School starts this fall in Michigan with a new legal requirement: students cannot use their phones during instructional time. The law passed. The mandate is clear. And now, nearly 800 schools across the state are discovering the hard part. How you actually keep a teenager off their phone for six hours is a question that exposes everything a school community believes about trust, development, and what education is preparing kids for.
Research from a University of Michigan team analyzing those nearly 800 school policies reveals a striking split. Half of Michigan schools have gone bell-to-bell, meaning no phone access at any point in the school day. The other half have chosen schedule-based restrictions, allowing students to use phones during lunch or between class periods. Within those two camps, enforcement looks dramatically different: 62% of schools rely on a “no-show” approach where students keep phones in backpacks or pockets, 17% require locker storage, 9% collect devices in a designated classroom spot, 8% ban phones from the building entirely, and just 2% use lockable pouches like Yondr.
That spread tells a complicated story about what schools believe works, and what they’re willing to commit to.
The Policy You Pick Is a Values Statement
Before a school leader chooses a method, it’s worth being honest about what each approach actually signals to students.
Backpack storage is the lowest-friction option. Students keep their phones; schools trust them to keep them put away. It’s the policy equivalent of saying: “We believe most of you will comply, and the ones who don’t will face consequences.” That works when trust is justified. It struggles when it isn’t, because phones in backpacks are one buzz away from distraction, and teachers end up playing referee.
Locker storage removes the temptation from the room but creates a logistics puzzle: students need transitions between classes to access their lockers, which works in some building layouts and fails in others. It also only functions bell-to-bell if the locker is actually out of reach during class, which isn’t always guaranteed.
Lockable pouches and centralized collection signal something different: we are serious enough about this that we’ve invested in infrastructure. Yondr pouches cost money. Centralized collection requires staff time and a secure space. Schools that go this route are making a public commitment that follows through.
Brian Jacob, an education policy professor at the University of Michigan, framed the challenge honestly. He described phone restriction as “one big genie that is out of the bottle” and said figuring out the best approach “is going to take a little practice and iteration on the part of schools.” That’s not pessimism. That’s an accurate read of what schools are actually dealing with: a device that students have been using freely for years, embedded in their social lives, suddenly subject to institutional management.
The Urban-Suburban Split Deserves a Closer Look
One of the more interesting findings from the University of Michigan research is the gap between school types. Charter schools (79%) and urban schools (76%) are substantially more likely to require bell-to-bell policies than suburban (49%) or rural (41%) schools.
Jacob offered a candid explanation: some suburban schools may be “fooling themselves” into thinking phones aren’t much of a problem, while urban schools perceive more disruption and respond with stricter measures.
This is worth sitting with. If phone distraction genuinely differs by school context, that’s worth understanding. But if it’s a perception gap rather than a reality gap, suburban schools with loose enforcement policies may be underestimating what they’re giving up: attention, focus, and the kind of sustained engagement that learning requires.
There’s also an equity question underneath the enforcement data. Stricter policies cost more. Yondr pouches cost money. Centralized collection requires staff. “No-show” costs nothing and puts the burden on students. Schools with fewer resources may end up with the weakest enforcement by default, not by design.
What Graduated Autonomy Actually Looks Like
Novi Community School District in Michigan took a different approach from most: they built a system that changes as students get older.
In grades K through 4, no phones in the building. In grades 5 through 8, Yondr pouches from the start of the day to dismissal. In high school, pouches during instructional time only, with students unlocking their phones between classes and at lunch.
Superintendent Ben Mainka described the thinking: “As students go through school, they’re learning and they’re maturing, and so we know that as they grow and mature, we want to be able to open up more freedom and responsibilities.” He connected high school access to workplace preparation, arguing that students need to learn to manage their phones during appropriate windows, not just avoid them entirely.
Only 2% of Michigan schools have adopted this kind of graduated model. That’s a small number, but it may reflect the difficulty of implementation more than skepticism about the idea. Age-differentiated policies require buy-in across grade levels, coordination between building leaders, and a shared philosophy. Easier to pick one blanket rule and enforce it uniformly.
Still, the Novi model raises a question worth discussing at the department or leadership level: are we preparing students to never have phones, or to manage them well? The answer shapes everything about which policy makes sense for your community.
What Educators Can Actually Do With This
If your school is still finalizing its phone policy, or refining enforcement from a first year of trying, the Michigan data offers a practical framework for making the decision.
Start with your actual problem. If attention during instruction is the core issue, backpack storage probably doesn’t solve it. Students in class know their phones are within arm’s reach. If social drama between classes is the bigger issue, bell-to-bell restrictions may be overkill. Name the specific behavior you’re trying to address before picking the tool.
Ask what you can actually sustain. Centralized collection sounds thorough until you calculate how long it takes to collect 120 phones every morning, where you store them securely, and what happens when a student claims a phone that wasn’t theirs. Great in theory, chaotic under pressure. Be honest about your staffing and space before committing.
Build the rationale with students, not just at them. Schools that explain the reasoning behind the policy, especially around attention, learning, and what the research shows about phone-adjacent distraction, get better voluntary compliance than schools that simply announce a rule. This is especially true for high schoolers, who will probe for inconsistency and push back on anything that feels arbitrary.
If you’re using a no-show policy, be explicit about what triggers a consequence. Vague enforcement breeds resentment and uneven application. “Phones must be in your backpack, face-down, with sound off. First visible offense gets a warning. Second is collected for the period.” Clear and consistent matters more than the specific rule.
Finally, watch the data. If your district, like many Michigan schools, is mid-iteration on this, track whether the policy is actually improving focus, reducing conflicts, or changing student wellbeing in measurable ways. Anecdote is not evidence. If teachers are reporting that the policy creates more disruption than it solves, that information needs to travel to leadership quickly. This is a multi-year process, as Jacob said, and schools that build feedback loops now will get further faster.
The Bigger Takeaway
Michigan’s experience is playing out in slow motion in districts across the country. The phone question has moved from “should we do something?” to “what exactly should we do, and how?” The answer is not settled. The University of Michigan research doesn’t crown a winner. What it shows is that community values, resource levels, and grade-level philosophy all shape the choice.
Your school’s phone policy is, in a real sense, a statement about what you think school is for. Make it intentionally.
EdTech Institute covers technology in education so teachers can focus on what matters: their students.
EdTech Institute also builds free, classroom-ready tools for teachers at RazaEd.
Source: With a State Cell Phone Ban in Place, Michigan Schools Choose a Range of Options (The 74)