When Principal Bill Egan introduced NCHS’s “Off and Away” cell phone expectations earlier this year, the goals of the policy were clearly stated: improve student engagement, encourage more face-to-face interaction, and support overall well-being.
Beginning January 20, phones, smartwatches, and headphones were required to remain powered off and stored away from the first bell until dismissal, with use permitted only in the cafeteria and library. That compromise reflects something valuable: the idea that responsibility can coexist with boundaries. Most students understand that phones should not interrupt class instruction.
The policy was also described as the “first step” toward a fully phone-free school environment for the 2026–27 school year.
At the time, reactions from students were mixed. Some welcomed the quieter classrooms and fewer distractions, while others felt frustrated by the restrictions and the loss of independence that came with them.
But in early May, while it was widely expected that state legislators would move forward with a statewide ban on cellphones in schools, that legislation did not pass.
In addition, a large-scale study, released in late April, conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan, the University of Pennsylvania, and Duke University examined over 40,000 schools between 2019 and 2026 using data from Yondr locking pouches. The study found that in schools with strict phone restrictions, nonacademic phone use dropped drastically, from 61% of students to just 13%.
Researchers said that many educators also reported noticeable improvements beyond just classroom focus. They observed fewer distractions during lessons, greater student participation, and more face-to-face conversation between students during lunch periods and passing time.
But not all the news was good.
The same research also reveals little overall improvement in test scores, attendance, bullying, or long-term mental health outcomes, even with the significant drop in cellphone use. This suggests that while “Off and Away” policies can clearly reduce distractions, their impact on engagement and well-being is more limited than expected.
And that may be because the policies that eliminate distraction also eliminate healthy and productive ways students use their cell phones. For many students, phones are not just tools for entertainment, but also planners, calculators, and essential communication devices. Students use them to coordinate rides home, check schedules, and decompress between classes. Because of that, removing access entirely may unintentionally create added stress in some situations rather than simply eliminating distraction.
Ultimately, schools should aim not simply to eliminate distractions, but to help students develop healthy relationships with technology. Digital literacy, self-regulation, and responsible use are skills students will need long after high school. Creating opportunities for students to practice those skills may be just as valuable as restricting access altogether.
Given the way the Yondr sponsored research showed that bans have a limited impact on engagement and well-being, NCHS needs to be prepared to have ways to measure whether or not the bell to bell ban achieves its objectives. NCHS has a long history of putting students’ needs first, and to district officials that is what the bell to bell ban is designed to do. But, if the policy isn’t achieving the goals that the district has stated, they need to be ready to change the policy.
