Should Smartphones be Banned in Schools? A Look at the Research
Why Read This
What Makes This Article Worth Your Time
Summary
What This Article Is About
Peter Jacobsen surveys the growing body of research on smartphone bans in schools, anchored by a landmark NBER study (Allcott et al) covering more than 4,500 schools over three years — described as the largest of its kind. The findings are notably mixed: students generally report improved well-being after the first year, but academic outcomes vary significantly by grade level, with high schoolers showing modest gains in math and middle schoolers showing slightly negative effects. Teachers reported higher satisfaction, which psychologist Jonathan Haidt interprets as a positive signal despite some measured drops in classroom attention.
Beyond the NBER study, Jacobsen reviews supporting evidence — including a Norwegian study showing reduced bullying and a Florida analysis linking bans to lower absenteeism — before pivoting to a broader institutional argument. He contends that even if bans are beneficial, government schools lack the competitive incentives to implement them effectively. Drawing on prisoner’s dilemma theory to explain why teenagers collectively suffer from smartphone use even as each individual feels pressure to participate, Jacobsen ultimately advocates for school choice and market competition as the mechanism most likely to surface what actually works.
Key Points
Main Takeaways
Biggest Study, Mixed Findings
The NBER study of 4,500+ schools found little statistically significant academic impact overall, with well-being gains emerging only after the first year of a ban.
Results Vary by Age Group
High school students showed improved math scores under bans, while middle schoolers experienced slightly negative effects — suggesting age matters enormously in policy design.
Students Prefer Bans Long-Term
Across multiple studies, students initially resist bans but later report greater happiness — a pattern consistent with the prisoner’s dilemma: everyone is better off when no one uses phones.
Other Studies Are More Positive
A Norwegian study found bans reduced bullying and improved girls’ academic outcomes; Florida’s 2023 ban improved scores in year two, partly by reducing unexcused absences.
Government Schools Lack Incentives
Unlike private businesses, public schools face no financial penalty for ineffective policies, meaning they have weak structural motivation to implement bans even when evidence supports them.
School Choice as the Solution
Jacobsen argues that market competition between schools — where parents can move children to districts with better policies — is the most reliable mechanism for discovering what works.
Master Reading Comprehension
Practice with 365 curated articles and 2,400+ questions across 9 RC types.
Article Analysis
Breaking Down the Elements
Main Idea
Phone Bans Show Promise, But the Real Problem Is Who Decides
The research on smartphone bans is mixed but trending cautiously positive — with well-being gains and some academic improvements emerging over time. Jacobsen’s deeper argument, however, is that the more important question is not whether bans work, but whether the government school system has the structural incentives to discover and implement what works. Without competitive pressure, the answer is likely no.
Purpose
To Inform and Advocate for Market-Based Education Reform
Jacobsen uses the smartphone ban debate as an entry point to argue for school choice and competition. He informs readers of the research landscape fairly, but his purpose is ultimately persuasive — using the institutional failure of public schools to make the case that competition between schools is the superior mechanism for improving education policy outcomes.
Structure
Evidence Survey → Theoretical Explanation → Institutional Critique → Policy Prescription
The article opens with the NBER study’s headline findings, then broadens to review corroborating and contradicting evidence from Florida, Norway, and a 2025 Lancet study. It pivots at “The School as Laboratory” subheading into a philosophical and economic argument about why public schools are poorly positioned to act on the evidence — concluding with a personal anecdote and a market-competition prescription.
Tone
Empirically Grounded, Libertarian-Leaning & Conversational
Jacobsen writes with the measured tone of an economics commentator — careful to acknowledge complexity and mixed evidence before advancing his own view. The tone is transparent about personal bias (“my own inclination”) while grounding arguments in research. The writing is accessible and conversational, making economic concepts like the prisoner’s dilemma and institutional incentives approachable for a general audience.
Key Terms
Vocabulary from the Article
Click each card to reveal the definition
Build your vocabulary systematically
Each article in our course includes 8-12 vocabulary words with contextual usage.
Tough Words
Challenging Vocabulary
Tap each card to flip and see the definition
A game theory scenario where individuals acting in their own self-interest produce a worse collective outcome than if they had cooperated — used here to explain why all students use phones even though everyone would benefit if no one did.
“This consistent finding is perhaps indicative of teenagers facing a prisoner’s dilemma, wherein if all their peers coordinate to put their smartphones away, everyone is better off.”
In a way that is completely clear and leaves no room for doubt or more than one interpretation; used to describe the Norwegian study’s findings as straightforwardly positive.
“A Norwegian study by Abrahamsson shows unambiguously positive effects of a ban.”
Serving as a sign or suggestion of something; pointing toward a particular conclusion without conclusively proving it — commonly used in research contexts to signal tentative findings.
“The fact that several results are finding positive impacts after a couple of years seem suggestive of more positive impacts down the line.”
To the degree or extent that a particular condition applies; used to qualify a claim by limiting it to the circumstances in which a stated premise holds true.
“Insofar as teachers’ satisfaction is derived from students paying attention or improving academically, this suggests the results may be more positive than some of the findings indicate.”
Deliberately designed to stimulate strong reactions, debate, or curiosity; used here to describe a Wall Street Journal headline crafted to surprise or challenge readers’ assumptions.
“In 2022, The Wall Street Journal ran an article with a provocative title: ‘This School Took Away Smartphones. The Kids Don’t Mind.'”
In an institutional or policy context, resistance or difficulty created by implementing a change — the disruption, complaints, or administrative burden a new rule generates among stakeholders.
“Government schools have weak incentives to ban phones even if that’s the best outcome for students and parents. Students’ educational failure imposes no costs, and the friction caused by bans might.”
Reading Comprehension
Test Your Understanding
5 questions covering different RC question types
1According to the NBER study discussed in the article, smartphone bans produced clear and consistent academic improvements across all student age groups from the very first year.
2According to the article, what explanation do Figlio and Ozek suggest for the improved test scores observed in Florida following its 2023 smartphone ban?
3Which sentence best captures the author’s core argument about why public schools are unlikely to implement effective smartphone bans, even if the evidence supports doing so?
4Evaluate each statement about the studies and evidence discussed in this article.
The Norwegian study by Abrahamsson found that smartphone bans were particularly beneficial for girls in terms of academic performance.
The 2025 Lancet study confirmed that smartphone restrictions significantly improved students’ mental wellbeing, supporting the broader case for bans.
Buxton School in Massachusetts replaced smartphones with the Light Phone, and students reported being happier after an initial period of resistance.
Select True or False for all three statements, then click “Check Answers”
5The author applies the prisoner’s dilemma framework to explain student smartphone use. What can we most reasonably infer from this about the author’s view of individual willpower as a solution to the problem?
FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
The NBER study (Allcott et al) examined more than 4,500 schools over three years and found mixed results. Students reported improved well-being after the first year, but overall there was little to no statistically significant impact on academic test scores. Outcomes varied by age group: high school students showed improvement in math, while middle schoolers experienced slightly negative effects. Teachers, however, reported higher satisfaction — which psychologist Jonathan Haidt interprets as a sign the full picture may be more positive than raw test data suggests.
The prisoner’s dilemma is a concept from game theory in which individuals acting rationally in their own interest produce a worse outcome than if they had cooperated. Applied to schools, each student has a personal incentive to keep using their phone — to stay connected, not miss out — even if they recognise that everyone would be happier if no one used their phone at all. Because no individual can unilaterally solve this problem, a coordinated external rule (a ban) is the only mechanism that changes the incentive structure for everyone simultaneously.
Jacobsen argues that unlike private businesses — which lose revenue and customers when they fail — government schools maintain their budgets regardless of whether their policies work. This means administrators face no financial penalty for poor educational outcomes, but do face friction and complaint from implementing unpopular changes like phone bans. The rational institutional response is therefore inaction, even when evidence points to a ban being beneficial for students and parents.
Readlite provides curated articles with comprehensive analysis including summaries, key points, vocabulary building, and practice questions across 9 different RC question types. Our Ultimate Reading Course offers 365 articles with 2,400+ questions to systematically improve your reading comprehension skills.
This article is rated Intermediate. The writing is conversational and clear, but it requires readers to follow an argument that moves between research evidence and economic theory. Concepts like the prisoner’s dilemma, institutional incentives, and selection bias are introduced without extensive explanation, and the author’s policy position — favouring school choice over government mandates — must be inferred from the overall argument rather than being explicitly stated in a single sentence.
Peter Jacobsen is an economist and writer whose work focuses on education policy, market economics, and public policy. The Daily Economy is a publication that applies economic reasoning to everyday issues and current events, with a general orientation toward free-market and school-choice perspectives. This context is useful for readers because it helps explain why Jacobsen’s response to mixed research on phone bans pivots quickly toward an institutional critique of government schooling rather than a straightforward policy recommendation.
The Ultimate Reading Course covers 9 RC question types: Multiple Choice, True/False, Multi-Statement T/F, Text Highlight, Fill in the Blanks, Matching, Sequencing, Error Spotting, and Short Answer. This comprehensive coverage prepares you for any reading comprehension format you might encounter.
