It seems like everyone—from parents at the pickup line to lawmakers at the Capitol—is talking about kids and their phones. And not much of it is good news. Concerns about distraction, social media, and mental health have turned into full-blown policy debates across the country. In Arkansas, those debates are now shaping real change inside classrooms.
In fall 2024, the Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) launched a phone-free schools pilot. Then, the statewide law, Bell-to-Bell, No Cell, passed in February 2025 and took effect at the start of school in the fall of 2025. The law bans personal device use for all public K–12 students during the school day, including lunch and passing periods, with exceptions only for emergencies and certain accommodations.
To better understand how these policies are playing out in schools, we surveyed 300 Arkansas principals and superintendents. Their responses offer an early glimpse into how educators are navigating this digital shift—and what’s working (and what’s not).
Here are a few key takeaways. Please reference the policy brief and the full report for more information.
- Top Concerns: What’s Worrying Principals Most
When asked to name their top concerns about students and phones, principals in phone-free pilot schools who responded cited engagement during instruction and behavior as their top concerns.
Figure 1 shows that nearly half (45%) of principals named engagement during instruction as their biggest concern. Another 19% pointed to behavior issues connected to phone use. Mental health came third, cited by 13% as their primary concern. Quotes from principals capture these sentiments, where some administrators are most concerned with instruction and behavior, whereas others have broader concerns:
“Phone-free classrooms have resulted in students being more focused with fewer behavior issues.”
“Having a phone-free school has encouraged greater participation in classes. Behavior incidents involving phones/cyberbullying have drastically decreased. Students are working on talking to each other at lunch instead of staring into their phones. Even the students who miss their phones recognize the positive changes…”
Figure 1: Principals from pilot schools’ responses about top concerns related to students and cellphones at school.
- Enforcement: Who’s Checking the Phones? Mostly Teachers.
Administrators also noted that enforcing phone policies is tricky and relies heavily on teachers, as shown in Figure 2. The most common enforcement approach, reported by about 45% of principals in treatment schools and 47% in control schools, was: “No one really checks, but violations are reported to administrators by teachers and staff.”
That means teachers are the de facto gatekeepers. And that comes with challenges. Inconsistency across classrooms was a recurring theme in the open-ended responses. Some teachers diligently enforce school phone policies, ensuring that students keep their phones away. Others, not so much.
In pilot schools, about 36% responded that “Teachers check that students are following protocol (e.g., ask students to demonstrate that their pouches are locked).” But in other schools, that number dropped to just 20%. Meanwhile, only 9% in pilot schools responded that “Teachers are expected to handle violations in their classrooms, but can call the office if needed,” compared to 24% of other school principals. “Administrative checks that students are following protocol (e.g., random classroom checks for phones, pouch checks)” were rare at just 9% for both pilot and other schools. Principals highlight the challenging nature of enforcing student phone policies:
“It is something that is constantly monitored here.”
“To be completely transparent, we do find phones almost daily, through random searches; they will fall from students’ pockets, etc.; however, students are not blatantly on their phones during instruction.”
In short, enforcement is uneven, and most of it falls on teachers. That’s a big lift, especially for educators already stretched thin. Without administrative support or clear, consistent systems, phone-free policies will lack effectiveness.
Figure 2: Principal responses related to the enforcement of student cell-phone policy, separated by pilot and other schools.
- Consequences: From Detention to Expulsion
What happens when students break the rules? The answer varies, but the consequences can be serious.
As shown in Figure 3, the most common penalty for maximum phone violations was in-school suspension (ISS), reported by 21% of pilot schools and 18% of other schools. Out-of-school suspension (OSS) came next at 16% for both groups, followed by expulsion (12% in the pilot schools, 11% in the other schools).
These are serious consequences that may be counterproductive to the goal of stricter phone policies: to encourage engagement at school. Several said they’d like more guidance on how to respond appropriately. As one principal comments:
“Unless some guidance is given by the law on how to discipline students regarding cell phone usage at school, schools will probably revert to their current policy moving forward.”
Figure 3: Principal responses related to student maximum consequences for phone violation, separated by pilot and control schools.
Beyond the Data: What’s Really Happening in Schools
Despite differing opinions on student phone policies, their enforcement, and their consequences, Bell-to-Bell, No Cell now prohibits students from using personal technical devices during school hours.
Superintendents in pilot districts overwhelmingly said they plan to continue their phone-free policies. One called it “the best thing we’ve done,” while another said, “It can be done without pouches, but not without complete district support.”
The “support” piece is likely the key to successfully implementing phone-free school policies. Teachers can’t be expected to enforce these policies alone. Principals and district leaders must back them up with clear protocols, consistent communication, and reasonable consequences.
Parents are another piece of the puzzle. Administrators noted that parent pushback often comes from safety concerns, especially fears about not being able to reach their child during an emergency. Schools that proactively communicate their emergency procedures and make space for parent input are likely to see smoother implementation and stronger community trust.
Also, schools should partner with parents to promote monitoring students’ phone use outside school hours. If students have unrestricted access to their phones at home, phone-free school policies are likely to be less effective.
What Comes Next
The Bell-to-Bell, No Cell law officially came into effect statewide in fall 2025. While the pilot offered valuable insights, the law’s full rollout will test whether schools can maintain consistency and fairness at scale.
Early lessons from the OEP survey suggest a few key steps for success:
- Set clear expectations – Students, parents, and teachers should all understand what “bell-to-bell” really means and why it matters.
- Support teachers – Enforcement shouldn’t fall entirely on classroom staff. Administrators should take an active role in monitoring and follow-up.
- Balance discipline with learning – Punishments that remove students from class may backfire. Accountability measures should keep students engaged in learning.
- Engage parents – Community buy-in starts with communication. Advisory groups or parent-student committees can help bridge the gap.
- Teach responsible tech use – As one principal put it, “It’s our responsibility, especially in high school, to teach students how to properly use their phones—not just ban them.”
The Bottom Line
Arkansas is part of a national wave of schools rethinking how technology fits into learning. Early educator perspectives show promise—less distraction, better engagement—but also reveal how tough it is to enforce consistency across hundreds of schools.
The takeaway? Phone bans aren’t magic bullets. They work best when they’re paired with trust, communication, and a shared understanding between schools and families.