School Cell Phone Ban by State 2026
By Axis Intelligence Research
Co-author: Jennifer Miller | Last updated: October 30, 2026 | License: CC BY 4.0
Pennsylvania’s governor approved Act 117 of 2026 on October 26, the newest entry on a map that now runs almost coast to coast. Counting states is the easy part. The question this page answers is the one the maps skip: how many children are actually sitting in classrooms governed by a full-day rule, and how strong is each state’s law once you read the text instead of the headline.
Quick Answer
According to Axis Intelligence Research, 39.5% of U.S. public school students (19,576,800 of 49,516,361) attend school in one of 20 jurisdictions whose statewide rule bans phones bell to bell in every grade, as of October 30, 2026. Scheduled laws in Georgia, Maryland and Pennsylvania lift that share to 48.3% in 2027–28. On the Axis Phone-Free School Index (PFSI), eight states score the maximum 100; the enrollment-weighted national reading is 54.0.
Key Findings
- According to Axis Intelligence Research, 39.5% of U.S. public school students are covered by an all-grade bell-to-bell phone rule as of October 30, 2026, based on NCES fall 2023 enrollment.
- Axis Intelligence Research calculates that the share of students under a full-day phone rule reaches 48.3% in the 2027–28 school year, when laws in Georgia, Maryland and Pennsylvania take full effect.
- Eight states — Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, North Dakota, Rhode Island and Virginia — score 100 on the Axis Phone-Free School Index (PFSI), the only states pairing a full-day ban, a possession or storage rule and a statute.
- California, home to 11.96% of U.S. public school students, scores 33 on the PFSI because its law requires districts to limit smartphones but leaves the scope to each district, per Axis Intelligence Research.
- Axis Intelligence Research finds that 15.5% of U.S. public school students (7.68 million) attend school in a state with no mandatory statewide phone rule today, falling to 6.6% in 2027–28.
Which States Ban Cell Phones in School in 2026?
As of October 30, 2026, 41 states and the District of Columbia have a mandatory statewide rule on student phones in force for the 2026–27 school year, according to Axis Intelligence Research’s reading of each state’s statute, board policy or executive order. Three more — Illinois, Maryland and Pennsylvania — have enacted laws that bite in 2027–28. Six states have no statewide requirement: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota and Washington.
“Ban” covers very different laws. We sort every jurisdiction into five tiers, by what the text actually requires:
- Bell-to-bell, all grades (19 states + D.C.): no student phone use from the first bell to dismissal, lunch and passing periods included. Virginia’s code defines the term in exactly those words, and the statute also restricts possession.
- Full-day default, open exemptions (Nebraska, Utah): the statute bans use all day but lets the school board, a school employee (Nebraska) or the local education agency (Utah) allow use in other circumstances, so the guaranteed floor is scored like a class-time rule.
- Split by grade (Florida, Georgia, Hawaii): full-day rule for elementary and middle school, a class-time rule (or, in Georgia’s case until July 2027, no state rule) for high school.
- Class time only (8 states): phones away during instruction; lunch and hallways left to districts.
- Must limit, scope local (Arizona, California, Delaware, Idaho): districts must restrict use, but each decides how far.
- Policy required, content local (Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, Wyoming): a district must have a written policy; the state sets no minimum.
The tier matters more than the headline. Jennifer Miller’s read: a “policy required” state and a bell-to-bell state both show up as “has a phone law” on most maps, yet a district in the first can satisfy the statute with a rule that permits phones in class. The law’s verb — prohibit, restrict, limit, adopt a policy on — is the variable that predicts what a student experiences on a Tuesday morning.
What Is the Phone-Free School Index (PFSI)?
The Phone-Free School Index (PFSI™) is an Axis Intelligence Research score from 0 to 100 that measures how far a state’s own legal text goes in removing phones from the school day. Raw counts of “states with a ban” rank paperwork; the PFSI ranks substance. It has three components, each scored from the enacted text:
PFSI = S + 25 × k × (S ÷ 60) + D
- S — scope (0–60): bell-to-bell 60; class time 36 (also used for the full-day defaults with open exemptions in Nebraska and Utah); must-limit 18; policy-only 12; none 0. Where a rule differs by grade, S is weighted by grade span (K–8 = 9/13, grades 9–12 = 4/13).
- k — possession or storage (0, 0.5, 1): 1 where the law requires devices to be stored, inaccessible or off the student’s person, or restricts possession; 0.5 where it requires schools to provide storage but not to mandate it; 0 where only use is barred. The storage points scale with scope, so a storage rule counts for less when it covers less of the day.
- D — legal durability (0–15): statute 15; board policy, executive order or annual budget proviso 7.5; none 0.
Three worked examples, all from the CSV: Kansas = 60 + 25 × 1 × 1 + 15 = 100. New York = 60 + 25 × 0.5 × 1 + 15 = 87.5. Florida = 52.6 (nine grades at 60, four at 36) + 0 + 15 = 67.6.
School Phone Ban Rankings by State: the PFSI Table
The ranking below is the normalized view. Ties are real: a law either requires storage or it doesn’t, and eight states wrote the strictest version into statute.
| Rank | State | PFSI now | PFSI 2027–28 | Statewide rule today | Instrument | Law | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alabama | 100.0 | 100.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | HB 166 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 1 | Arkansas | 100.0 | 100.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | SB 142 / Act 122 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 1 | Indiana | 100.0 | 100.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | SEA 78 (2026), amending SEA 185 (2024) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 1 | Kansas | 100.0 | 100.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | HB 2299 (2026) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 1 | Louisiana | 100.0 | 100.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | SB 207 / Act 313 (2024) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 1 | North Dakota | 100.0 | 100.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | HB 1160 as amended by SB 2354 (2025), NDCC 15.1-07-41 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 1 | Rhode Island | 100.0 | 100.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | S 0771 Sub A / H 5598 Sub A (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 1 | Virginia | 100.0 | 100.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | Va. Code 22.1-79.3:1 (2026 c. 331, SB 108) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 9 | South Carolina | 92.5 | 92.5 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Budget proviso | FY 2026-27 Appropriations Act, Proviso 1.95 | Budget proviso; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 10 | District of Columbia | 87.5 | 87.5 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | D.C. Law 26-39, Disconnect Act of 2025 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 10 | New York | 87.5 | 87.5 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | Education Law section 2803 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 12 | Maine | 75.0 | 75.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | LD 2212, P.L. 2025 ch. 650, Part GG (2026) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 12 | Missouri | 75.0 | 75.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | SB 68 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 12 | New Hampshire | 75.0 | 75.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | HB 2 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 12 | New Jersey | 75.0 | 75.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | S3695, P.L.2025, c.195 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 12 | Ohio | 75.0 | 75.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | HB 96 (2025), R.C. 3313.753 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 12 | Oklahoma | 75.0 | 75.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | HB 1276 (2026), making SB 139 (2025) permanent | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 12 | Texas | 75.0 | 75.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | HB 1481 (2025), Education Code 37.082 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 12 | Vermont | 75.0 | 75.0 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Statute | H.480 / Act 72 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 20 | Georgia | 73.8 | 100.0 | Bell-to-bell K-8 (9-12 from July 2027) | Statute | HB 340 (2025), HB 1009 (2026) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 21 | Florida | 67.6 | 67.6 | Bell-to-bell K-8, class time 9-12 | Statute | HB 379 (2023), HB 1105 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 22 | Oregon | 67.5 | 67.5 | Bell-to-bell, all grades | Executive order | Executive Order 25-09 | Executive order; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 23 | West Virginia | 66.0 | 66.0 | Class time only | Statute | HB 2003 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 24 | Hawaii | 60.1 | 60.1 | Bell-to-bell K-8, class time 9-12 | Board policy | Hawaii Board of Education student cell phone policy (Feb 12, 2026) | Board policy; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 25 | Iowa | 51.0 | 51.0 | Class time only | Statute | HF 782 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 25 | Kentucky | 51.0 | 51.0 | Class time only | Statute | HB 208 (2025), Acts Ch. 90 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 25 | Michigan | 51.0 | 51.0 | Class time only | Statute | HB 4141, Public Act 2 of 2026 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 25 | Nebraska | 51.0 | 51.0 | Full-day default; local exemptions open | Statute | LB 140 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 25 | Nevada | 51.0 | 51.0 | Class time only | Statute | SB 444 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 25 | North Carolina | 51.0 | 51.0 | Class time only | Statute | HB 959, S.L. 2025-38 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 25 | Tennessee | 51.0 | 51.0 | Class time only | Statute | SB 897 / HB 932 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 25 | Utah | 51.0 | 51.0 | Full-day default; local exemptions open | Statute | SB 69 (2026), amending SB 178 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 25 | Wisconsin | 51.0 | 51.0 | Class time only | Statute | AB 2, 2025 Wisconsin Act 42 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 34 | Arizona | 33.0 | 33.0 | Must limit use; scope local | Statute | HB 2484 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 34 | California | 33.0 | 33.0 | Must limit use; scope local | Statute | AB 3216 (2024) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 34 | Delaware | 33.0 | 33.0 | Must limit use; scope local | Statute | SB 106 (2026) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 34 | Idaho | 33.0 | 33.0 | Must limit use; scope local | Statute | S 1032 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 38 | Alaska | 27.0 | 27.0 | Policy required; content local | Statute | HB 57 (2025), AS 14.33.300 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 38 | Colorado | 27.0 | 27.0 | Policy required; content local | Statute | HB 25-1135 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 38 | Minnesota | 27.0 | 27.0 | Policy required; content local | Statute | SF 3567 (2024) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 38 | New Mexico | 27.0 | 27.0 | Policy required; content local | Statute | SB 11 (2025) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 38 | Wyoming | 27.0 | 27.0 | Policy required; content local | Statute | SF 35, Enrolled Act 46 (2026) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 43 | Connecticut | 0.0 | 0.0 | No statewide mandate | — | none (HB 5035 of 2026 not enacted) | No enacted rule; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 43 | Illinois | 0.0 | 78.6 | No statewide mandate | Statute | SB 2427, Public Act 104-0657 (2026) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 43 | Maryland | 0.0 | 87.5 | No statewide mandate | Statute | HB 525 / Ch. 596 (2026) | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 43 | Massachusetts | 0.0 | 0.0 | No statewide mandate | — | none (S.2581 pending in conference) | No enacted rule; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 43 | Mississippi | 0.0 | 0.0 | No statewide mandate | — | none (2026 bills not enacted) | No enacted rule; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 43 | Montana | 0.0 | 0.0 | No statewide mandate | — | none (governor’s 2024 letter, non-binding) | No enacted rule; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 43 | Pennsylvania | 0.0 | 100.0 | No statewide mandate | Statute | SB 1014, Act 117 of 2026 | State statute; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 43 | South Dakota | 0.0 | 0.0 | No statewide mandate | — | none (SB 198 of 2026 not enacted) | No enacted rule; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
| 43 | Washington | 0.0 | 0.0 | No statewide mandate | — | none (SSB 5346 of 2026 authorizes, does not require) | No enacted rule; Axis Intelligence Research calculation |
Source: enacted statutes, board policies and executive orders linked in the CSV; scores are an Axis Intelligence Research calculation, as of October 30, 2026. “2027–28” applies laws already enacted on their scheduled dates.
What the tiers hide is how close the ceiling is. Eight states sit at 75 — a full-day ban written as a use rule, with nothing in statute about where the phone goes. Texas, Ohio, New Jersey and Missouri are in that group. Moving any of them to 100 would take a single clause on storage, the clause that separates “don’t touch it” from “you can’t reach it.” That is the amendment to watch in 2027 sessions.
How Many Students Are Covered by School Phone Bans?
This is the raw view: students, not states. A by-state ranking that ignored enrollment would treat North Dakota’s 119,033 students and Texas’s 5,532,518 as equal wins. They are not.
| State | Public school students (fall 2023) | Share of U.S. students | Under all-grade bell-to-bell rule now | Under it in 2027–28 | Compliance date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 5,924,113 | 11.96% | 0 | 0 | 2026-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Texas | 5,532,518 | 11.17% | 5,532,518 | 5,532,518 | 2025-09-18 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Florida | 2,872,335 | 5.80% | 0 | 0 | 2025-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| New York | 2,533,449 | 5.12% | 2,533,449 | 2,533,449 | 2025-26 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Illinois | 1,846,264 | 3.73% | 0 | 0 | 2027-28 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Georgia | 1,749,701 | 3.53% | 0 | 1,749,701 | K-8 2026-07-01; 9-12 2027-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Pennsylvania | 1,692,829 | 3.42% | 0 | 1,692,829 | 2027-28 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Ohio | 1,675,300 | 3.38% | 1,675,300 | 1,675,300 | 2026-01-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| North Carolina | 1,544,289 | 3.12% | 0 | 0 | 2026-01-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Michigan | 1,426,491 | 2.88% | 0 | 0 | 2026-27 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| New Jersey | 1,392,567 | 2.81% | 1,392,567 | 1,392,567 | 2026-27 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Virginia | 1,258,852 | 2.54% | 1,258,852 | 1,258,852 | 2026-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Arizona | 1,117,630 | 2.26% | 0 | 0 | 2025-09-26 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Washington | 1,093,745 | 2.21% | 0 | 0 | NA | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Indiana | 1,032,723 | 2.09% | 1,032,723 | 1,032,723 | 2026-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Tennessee | 1,004,625 | 2.03% | 0 | 0 | 2025-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Massachusetts | 914,958 | 1.85% | 0 | 0 | NA | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Missouri | 891,248 | 1.80% | 891,248 | 891,248 | 2025-26 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Maryland | 890,122 | 1.80% | 0 | 890,122 | 2027-28 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Minnesota | 869,967 | 1.76% | 0 | 0 | 2025-03-15 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Colorado | 865,661 | 1.75% | 0 | 0 | 2026-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Wisconsin | 814,202 | 1.64% | 0 | 0 | 2026-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| South Carolina | 793,860 | 1.60% | 793,860 | 793,860 | 2024-25 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Alabama | 748,650 | 1.51% | 748,650 | 748,650 | 2025-26 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Louisiana | 708,190 | 1.43% | 708,190 | 708,190 | 2024-25 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Oklahoma | 698,761 | 1.41% | 698,761 | 698,761 | 2026-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Utah | 689,883 | 1.39% | 0 | 0 | 2026-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Kentucky | 657,520 | 1.33% | 0 | 0 | 2025-26 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Oregon | 572,624 | 1.16% | 572,624 | 572,624 | 2026-01-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Connecticut | 512,652 | 1.04% | 0 | 0 | NA | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Iowa | 508,112 | 1.03% | 0 | 0 | 2025-26 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Arkansas | 484,978 | 0.98% | 484,978 | 484,978 | 2025-26 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Kansas | 483,505 | 0.98% | 483,505 | 483,505 | 2026-09-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Nevada | 479,574 | 0.97% | 0 | 0 | 2026-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Mississippi | 436,523 | 0.88% | 0 | 0 | NA | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Nebraska | 329,162 | 0.66% | 0 | 0 | 2025-26 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Idaho | 316,414 | 0.64% | 0 | 0 | 2025-12-31 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| New Mexico | 311,719 | 0.63% | 0 | 0 | 2025-08-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| West Virginia | 246,883 | 0.50% | 0 | 0 | 2025-26 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Maine | 172,545 | 0.35% | 172,545 | 172,545 | 2026-08-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Hawaii | 169,308 | 0.34% | 0 | 0 | 2026-27 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| New Hampshire | 166,594 | 0.34% | 166,594 | 166,594 | 2025-26 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Montana | 149,291 | 0.30% | 0 | 0 | NA | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Delaware | 141,842 | 0.29% | 0 | 0 | 2026-08-31 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| South Dakota | 141,467 | 0.29% | 0 | 0 | NA | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Rhode Island | 136,154 | 0.27% | 136,154 | 136,154 | 2026-08-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Alaska | 131,243 | 0.27% | 0 | 0 | 2025-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| North Dakota | 119,033 | 0.24% | 119,033 | 119,033 | 2025-08-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| District of Columbia | 92,794 | 0.19% | 92,794 | 92,794 | 2026-27 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Wyoming | 91,036 | 0.18% | 0 | 0 | 2026-07-01 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
| Vermont | 82,455 | 0.17% | 82,455 | 82,455 | 2026-27 | NCES Table 203.20; state law |
Source: U.S. Department of Education, NCES, Digest of Education Statistics 2024, Table 203.20 (fall 2023 enrollment, the latest state-level count); rule classification by Axis Intelligence Research. Split-grade states (Florida, Hawaii, Georgia today, Illinois in 2027–28) are shown as 0 in the full-coverage columns and counted separately below.
The national coverage numbers
| Measure | Now (2026–27) | 2027–28 | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Students under an all-grade bell-to-bell rule | 19,576,800 (39.5%) | 23,909,452 (48.3%) | Axis Intelligence Research; NCES Table 203.20 |
| Jurisdictions with that rule | 20 | 23 | Axis Intelligence Research |
| Students in split-grade bell-to-bell states | 4,791,344 (9.7%) | — | Axis Intelligence Research; NCES |
| Students under any mandatory statewide rule | 41,838,510 (84.5%) | 46,267,725 (93.4%) | Axis Intelligence Research; NCES |
| Students with no statewide rule | 7,677,851 (15.5%) | 3,248,636 (6.6%) | Axis Intelligence Research; NCES |
| Enrollment-weighted national PFSI | 54.0 | 62.8 | Axis Intelligence Research |
We call the first line Bell-to-Bell Student Coverage (BBSC): enrollment in jurisdictions with an all-grade, full-day rule in force, divided by total U.S. public enrollment. The 2027–28 BBSC reaches 48.3%, short of half. Two levers decide whether the full-day rule becomes the majority experience for American public school students: a 2027 enactment in one of the six states with no rule, or closing the open exemptions in Nebraska and Utah.
Jennifer Miller’s caution on that milestone: coverage is a legal fact, not a behavioral one. A statute that bars use is not the same as a building where phones are locked in pouches, and the only federal school-level data on actual policies predates most of these laws (see below).
States Where the Story Is
Pennsylvania: from zero to 100 in one signature
Pennsylvania had no statewide requirement until Act 117 of 2026, approved October 26, 2026. The law’s short title calls for a “bell-to-bell mobile device policy,” and policies must be in place by the start of 2027–28. Its 1,692,829 public school students (3.42% of the U.S. total) make it the single largest addition to bell-to-bell coverage on the calendar; its PFSI jumps from 0 to 100.
Texas: the biggest full-day population in the country
Texas’s HB 1481 requires every district and open-enrollment charter to bar student use of personal communication devices on school property for the entire school day (Education Code ch. 37). With 5,532,518 students, Texas alone accounts for 11.17% of U.S. public enrollment — more than a quarter of everyone covered by a bell-to-bell rule today. It scores 75, not 100, because the statute regulates use, not storage.
California: the largest coverage gap
California’s AB 3216 required every district, county office and charter to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit pupils’ smartphone use by July 1, 2026 (bill text). That verb pair hands the scope to each local board. California educates 5,924,113 public school students — 11.96% of the national total — and scores 33. No other state moves the national numbers as much with a single amendment.
Kentucky: a ban that shrank on the House floor
Kentucky’s HB 208 was introduced to prohibit student phone use “during the school day.” A floor amendment changed that to instructional time and added teacher-authorized use, and the enacted version kept the narrower wording, according to the Kentucky General Assembly’s bill record. Kentucky scores 51. The record shows exactly how a bell-to-bell bill becomes a class-time law.
Maryland: no emergency exception on the list
Maryland’s Chapter 596, approved May 26, 2026, requires each county board to ban device use during the academic school day by 2027–28. The enacted synopsis protects four uses — disability accommodations including IEPs, documented health needs, language translation and caregiving responsibilities. Emergencies are not on that list. Maryland’s 2027–28 PFSI is 87.5.
Georgia: the high school deadline is July 2027
Georgia’s rule covers kindergarten through grade 8 now and reaches grades 9–12 no later than July 1, 2027. Today that grade split holds Georgia at 73.8; once high schools are included, its 1,749,701 students move into full bell-to-bell coverage and the state reaches 100.
Illinois, New York and Virginia: bans with anti-suspension guardrails
New York’s Education Law § 2803 bars suspension when the only offense is using a device, and requires every district, charter and BOCES to publish an annual enforcement report with demographic data, the first due September 1, 2026. Virginia’s code goes further: enforcement cannot involve a school resource officer, and no violation alone can lead to suspension or expulsion. Illinois goes furthest of all: Public Act 104-0657 forbids enforcing its 2027–28 ban through fees, fines, suspensions, expulsions or a school resource officer. All three laws respond to the discipline evidence discussed below.
Nebraska and Utah: full-day bans with an open door
Nebraska’s LB 140, approved May 20, 2025, tells boards to prohibit device use while students are on school property. The same section then bars any policy from prohibiting use when the school board determines it appropriate or an appropriate school employee allows it. That clause turns a full-day default into a local option. Utah’s SB 69, effective July 1, 2026, does the same at a larger scale. It bans use during school hours, defined to include lunch, recess and transitions, then lets each local education agency adopt a policy that “provides for other circumstances” when students may use devices. Both states score 51, while laws with similar headlines score 75 or 100. For the 1,019,045 students in the two states, the real rule is whatever the local board decides.
Washington: the largest state with no mandate
Washington’s 2026 law authorizes districts to limit devices but requires nothing, leaving 1,093,745 students — more than any other state without a statewide rule — under purely local policy. Massachusetts, with 914,958 students and a bill in conference committee, is the second-largest gap.
What Did Schools Do Before the State Laws?
The federal baseline comes from the U.S. Department of Education’s School Pulse Panel. In School Pulse Panel results released in February 2025, NCES reported that 77% of public schools prohibited phones during all classes — 86% of elementary schools but only 55% of high schools. Just 30% prohibited phones both in class and outside class, the closest school-level proxy for bell-to-bell. And 53% of school leaders said phone use had hurt academic performance.
Set those numbers beside the BBSC. In late 2024, a full-day rule was a minority practice at the school level; by 2027–28, state law will require one for nearly half of all public school students. Most of that shift happened in the 2025 and 2026 legislative sessions.
Teachers had been signalling the problem. In a fall 2023 survey, Pew Research Center found that 72% of high school teachers called phone distraction a major problem in their classroom, against 33% of all K–12 teachers. Some 82% of teachers said their school or district already had a phone policy, and 60% of high school teachers working under one said it was hard to enforce. That last figure is the policy argument for state law in one number: a rule teachers cannot enforce alone is a rule administrators and statutes have to carry.
Do School Phone Bans Work? What the Evidence Says
The strongest U.S. evidence so far is a working paper by David Figlio and Umut Özek, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, studying a large Florida district after the state’s 2023 law. Suspensions rose significantly in the first year, especially among Black students, then dissipated. Test scores improved significantly in the second year, and unexcused absences fell — a change that may explain a large share of the score gains. Effects were stronger in middle and high school, where smartphone ownership is higher.
Jennifer Miller flags the limitation that should slow readers down: this is one district, one state, and a working paper rather than a peer-reviewed article. It supports a “year two” reading — costs first, gains later — not a promise of instant results.
The largest randomized evidence is from outside the U.S. A trial covering nearly 17,000 college students at 10 institutions in India found grades rose by 0.086 standard deviations when phones were collected at the start of class, Wharton reports. The population is older and the setting different, so it speaks to mechanism — attention in the room — more than to K–12 policy design.
The discipline finding is why New York and Virginia wrote suspension limits into law. It is also the strongest argument for the storage clause the PFSI rewards: a phone in a locker generates fewer confrontations than a phone in a pocket that a teacher must police.
Which States Could Pass School Phone Bans in 2027?
Six states start 2027 with no statewide rule, and the 2027–28 compliance wave is already scheduled. The calendar to watch:
| Date | What happens | Students affected | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| July 1, 2027 | Georgia’s rule extends to grades 9–12 | 1,749,701 (statewide total) | Georgia HB 1009; NCES |
| 2027–28 school year | Maryland county policies due | 890,122 | Md. Ch. 596; NCES |
| 2027–28 school year | Pennsylvania school-entity policies due | 1,692,829 | Pa. Act 117 of 2026; NCES |
| 2027–28 school year | Illinois district and charter policies due | 1,846,264 | Ill. P.A. 104-0657; NCES |
| 2027 sessions | Connecticut, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, Washington: no statewide rule | 3,248,636 combined | Axis Intelligence Research; NCES |
The other lever is the 75 tier. Eight states already ban use bell to bell without a storage requirement; each is one amendment from 100.
Methodology
Scope. Fifty states and the District of Columbia. A rule counts only if it is mandatory statewide — statute, state board policy, executive order or budget proviso. Guidance, model policies and grant programs score zero. Each jurisdiction was classified from its enacted text as of October 30, 2026; where a statute defines “school day” or “instructional time,” that definition decides the tier (North Dakota defines instructional time as start of school day to dismissal, so it is coded bell-to-bell). Ohio’s statute bars cellular telephone use during the “instructional day” without defining the term and covers phones, not other devices; it is coded bell-to-bell on the ordinary meaning of school day.
Inputs. Enrollment: NCES Digest 2024 Table 203.20, fall 2023, the most recent state-level count. A scheduled law is included in the 2027–28 reading only when it is already enacted.
Calculations. PFSI as defined above. BBSC = enrollment in jurisdictions with an all-grade bell-to-bell rule ÷ total enrollment of the 50 states and D.C. (49,516,361). National PFSI = enrollment-weighted mean of state scores. All figures were computed twice — once in exact rational arithmetic, once in floating point — and matched.
Scope notes. The PFSI measures what a law requires, not how well schools comply; district policies often go further than the statute. Grade weighting for split states uses grade counts, not enrollment by grade. Enrollment is fall 2023, so coverage shares will move slightly when NCES publishes fall 2024 data.
About This Dataset
The CSV contains 281 rows: five metrics for each of the 51 jurisdictions (enrollment, PFSI now, PFSI 2027–28, and bell-to-bell student coverage now and in 2027–28), the national coverage and index totals, and the survey and research figures cited above. Every row carries its source organization, document, URL, retrieval date, the law citation and compliance date, and — for Axis calculations — the formula. Download it under CC BY 4.0: school-cell-phone-ban-by-state.csv.
Embed This Ranking
Newsrooms and school-board sites may embed the interactive map and ranking with attribution. The embed code is published with the interactive version of this page. Attribution line: Source: Axis Intelligence Research, School Cell Phone Ban by State 2026 (axis-intelligence.com/school-cell-phone-ban-by-state/), CC BY 4.0.
School Phone Ban FAQ
Does a bell-to-bell ban include lunch and passing periods?
Yes, where the statute defines it that way. Virginia’s code defines bell to bell as the first bell to dismissal “including lunch and time in between class periods,” and Kansas’s HB 2299 lists recess, lunch and passing periods in its definition of the school day. Class-time laws, like Kentucky’s and Michigan’s, leave lunch to districts.
Can my child still bring a phone to school?
Usually yes. Most laws regulate use or access during the day, not whether a phone comes through the door. Kansas, for example, requires devices to be turned off and stored away from the student, and explicitly lets families leave them at home or in a car on campus.
Can a student be suspended for using a phone?
Not for that alone in Illinois, New York or Virginia. Illinois’s 2027–28 law bars enforcement through suspensions, expulsions, fines or school resource officers; New York’s § 2803 bars suspension when device use is the only ground; Virginia bars suspension or expulsion for a policy violation alone. Elsewhere, district discipline codes decide.
Do school phone bans cover smartwatches and earbuds?
Increasingly. New York covers smartwatches and other internet-enabled devices but excludes basic phones that cannot reach the internet. Kansas’s definition names watches and wireless headphones or earbuds.
Can students use phones in an emergency?
Most laws allow it, but not all list it. New York’s statute lets a district authorize emergency use. Maryland’s enacted synopsis lists four protected uses — disability, health, translation and caregiving — and emergencies are not among them.
Do the laws apply to private schools?
Most bind public districts and charter schools only. Kansas is an exception: HB 2299 applies to state-accredited nonpublic schools, which had to certify compliance to the State Board of Education by September 1, 2026.
Which state was the first to restrict phones in school by law?
Florida, with HB 379 in 2023, which barred phone use during instructional time. A 2025 amendment extended the rule to the full school day for elementary and middle school students.
How to Cite This Page
APA: Axis Intelligence Research, & Miller, J. (2026, October 30). School cell phone ban by state 2026. Axis Intelligence. https://axis-intelligence.com/school-cell-phone-ban-by-state/
MLA: Axis Intelligence Research, and Jennifer Miller. “School Cell Phone Ban by State 2026.” Axis Intelligence, 30 Oct. 2026, axis-intelligence.com/school-cell-phone-ban-by-state/.
Chicago: Axis Intelligence Research and Jennifer Miller. “School Cell Phone Ban by State 2026.” Axis Intelligence, October 30, 2026. https://axis-intelligence.com/school-cell-phone-ban-by-state/.
Related Axis Research
For how much time children and teens spend on screens outside school, see our screen time statistics. Platform-level data sits in teen social media statistics, and device ownership in smartphone statistics. For the state-law angle on technology regulation, compare U.S. AI laws by state, and for wellbeing outcomes, mental health statistics.