Schools, but not states, should ban phones

Enjoying SCHOOLED? Subscribe to keep receiving it on Tuesday and Friday mornings.

---

I like phone bans. I think both common sense and the early evidence indicate that smartphones are, as Robert Pondiscio has said, “classroom cancer.” We don’t let kids smoke in school anymore, and we shouldn’t give them access to distraction devices while they are supposed to be learning.

I even like bell-to-bell bans (rather than just classroom bans), so that kids will be more likely to talk to one another in the hallway and cafeteria, and to give their brains a nice long break from the stimulating effects of Screenworld.

In fact, cellphone bans are not enough. We also need to curtail the Chromebooks and most other classroom tech. A Chromebook—or especially a Macbook—can easily serve as a big-old phone, allowing kids to cheat, text, and even gamble on sports (happening at my kids’ high school, I hear!) instead of listening to their teacher.

In other words, I am something of a hawk on school-based technology.

But.

What I’m less sure about is whether statewide phone bans make sense. Some districts have gone heavy into digital learning. Should they be allowed to opt out of these bans? Should charter schools have to abide by such prohibitions, even though this is the sort of top-down regulation from which they are supposed to enjoy autonomy? What about private schools? To my knowledge, public health authorities don’t allow smoking in private schools just because they are private. So too with phones, given that they are “classroom cancer”?

Especially if we start getting into the larger debate about Chromebooks and smart boards and other tech, do we really think that legislators should pass laws to mandate that every single school in an entire state roll back the clock on “digital learning”?

These sorts of questions are perennial ones for the American education system, given its fragmentation and historical commitment to local control.

Pick any issue for which you think there’s a strong argument for doing things one particular way. The science of reading. More pay for teachers in high-poverty schools. Automatic enrollment into advanced classes. Should we mandate these policies from the state level? And if we do, should we allow district schools and charter schools to apply for waivers if they think they have a better way of achieving the purported goals?

We conservatives in particular like to talk about states’ rights and local control—except when we bump up against a policy or practice that we love or hate. And then we, too, can’t help but turn to mandates or bans.

What do you think? Are phones so terrible that, like cigarettes, they should be treated as contraband in our schools? And prohibited at the state level? Is that also how you would treat, say, balanced literacy and three-queuing? What is the defining principle we should embrace so that we don’t try to micromanage everything from the state level but also encourage (or even require) schools to adopt evidence-based practices?

Please weigh in!

Education Next kicked off an important debate yesterday about how the One Big Beautiful Bill’s educational choice tax credit initiative should be regulated. First up is Jim Blew, who argues for clearing up the law’s “ambiguities.” Among those: whether governors should be allowed discretion to add “requirements not found in the federal law” when deciding which “scholarship granting organizations” they should approve.

I think that following Jim’s advice would be a mistake. If we want Democratic governors to opt in, we need to give them the ability to tailor the initiative to be more politically palatable, for example by limiting scholarships to low-income and working-class families. Jim, on the other hand, says that if governors “do prevent children from accessing K–12 scholarships, I expect the voters will punish them because school choice is wildly popular across all party affiliations, racial groups, and generations.”

Do you agree with Jim that governors’ discretion should be limited? Or with me that some discretion is the only way some Democrats will opt in? Weigh in!

Meanwhile, Jeb Bush takes to The 74 to celebrate Indiana’s success lifting third-grade reading scores, thanks to grade retention and science of reading policies. Let’s see how the Hoosier State does on the 2026 NAEP before we pop the champagne, says I.

The evidence is accumulating that AI really is putting entry-level computer coders out of work. Oops, says Chad Aldeman, given that we just encouraged a generation of students to major in computer science and also mandated coding in high school for everyone in a bunch of states. We should stick to the basics instead, he argues. Yes!

Jed Wallace wants a five-pointed North Star for the charter movement.

Adding to last week’s NAEP takes, Rick Hess tweaks NASSP and other education-establishment groups for their “blather”-ful responses to the “dismal” results.

Eva Moskowitz, on the other hand, writes a letter to the Wall Street Journal ($) to warn that we’re locked in an “education cold war” with China and the lackluster NAEP scores demonstrate that we need to urgently step up our game.

A few folks turned to media criticism with respect to the score release. Alexander Russo was impressed with the "wall-to-wall coverage," while Chad Aldeman was disappointed that the story was "met by a large yawn from our news media,” which didn’t feature the NAEP articles prominently in their papers, on their websites, or in their newsletters. (It’s hard to get the public to care about any NAEP release that doesn’t include state-by-state results!)

---

After the Supreme Court’s deadlocked 4-4 decision in the religious charter schools case, the leaders involved in the planned St. Isidore of Seville Catholic virtual charter school will instead open St. Carlo Acutis Classical Academy, a new private online school named for the first millennial saint. —Oklahoma Voice

The CDC’s external advisory panel may change recommendations on childhood immunizations, raising concerns about the impact on school-entry requirements and even access to vaccinations. —Politico

A new report from Doug Harris and Gabriel Olivier looks at the changing landscape of private school choice, with takeaways for both supporters and opponents of education savings accounts. —The New York Times

---

On The Best Takes on the Worst NAEP Scores Ever (9/12/25)

John writes:

There is an abundance of handwringing about the current reality, a few high-minded proposals on “what” needs to change, and nearly zero discussion of the specific actions that will be required to reengineer the system. For example, I appreciate Fryer’s focus on what leads to increased learning and closing gaps, but how does it scale? Where will we find all of these outstanding principals and teachers? We can't replace 95 percent of principals nationwide unless we have a mammoth reserve hidden in the wings somewhere. Do we? If not, what incentives are we offering to attract the best-and-brightest to a career field that is already experiencing nationwide shortages across all staff classifications? We bemoan the funding that has been “poured” into education with few positive results. Yet across much of the nation, our professional educators can make half of what they would earn in the private sector for comparable education and experience. How is that to be rectified without an influx of significantly increased funding?

See ya Friday!

Mike