Lina Nealon: We've seen this swell in recent years. There were several states who really took action that said, you know what, we have to get smartphones out of the school from the first bell to the last bell. So we call that bell-to-bell because they recognized that you really needed to free students from their phones for the entirety of the school day because if it was only during class time, you know, they were still itching to check their notifications and go on social media in the hallways and in the schools. And they saw that that was still distracting to students. And it was really preventing relationships in the school from growing. So, we've seen in the past two years this tidal wave of legislation now from both Republican and Democratic states saying this is common sense and we're seeing the benefits of freeing students for that entirety of the school day.
Patrick Center: You say it's common sense, but I'm sure there are some other factors at work. There are mental health issues. There are, as you mentioned, the socialization. What are some of the components that are involved in crafting these bills and why?
Lina Nealon: Yeah, so of course many considerations and I'll start with saying that the benefits have become a lot more clear and there's I'd say five main benefits and that's when we're looking at the gold standard of legislation, which is the bell-to-bell and making sure that kids can't access their phones throughout the day. We see these five key improvements. One is boosting the academic performance. We have data coming in on that and some studies showing that it absolutely does increase academic performance because they're not as distracted. It improves mental and physical health. It increases teacher satisfaction. This is a major one. There's a study coming at the University of Pennsylvania that has interviewed some 68,000 teachers and they find that the stricter the policy on phones in schools, the happier the teacher. It protects student safety and privacy and it strengthens school community relationships.
So first of all, it's important to have a statewide law because we want children to benefit from this no matter what their zip code. And then again, looking at bell-to-bell, so not just classroom time only and making sure that the kids can't get to those phones during recess, during lunch, during passing period. So those are the most important components.
And then of course, making exceptions for IEPs, those legal exceptions are really important. And then making sure that you're not weakening education and safety standards. And what do I mean by that? If you create several exceptions to the law, it often ends up eroding the integrity of the law. So, for example, if there are carve-out saying, well, teachers can decide whether or not they should use smartphones in class, that can very quickly lead to the unraveling of the law. So, there is a model law that we follow that we call the gold standard. But again, those key components is making sure that they're freed for the entirety of the day and can't access them.
Patrick Center: Are you working with legislatures because you say you have the gold standard and a lot of times there are lobbying groups out there who like to offer up a blueprint or some kind of a boilerplate to lawmakers. Is that what's happening here with Phone-Free Schools State Report Card?
Lina Nealon: Yeah, so the report card was a collaboration with several child safety organizations, and we did look at a model law that was created by the Distraction-Free Schools Policy Project, and it was based on child development, research, consultation with legislators, superintendents, parents and even students. And then again, based on the data and the research that we have, and this model law was crafted. So, when we were conceptualizing the Phone-Free Schools State Report Card, we did use that model law as a standard against which to measure existing phone free school legislation.
Patrick Center: We have 50 states that you grade in this report card. I believe that there are four that meet the gold standard. Let's see how good I am with my memory. I think I know three, North Dakota, Indiana, Rhode Island, and I'm missing one. What's the fourth one?
Lina Nealon: Kansas, but I'll let it slide. It's the most recent one.
Patrick Center: Okay. Thank you. So, we have four that are at the very top of the heap. Michigan just enacted the law earlier this year, I think it was in February, and you give Michigan a “C”. What's Michigan doing right? What work needs to be done to strengthen the bill?
Lina Nealon: We want to applaud Michigan for taking this initial first step and absolutely want to applaud Representative Tisdel and his team because they initially did introduce a bell-to-bell phone free school law, which I just shared really does give the best outcomes to students and teachers.
So, “C” grades went to states that had a classroom instruction time only bill. That means that kids are banned from their phones only during class time. And again, it's an initial first step, but it doesn't provide all those benefits and in fact can cause some problems.
So, for example, we know that during class instructional time only bands, what we hear from teachers is that they lose a lot of valuable time policing the students. And so, it, you again, takes away time, but also creates more tension between the teachers and the students.
It also means that kids are missing out on those key relational moments in schools. So instead of talking with their peers in the hallways or at lunchtime, they're checking their social media and their notifications.
We also know from neuroscientists that classroom instruction time only bans actually can increase distraction in students because it's literally that craving to check their phone that they know they'll be able to check it during passing period actually makes them even more distracted during class time than if they were able to access their phones. It sounds counterintuitive.
So that's why again, making sure that students are free for that entirety of the school day, lessons that distraction, lessons that craving allows them to focus on learning and to focus on the peers and building relationships with the kids who are right in front of them and not in their online world.
Patrick Center: You mentioned teachers. How much input do they have in the creation of these provisions that you want states to enact?
Lina Nealon: That's a great question. I mean, obviously we want teacher input. They're at the front lines witnessing what is going on when students are distracted by their phones. They're not paying attention. And I think it varies state by state on how much teachers are being listened to, their voices being heard on this legislation. We certainly are consulting with teachers, and our allies are consulting with teachers. I mentioned that University of Pennsylvania study coming out with 68,000 teachers surveyed across the United States saying that they, the stricter the policy, the happier the teacher. We know the National Association of Educators also last survey showed that 83% wanted bell-to-bell phone-free school. So, I think, you know, we have to listen teachers, they're already facing a really difficult job. And when you talk to them, it's very clear that phones in the classroom, in the schools have made their job all the much harder.
Patrick Center: What does success look like for you? Is it the test scores? Is there a way to do some research to look back, say, it was enacted in this year, now three, five years later, look at the improvement, look what we're seeing overall.
Lina Nealon: Yeah, I mean success first would be that every state, every child has at least the chance of reaping the benefits of a bell-to-bell phone-free school law. And yes, absolutely. I would love to see academic scores go up, too. I think that the relational aspect is so important, you know hearing from students themselves, from teachers that mental health has become better, that relationships have strengthened in their school community, not only student to student, but student to teacher, parent to teacher. So, I think those are key metrics. I’m positive we will see them.
We have yet to hear of a school that has gone bell-to-bell that has rolled it back. There's a national survey that shows that 91% of parents whose children are in bell-to-bell phone-free school. So again, the benefits are there. They're very clear. And I do think that in a few years, we'll be seeing even more states adopt the bell-to-bell legislation. And therefore, we will see happier, smarter, more well-connected students across our nation.
Patrick Center: Lina Nealon, you're the Director of Strategic Partnerships at the Institute for Families. Also, you're the lead for the Phone-Free Schools State Report Card. Thank you so much for your time.
Lina Nealon: Thank you for having me.