Line-by-line critical notes on factual accuracy, logical validity, and rhetorical method.
In a May 2026 New York Times op-ed, economist Emily Oster argues that recent evidence shows school phone bans have had "very minimal impact" on student behavior and academics, but that schools should keep them anyway. Her central evidence is a new National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Allcott, Baron, Dee, Duckworth, Gentzkow and Jacob (2026), which evaluated schools that adopted Yondr lockable phone pouches. The op-ed also critiques two other lines of phone-effects research it finds methodologically weaker, and grounds part of its case in Oster's own classroom experience.
Oster is not wrong to say the new study tempers expectations for phone bans. The problem is what the op-ed leaves out, mischaracterizes, or treats with one-sided skepticism. Six patterns of incomplete reporting, weak inference, and rhetorical framing run through the piece.
It's Still Demoralizing to Teach a Classroom of Scrolling Students
The op-ed is reproduced in full below for purposes of criticism and commentary. Highlighted passages have corresponding margin notes; unhighlighted text is included for context.
In the past several years, about three dozen states have instituted phone bans in schools, and more are likely to follow. These bans have been trumpeted as game changers. Anecdotal reporting points to more books being checked out from school libraries and more students engaging with one another in the hallway. "How the Phone Ban Saved High School," reads one headline. At the same time, respected academics have suggested that the arrival of phones in schools is linked to large test score declines in countries around the world.
It was, therefore, surprising to many people when a new paper this week showed that phone bans had a very minimal impact on student behavior and academics in a nationwide sample of schools. Phone usage went down, and teachers liked the policy (all good), but test scores didn't change much, disciplinary infractions increased in the short term and there was no demonstrable effect on bullying or student attention. Basically, not much changed.
This finding should not have been as surprising as it was. Based on what we know about phones and education, it is not realistic to expect phone bans to have enormous impacts on academic outcomes. But that doesn't mean that they are a bad idea, or that they should be walked back. Instead, we need to approach this topic with more realistic expectations, a richer approach to what counts as a positive outcome and more help for families and schools.
The expectations for phone bans were poorly calibrated, largely because the data on which some of the more extreme claims about phones is based is subject to considerable biases. For example, a paper published last fall argued that increases in phone usage were tied to large reductions in test scores in many countries between 2012 and 2022. The study found bigger drops in test scores in countries with greater smartphone adoption. But it turns out that those were also the countries that had longer school closures during the Covid-19 pandemic. Phones may have played a role in driving test scores down, but since we know school closures mattered for academic progress, too, the emphasis on phones overstates their role.
There is also plenty of data showing that children who spend more time on social media do worse in school, but they tend to come from households with fewer resources. It may also be that problems in school are contributing to social media use, rather than the other way around. Finally, given that a lot of phone usage is outside of school, it's unclear if these results would really apply to phone bans in school.
The new paper out this week takes a better approach, looking at how test scores and behavior varied over time as schools restricted phone use by introducing Yondr pouches that lock away phones during the day. An earlier paper, which looked at variation across school districts in Florida as some introduced phone bans earlier than others, found similarly small effects on test scores. These are the studies we should be focusing on.
Over the next several years, we will get more data exploring these questions. I expect a cottage industry of papers on school phone bans — and we'll probably also start to see results from school districts that change technology in other ways (for example, taking computers out of early childhood classrooms). We should expect to see similar results.
It would be a mistake to interpret these findings as a sign that we should forget about phone bans altogether. There are no magic bullets in education. Improving student learning is a game of inches, not miles. There is no clear positive reason for students to have phones in the classroom. No phones should be the default, and to introduce phones, we'd want to see evidence that they meaningfully improve learning or help in another way. None of that appears in the data. On the flip side, I think the knee-jerk reaction to also remove all computers and tech is an overstatement and unrealistic.
Instead, we need to alter our expectations. Phone bans may be helpful in some ways, but they aren't a cure-all, and that shouldn't be the bar for success.
Second, we have to get better data. Test scores are easy to measure, but a lot of the discussion around phone bans focuses on the experiences of students, how they interact with one another and whether the classroom feels engaging to both students and teachers. We should be measuring those outcomes systematically. I do not allow my students to have phones or laptops in my classroom, because screens affect their participation and, quite honestly, it's demoralizing to look out at a classroom of kids scrolling on their phones. I'm guessing other teachers feel similarly; we should figure out how to measure and evaluate this, too.
Finally, we need to find a more helpful approach for schools and parents to manage technology. We've sent parents and schools messages that are simultaneously fear-inducing ("phones are ruining your children") and overly optimistic ("phone bans will make it better"). Neither of these is true, and it's time to move to something that promises less but delivers more.
For schools, that may mean keeping phone bans and making additional changes, like modifying laptop use in some classrooms, while recognizing that technology is part of modern life and not the enemy. It could also mean focusing on resources and instructional support that will actually move the needle on test scores.
On the parental side, we need fewer blanket warnings about the dangers of technology and more help drawing appropriate boundaries for our kids. Teenagers absolutely need rules and restrictions on their phone use, and they need their parents to set those — and parents need help doing that. Phone bans promised an easy fix, but they aren't magic. The faster we realize that, the faster we can make realistic progress.
An honest summary of the central paper. Allcott et al. (2026) is a serious piece of work with heterogeneous findings. The paper reports an 80% drop in in-class phone use, a year-one well-being decline followed by a year-two rebound, and a ~16% suspension surge that fades over time. It also finds positive Math effects in high schools, negative test-score effects in middle schools, and a negative estimate on classroom attention. A faithful summary would report all of this. The op-ed emphasizes the parts that fit a "minimal impact" headline while omitting several adverse or heterogeneous findings.
A faithful summary of the Florida paper. Figlio and Özek (2025) find significant positive test-score effects in year two, alongside a doubling of suspensions in the first month of enforcement that disproportionately affected Black students. These findings are consequential and contested, not "similarly small." The disparate racial impact is a major policy concern that deserves direct engagement, not omission.
Engagement with the strongest causal evidence. Abrahamsson (2024; forthcoming 2026), an event-study design using Norwegian administrative data, finds that smartphone bans in middle schools improved girls' GPA by 0.08 SD and externally graded math exam scores by 0.22 SD. The same analysis shows that mental-health consultations declined by approximately 60% and bullying decreased for both boys and girls, with larger effects for girls from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. Beland and Murphy (2016) find UK phone bans raised the test scores of the lowest-achieving quintile by 0.14 SD. A piece arguing that the new evidence tempers expectations for phone bans should at minimum acknowledge this body of work and explain why it is unpersuasive. Omitting it is a choice, not a conclusion the data forces.
Symmetric epistemic standards. Oster's critiques of Twenge (2026) and the correlational social-media evidence are partially fair. The same skepticism should apply to her own conclusion. If correlational data is insufficient to establish that phones harm students, it is also insufficient to establish that bans help. The op-ed applies the standard in one direction only.
Disclosure of the central paper's industry partnership. Allcott et al. (2026) used data supplied by Yondr, the lockable-pouch company, and acknowledges Yondr as a research partner. Funding came from several major education-policy philanthropies and organizations: Arnold Ventures, the Bezos Family Foundation, the National Governors Association, Stanford Impact Labs, the Stuart Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation. None of this invalidates the paper's findings. But a piece making an evidence-based argument should note that the central paper was conducted in partnership with the firm whose product is being evaluated. The op-ed does not.
Clarity about which question is being argued. The op-ed slides between three distinct claims. The first is that phone bans should remain in place because there is no positive reason for in-class phones and no strong evidence that phones help. A second claim is that phone bans help on outcomes that "richer" measurement would capture. A third is that the case against phones in schools is settled even if the test-score evidence is weak. These are different arguments with different evidentiary requirements. Treating them as a single coherent position obscures which one is actually being defended, and on what grounds.