50 peer-reviewed studies, news articles, state policy documents, and opposition pieces — organized, summarized, and linked to the source. We cite the research that supports us and the research that doesn't. You should expect that from anyone selling into your district.
LSE, NBER, JAMA, Lancet, Nature Human Behaviour. The primary-source research on phone use, focus, mental health, and classroom outcomes.
The New York Times, The Atlantic, Education Week, Chalkbeat, Axios, Hechinger Report. The stories that moved the movement mainstream.
California AB 3216, New York Distraction-Free Schools, Indiana, Louisiana, Florida, and the federal UNPLUGGED Act. What your state actually requires.
NEA, Pew, Brookings, National Parents Union, UNESCO, US Department of Education. What the people closest to this actually think.
NYCLU, Harvard GSE, The Lancet, Psychology Today, NYRA. The case against bans, equity concerns, and sophisticated counter-arguments.
Meet California AB 3216 and every other state mandate. Soft lockdown, live compliance dashboard, NFC classroom tap-in — designed for BYOD schools.
The research on phone-free schools is not unanimous. The Figlio & Özek NBER study (2025) found test-score gains — and also found a Year-1 spike in Black male suspensions that subsided by Year 2. The Lancet's SMART Schools study (2025) found no wellbeing improvement from restrictive school policies when measured cross-sectionally. Orben & Przybylski (2019) argue the tech-wellbeing link is real but small. Disability rights advocates raise legitimate assistive-technology concerns.
We include all of it. A compliance vendor that hides the complexity isn't serving schools — it's selling them a story. If you're going to implement a phone-free policy, read both sides.