I already knew Montgomery County Public Schools was moving to a “No Cell, Bell to Bell” policy this school year. But seeing the sign posted in a school hallway made the change feel more real.

I re-entered the school system this year, and I am curious to see how students actually experience the policy once it becomes part of their normal routine. MCPS now expects personal mobile devices to remain put away from the first bell through dismissal, including lunch and passing periods (MCPS, 2026). Maryland is also moving in this direction statewide through the Joanne C. Benson Maryland Phone-Free Schools Act, which requires local school systems to establish phone-free policies while allowing exceptions for things like disability accommodations, documented health needs, translation and caregiving responsibilities (Maryland General Assembly, 2026).

I understand why school systems and policymakers are moving in this direction. Phones can absolutely interfere with learning. But I am also interested in what students themselves are saying, especially because their reactions are not all the same.

Some students support stronger restrictions. Others agree that phones should be away during class but question why that needs to extend through lunch and passing periods. I think that hesitation is worth listening to.

 

A school day is not one continuous instructional block.

The policy may also feel different depending on age. A bell-to-bell restriction seems more straightforward in elementary school. By middle and high school, students are gaining more independence, and their phones may be connected to transportation, after-school activities, jobs, family communication, music and their social lives.

That does not mean older students need unrestricted access. It means the conversation becomes more complicated as young people get older.

 

“We went to school without phones.”

One of the most common arguments I hear is that previous generations went to school without cellphones and were perfectly fine.

And yes, we did. Students learned, socialized, got distracted, cheated, argued with friends and made it through school long before smartphones existed.

But young people in 2026 did not grow up in the same environment with a phone simply added to it.

Technology has shaped how they communicate, access information, socialize and complete schoolwork. Schools have participated in that shift too, incorporating online research, educational apps, QR codes, collaborative documents and other technology into instruction.

There is obviously a difference between a teacher using technology for a lesson and a student scrolling social media while someone is teaching. But students have grown up with technology woven into everyday life. Now we are asking them to establish boundaries around personal technology that many have never had to navigate before.

That does not make the boundary unreasonable. It does mean the adjustment is worth taking seriously.

Students have raised concerns about losing access during lunch and transitions, using music to decompress between classes and communicating with family during the day. One Montgomery County student described having a phone nearby as feeling like having access to their mother, siblings and friends (Rosenthal, 2026).

 

We do not have to agree with every student objection to listen to what is underneath it.

Responsibility, Support and Growing Independence

Young people also need to learn how to function without constantly reaching for a phone.

Sometimes you are going to be bored. Sometimes you are going to be uncomfortable. Sometimes the better option is to problem-solve, push through and finish what needs to be done instead of immediately calling a parent or avoiding the situation.

 

Growing independence requires practice.

But pushing young people does not require dismissing what they are telling us. If a student says they are overwhelmed, the response does not have to be either “take your phone out whenever you want” or “get over it.”

A teacher, coach or mentor can acknowledge what a student is experiencing while helping them think through it. What are your options? Is there another strategy you can try? Do you need support? What might happen depending on the choice you make?

It is important for young people to understand their options, the consequences of those options and not just the rule itself. Judgment, emotional regulation and decision-making are still developing, and those skills do not come as easily or develop at the same pace for everyone. They grow through experience, guidance, mistakes and practice.

The goal should not only be compliance while an adult is watching. We should also be helping young people build judgment and problem-solving skills they can use when adults are not around.

 

Phones Changed Conflict. They Did Not Create It.

Phones also present real safety concerns.

Group chats and social media can spread rumors and threats quickly. An argument involving a few people can become content for an entire school community. Phones can be used to coordinate fights, meetups or setups, while an online audience can make a situation worse.

Phones did not invent distraction, bullying, fights, cheating or adolescent cruelty. They changed the speed, reach, permanence and audience of those behaviors.

That is why restricting phones cannot replace internet safety, communication or conflict-resolution education.

Young people still need to learn when a digital conversation is escalating, when an audience is making something worse, when to disengage, when to ask for help and how to navigate conflict without turning it into humiliation or violence.

Keeping a phone in a backpack may interrupt part of that cycle during the school day. It does not teach those skills by itself.

 

Equity Matters Too

Not every student has a cellphone. Not every family can provide the newest device, unlimited data, wireless earbuds or whatever technology becomes popular next. Constant visibility of personal technology can create its own kind of social and financial pressure.

Keeping those devices put away could reduce some of that pressure.

At the same time, students have different needs. A student with a disability may use technology differently. Another may have caregiving responsibilities, a medical need or a language barrier. Maryland’s law recognizes those differences through required exceptions (Maryland General Assembly, 2026).

Equity does not mean treating every student identically. It means recognizing that students may need different supports or accommodations in order to have a fair opportunity to succeed.

That becomes especially important when we talk about enforcement.

Maryland research found that Black students and students with disabilities experienced exclusionary discipline at higher rates than their peers, including differences in consequences for similar types of infractions (Lacoe & Manley, 2019). MCPS’s own Antiracist System Audit also documented concerns about inconsistent discipline practices and students’ perceptions that race can affect how behavior is interpreted (MCPS, 2022).

That makes enforcement worth watching closely.

Does one student receive a reminder while another interaction immediately becomes a confrontation? Does a phone violation turn into a student being labeled defiant or removed from instruction? Are accommodations understood consistently? A policy designed to increase learning should not unnecessarily become another reason for students to lose instructional time.

 

Restriction Is Not the Same as Preparation

Technology is not disappearing when the dismissal bell rings.

Young people are going to need to understand artificial intelligence, privacy, misinformation, digital footprints, responsible communication and how technology will affect their education and work.

Maryland’s law itself distinguishes students’ personal devices from school-provided instructional technology (Maryland General Assembly, 2026). That distinction matters.

Schools can establish boundaries around technology while still teaching young people how to use it responsibly. Those goals do not have to compete.

There is also a larger school environment to think about. MCPS entered this school year with budget reductions affecting hundreds of positions, while schools are also navigating new restrictions and additional security measures (MCPS, 2026).

Those are not all the same issue. But together they make human relationships inside schools especially important.

Young people need boundaries and accountability. They also need adults they trust enough to approach before an argument becomes a fight, when they are overwhelmed, when something is happening online or when they simply do not know what to do next.

As “No Cell, Bell to Bell” becomes part of everyday school life, I am interested in more than whether students keep their phones put away.

Are students more engaged? Are conflicts changing? Are young people developing better ways to manage boredom, stress and disagreement? Are adults responding to violations in ways that teach rather than unnecessarily escalate? Are accommodations working as intended? And are we continuing to ask students what they are actually experiencing?

Listening to students does not mean letting students make every decision. Youth voice does not mean eliminating expectations or consequences. Sometimes supporting a young person means telling them they need to push through, try again or make a different choice.

It also means listening before deciding that we already know why they are struggling.

 

Students can be expected to follow a phone policy and still have their experiences taken seriously.

They can be pushed toward greater independence while knowing that asking for help is still an option. And a school system can have common expectations while recognizing that the young people sitting in the same building are not all starting from the same place.

This is one issue I’ll be paying close attention to throughout the school year.

 

Sources

Lacoe, Johanna, and Mikia Manley. Disproportionality in School Discipline: An Assessment in Maryland through 2018. Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic, 2019.

Maryland General Assembly. HB 525: Joanne C. Benson Maryland Phone-Free Schools Act. 2026.

Montgomery County Public Schools. Antiracist System Audit. Mid-Atlantic Equity Consortium, 2022.

Montgomery County Public Schools. “Montgomery County Board of Education Adopts the Fiscal Year 2027 Operating Budget, Prioritizing Classroom Instruction and Core Staffing.” June 4, 2026.

Montgomery County Public Schools. “No Cell, Bell to Bell.” 2026.

Rosenthal, Sophie. “Montgomery County High Schools Ban Cellphones for Whole Day, Including Lunch.” WUSA9, July 29, 2026, updated August 25, 2026.