Skip to content

Policymaker Playbook

Designing Effective School Policies on Personal Device Use

PDF (English)

PDF (Français)

Authors

Rajender Singh

Andre Cote

Contributors:

Ashna Ali
Catherine Amburgey
Zaynab Choudhry 

Acknowledgements:

Jillian Gonzales
Tiffany Kwok

AT A GLANCE

In 2024, all Canadian provinces introduced restrictions on personal device use in K–12 schools in response to rising concerns over distraction, mental health, and school climate. This playbook distills research, roundtable insights, and youth perspectives to offer practical, evidence-informed guidance for creating, implementing, and evaluating phone restriction policies.

It outlines four essential steps:

  • Establish a clear rationale grounded in public support and evidence on distraction and well-being.
  • Engage stakeholders early and continuously to ensure buy-in and relevance.
  • Design comprehensive policies that balance consistency and flexibility, including inclusive exceptions and practical enforcement models.
  • Monitor and evaluate implementation to address challenges, inform adaptations over time, and measure impact.

Designed for policymakers, this guide helps ministries and school boards establish phone restriction policies that support student learning and well-being.

Introduction

In response to growing concerns about distraction, student well-being, and school culture, every Canadian province introduced some form of personal device restrictions in K–12 schools during the 2024 school year. This playbook outlines how to establish effective phone restriction policies, shaped by what the Dais has learned over the past year through research and engagement across the country. It is primarily intended for provincial policymakers at the ministry level and school board leaders, as well as others involved in designing or refining phone use policies in K–12 settings. 

Our guidance is informed by:

  • A review of provincial phone policies across Canada.
  • Roundtable discussions held in all 10 provinces with educators, school board leaders, parent advocates, researchers, experts, and community organizations.
  • Our leadership development programming with youth champions leading conversations on tech, mental health, and public policy across Canada.
  • A scan of existing research and evidence on phone use, learning, and well-being.

Step 1:

Establish a Rationale

Why restrict phones in schools?

There is substantial and growing evidence that unregulated smartphone use during the school day undermines both academic performance and student well-being. 

Key concerns include:

There is strong and sustained public support for restrictions. Surveys conducted by the Dais, the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF & Abacus Data, October 2024), and Alberta’s Ministry of Education all show broad consensus in favour of these restrictions. In our survey, 81% of Canadian residents supported school phone restrictions, with consensus across age groups and provinces. However, views on the effectiveness of phone restrictions were mixed: 37% perceived the restrictions as at least somewhat effective, while 40% considered them not very effective.

In the absence of clear, coherent policies, enforcement is left to teachers and schools — leading to inconsistency, inequity, and confusion.

A well-crafted policy is not anti-technology. It’s about setting appropriate and enforceable boundaries that prioritize learning, equity, and mental well-being.

Step 2:

Engage Stakeholders Early and Often

While there is broad support for phone use restrictions in schools, the success of these policies depends not just on a strong rationale—but also on meaningful consultation about how they should be implemented.

Most provinces share a common rationale for phone restrictions, grounded in concerns about distraction, student well-being, and school culture. However, the design of policies —enforcement mechanisms, age-specific adaptations, and classroom integration —should be informed by consultation with key stakeholders. These include: 

  • Educators
  • Students
  • School leaders
  • School mental health professionals
  • Researchers

Consultation should be practical, focusing not only on whether phone policies are needed, but also on how they can best be designed and supported. Ministries and school boards should co-develop implementation approaches with those expected to enforce the policies. This includes giving schools autonomy to adapt within a provincial framework, while also encouraging consistency across jurisdictions where possible.

Finally, consultation should not be a one-time exercise. Ministries and school boards should establish regular feedback loops to assess implementation, identify challenges, and adjust accordingly. Ongoing dialogue is essential to ensure that policies remain practical, inclusive, and responsive to real-world conditions in schools.

Step 3:

Design a Comprehensive Policy

The following key elements should guide effective policy development:

Define the Scope of Restricted Devices

Policies are primarily aimed at restricting student use of personal smartphones during school hours and on school premises. However, the underlying concern extends beyond smartphones to a broader category of devices, including but not limited to:

  • Pads/tablets
  • Smartwatches
  • Gaming consoles
  • Smart glasses
  • Wireless earbuds / headphones

Emerging technologies require a broad, flexible definition that allows schools to determine additional devices that should be restricted based on their function, not just their form, as illustrated in the below definition from PEI’s provincial policy.

“Any user owned mobile device that will store, retrieve, manipulate, transmit, or receive digital information, and for greater clarity could include a smartphone, tablet, or laptop.” (PEI, 2024)

Assess Age-Based Needs

Ideally, personal devices should be restricted for the entire school day, including class time, breaks, and transitions for all students. The harms associated with smartphones extend beyond instructional distraction to social isolation and cyberbullying—often concentrated during lunchtime and breaks.

However, most provinces (with the exception of Quebec) have adopted age-based restrictions. These apply full-day restrictions to younger students (typically K–6 or K–8), while for older students, restrictions usually apply only during instructional time, with devices permitted during lunch and other breaks. This phased approach reflects practical considerations, including enforcement challenges, age-based expectations of autonomy, and the need to reduce resistance from high school students when implementing a new policy.

An age-sensitive approach can help build long-term culture change, particularly in secondary schools where enforcement is more complex and students expect more autonomy.

Choose an Enforcement Model

Schools require flexibility in how they enforce phone use restrictions, depending on their infrastructure, staffing, and instructional needs. Drawing on our analysis of provincial policies and literature review, enforcement strategies can be grouped into two broad categories:

  • Out of sight: Phones are not visible during the school day but remain accessible to students (e.g., in pockets, bags, or lockers).
  • Out of sight and out of reach: Phones are both out of sight and physically inaccessible to students without staff involvement (e.g., locked storage, classroom caddies).

Each model comes with benefits and challenges. While out-of-reach models reduce enforcement pressure on teachers, they may limit flexibility for instructional use and require greater planning or investment.

The approach to enforcement should be decided at the school level based on the degree to which personal devices are used in classroom pedagogy. If phones are regularly used for teaching and learning, out-of-reach strategies may disrupt instruction. As recently as 2019, 69 percent of secondary school principals in Ontario reported using a “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) model, where students were asked to bring personal devices for educational purposes—highlighting the need for device restriction policies that account for these instructional realities. Conversely, in contexts where personal devices are not central to learning, stricter control measures can significantly reduce the enforcement burden on teachers. 

Schools should be supported in selecting enforcement strategies that reflect their pedagogic needs, while aiming for consistency and fairness. 

Table 1: Enforcement Model Options1

ModelCategoryBenefitsChallenges
Phones in student pockets or bagsOut of SightEasier to implement

No storage required, lower cost

Accessible for instruction as needed		Phones remain accessible for covert use

High enforcement burden on teachers

Inconsistent enforcement, as all teachers are unequally equipped and/or motivated to enforce
Phones in personal lockers outside classroomsOut of SightEasier to implement

No storage required, lower cost 

Less covert use in classroom		Inaccessible for instruction

Accessible during breaks, and can lead to students taking more frequent breaks
Phones in classroom caddies or shoe hangersOut of  Sight+ Out of ReachLow cost 

Easier to enforce consistently		Less flexibility if phones are needed for instruction, with a study showing inefficacy
Phones in locked storageOut of  Sight+ Out of ReachPrevents all use during mandated hours

Less ongoing enforcement required		Higher upfront cost (storage or pouch system) 

Inaccessible for instruction

Allow for Inclusive Exceptions

Effective phone use policies must be grounded in inclusion and flexibility, rather than rigidity. Drawing on roundtable discussions, common exceptions can be grouped into three broad categories.

Table 2: Exception Types

Exception TypeExamplesRecommendation
Ongoing, constant useStudents with medical or accessibility needs

→ A student with diabetes who needs regular access to a phone-connected glucose monitor or health app

→ A student with a visual impairment who uses a screen reader or magnification app on their phone to access learning materials		Formal exemptions should be supported by documentation (e.g., doctor’s note) and included in student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP).
Ongoing, intermittent useStudents with caregiving, work, or essential family needs

→ A student working casual shifts who needs to confirm or reserve work via phone

→ A student who is the only English speaker in their household who may need to manage essential family communications during school hours		Approval at the classroom or school level with a trust-based approach. Use should be allowed without stigma or penalty.
Rare, situational useEmergencies, important cultural or social events

→ A student receiving time-sensitive news about a university admission or scholarship
​​
→ A student coordinating transportation for a same-day off-campus appointment or exam		Teachers and administrators should have clear authority to grant temporary, contextual exemptions using professional discretion.

Schools must be empowered to grant exemptions thoughtfully, without stigma or disclosure of personal details, and based on professional discretion. Policies that account for reasonable student needs are more likely to succeed.

Set Fair and Reasonable Consequences

Consequences for breaking phone use rules should align with approaches to other behavioral issues: beginning with verbal warning and escalating only as necessary. Schools should integrate phone restriction consequences into their existing disciplinary ladder, considering two additional key principles:

Suspend the device, not the student. 

Suspending students over phone use is counterproductive: it separates them from learning while creating opportunities for more screen time at home. Consequences should rather focus on the device itself: for example, confiscation for the day or a discussion with parents.

Respond to repeat violations with care. 

Students who repeatedly break the rules should not simply be labelled “repeat offenders”. Persistent or secretive phone use may signal deeper issues such as compulsive behavior, coercion, or involvement in harmful networks. These situations require more than discipline: they call for thoughtful inquiry, support and protection.

Most provinces offer little guidance on consequences for violating phone-use rules, but Newfoundland & Labrador’s policy outlines a progressive, device-focused approach. Even there, repeat violations should be handled with care, not just disciplinary action.

Support Schools Through Implementation

Ministries and districts should be prepared to offer targeted, differentiated support to schools based on their readiness and local context. Key supports may include:

  • Financial support for purchasing phone storage solutions (e.g., pouches, lockers, locked cabinets).
  • Professional development for educators concerning classroom management, enforcement strategies, and equity considerations.
  • Integration with digital literacy curriculum, ensuring students understand the “why” behind the policy, and how to engage with technology responsibly inside and outside of school.
  • Technical and administrative guidance, such as adapting IT or BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) policies to align with the new restrictions.
  • Communication materials for students, families and staff to ensure consistent understanding of the policy and its rationale.
  • Flexible implementation models, allowing schools some autonomy in selecting enforcement approaches while adhering to system-wide principles.

Step 4:

Monitor and Evaluate Impact

Despite wide adoption in 2024, no province yet has established a systematic evaluation mechanism to track policy implementation or impact on student learning, well-being or school culture. Other jurisdictions, such as New South Wales (Australia) and the Netherlands, have paired implementation with systematic follow-up evaluations with key enforcers such as principals and educators.

Effective policy is iterative. Oversight and impact evaluation should be built into the policy lifecycle to ensure that policies remain effective, equitable and adaptable. Ministries and school boards should consider simple, scalable strategies for regular tracking and feedback, such as:

  • A provincial requirement for every school to develop and publicly share a phone use policy, adapted from provincial guidelines and uniformly enforced.
  • A board-level dashboard to track each school across key indicators
  • Surveys of teachers, students and parents about the policy’s impact on classrooms and school culture.
  • Term-end implementation check-ins with school administrators to identify successes and challenges.
  • Including phone policy status in existing school improvement planning cycles.
  • Encouraging schools to document and share implementation stories, innovations and unintended consequences.

These strategies allow schools to tailor implementation to their local needs, while operating within a clear framework that enables accountability and support. 

While phone restriction policies aren’t a complete solution to shaping a healthy relationship with technology, they offer a powerful lever to improve academic focus and student wellbeing. With thoughtful design, policymakers can help schools create learning environments where students and educators thrive.

1

Table adapted from Jonathan Haidt, “Phone-Free Schools: What Works?” After Babel, June 2024. https://www.afterbabel.com/p/phone-free-schools