The Effects of School Phone Bans: National Evidence from Lockable Pouches
[ABSTRACT READ IN FULL at the NBER paper page. FULL TEXT NOT READ. NBER WORKING PAPER, NOT PEER-REVIEWED, and that label must accompany every citation] Allcott, H., Baron, E. J., Dee, T., Duckworth, A. L., Gentzkow, M., & Jacob, B. (2026). 'The Effects of School Phone Bans: National Evidence from Lockable Pouches.' NBER Working Paper 35132. doi:10.3386/w35132. THE LARGEST AND NEWEST EVALUATION, AND NOT YET PEER-REVIEWED. Issued April 2026, revised September 2026. Pre-registered with a pre-analysis plan on OSF. Design: staggered difference-in-differences across the United States, combining a large-scale teacher survey, mobile-phone GPS pings, standardised test scores, school administrative records, and SALES RECORDS FROM THE LARGEST LOCKABLE-POUCH PROVIDER, which is a named data partner and should be disclosed whenever the study is cited. RESULT, VERBATIM, HEDGES INCLUDED: pouch adoption 'substantially reduces phone use'. 'In the first year after adoption, disciplinary incidents increase, and we find suggestive evidence that student subjective well-being falls, consistent with short-term disruption. However, disciplinary effects fade, while the estimated effects on well-being appear to recover and become positive in later years. For academic achievement, average effects on test scores are consistently close to zero. High schools see modest positive effects, particularly in math, while middle schools see small negative effects. We find little evidence of effects on school attendance and no clear evidence of improvements in self-reported classroom attention or perceived online bullying.' 'SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE' AND 'APPEAR TO RECOVER' ARE THE PAPER'S OWN WORDS AND MUST TRAVEL. DO NOT PRINT A YEAR COUNT for the recovery: the 'by the third year' timing that appears in press accounts is NOT in the abstract, which says only 'later years'.
[ABSTRACT READ IN FULL at the NBER paper page. FULL TEXT NOT READ. NBER WORKING PAPER, NOT PEER-REVIEWED, and that label must accompany every citation] Allcott, H., Baron, E. J., Dee, T., Duckworth, A. L., Gentzkow, M., & Jacob, B. (2026). 'The Effects of School Phone Bans: National Evidence from Lockable Pouches.' NBER Working Paper 35132. doi:10.3386/w35132. THE LARGEST AND NEWEST EVALUATION, AND NOT YET PEER-REVIEWED. Issued April 2026, revised September 2026. Pre-registered with a pre-analysis plan on OSF. Design: staggered difference-in-differences across the United States, combining a large-scale teacher survey, mobile-phone GPS pings, standardised test scores, school administrative records, and SALES RECORDS FROM THE LARGEST LOCKABLE-POUCH PROVIDER, which is a named data partner and should be disclosed whenever the study is cited. RESULT, VERBATIM, HEDGES INCLUDED: pouch adoption 'substantially reduces phone use'. 'In the first year after adoption, disciplinary incidents increase, and we find suggestive evidence that student subjective well-being falls, consistent with short-term disruption. However, disciplinary effects fade, while the estimated effects on well-being appear to recover and become positive in later years. For academic achievement, average effects on test scores are consistently close to zero. High schools see modest positive effects, particularly in math, while middle schools see small negative effects. We find little evidence of effects on school attendance and no clear evidence of improvements in self-reported classroom attention or perceived online bullying.' 'SUGGESTIVE EVIDENCE' AND 'APPEAR TO RECOVER' ARE THE PAPER'S OWN WORDS AND MUST TRAVEL. DO NOT PRINT A YEAR COUNT for the recovery: the 'by the third year' timing that appears in press accounts is NOT in the abstract, which says only 'later years'.
Written from the aBSTRACT READ IN FULL at the NBER paper page. FULL TEXT NOT READ. NBER WORKING PAPER, NOT PEER-REVIEWED, and that label must accompany every citation.
What our sources record
Recorded when this source was checked, figures included, with page references and quotation marks removed.
NBER Working Paper 35132. doi:10.3386/w35132