are they noticing about their own behavior?

Student voice does not have to weaken a boundary. It can help us build a better one.

Why was The Commons built differently?

We don’t believe schools should have to choose between an unrestricted smartphone and a completely unusable one.

The Commons is designed to remove distracting parts of the phone during the school day while allowing schools to preserve appropriate utility which can include calls and texts, educational tools, medical apps, accessibility resources and other school approved applications.

Our school mode also activates automatically based on the school’s schedule and environment because a distraction-free campus should be the default. Teachers shouldn’t have to negotiate the phone rule every period, and students shouldn’t have to make the same decision over and over again throughout the day.

For schools considering a bell to bell phone policy, that creates another option beyond physically storing every student device for the entire school day.

But technology is only part of the work. We also spend time with schools thinking about implementation, communication, reinforcement and student experience.

And increasingly, we are sitting down directly with students.

Because if we want to know whether a program is working, compliance can’t be the only thing we look at.

What are students noticing?

One of my favorite parts of these conversations has been hearing students articulate changes adults might otherwise try to measure for them.

They’re getting more work done.

They’re interacting more.

They’re noticing their own screen time.

They also have ideas for making the experience better.

That matters to us.

The OECD’s work on digital distraction talks about both protecting students from digital distractions and equipping them with the skills and behaviors they need to navigate digital environments.

I think schools have an opportunity to do both.

We can create strong boundaries today while also helping students become more aware of what those boundaries make possible.

Because school eventually ends. The bell rings. The restrictions turn off. Students go home, go to college, enter the workforce and continue living in a world where technology will compete for their attention.

We don’t just want students to become good at following phone rules.

We want them learning and connecting today, while becoming better prepared to control their technology use in the future.