Even when schools have policies limiting cellphone use during class, students are not always following the rules.
A new North Carolina study found that student cellphone use remains common during instructional time despite school policies designed to limit distractions. The findings come as Cumberland County Schools considers revisions to a districtwide cellphone policy adopted in September 2025 after North Carolina lawmakers required school districts to regulate student device use during instructional time.
The statewide study, conducted by the Winston Center on Technology and Brain Development, found that 81% of students own a smartphone and 76% bring one to school daily. About 32% of students said school cellphone rules are only “sometimes” enforced, while 34% reported using workarounds to access content blocked by school filters or firewalls.
The study also found that 60.3% of students reported always following their school’s cellphone policy.
The findings raise a question Cumberland County Schools has been grappling with since 2025: How do schools consistently enforce a policy designed to keep phones out of sight during instruction while balancing concerns about communication, safety, and educational use?
Cumberland County Schools Cellphone Policy
Under the district’s policy, elementary students may bring devices to school but must keep them turned off and put away throughout the entire school day. Middle and high school students may possess phones but must keep them turned off and out of sight during instructional time, though they may use them during lunch and between classes..
The policy defines “put away” as out of sight and not easily accessible, such as in a backpack or locker. Exceptions exist for emergencies, health plans, individualized education programs, translation needs, and teacher-approved instructional use.
Students who fail to comply with the policy receive an initial verbal warning directing them to put the device away or turn it off. Students who ignore that warning may face disciplinary action.
School employees may also temporarily confiscate a device if a student fails to immediately comply with directions, repeatedly violates the policy after prior notification, or uses a device in a way that substantially disrupts instruction, school activities or extracurricular programming.
In most cases, a confiscated device is returned at the end of the class period, school event, or activity in which it was improperly used. However, administrators may hold a device until the end of the school day for repeated, willful, or substantially disruptive violations. In some cases, a parent or guardian may be required to retrieve the device.
Policy Shaped by State Law, Local Feedback
Before adopting its current policy, Cumberland County Schools sought feedback from parents, students, educators, and the public about the proposed restrictions.
The district received 1,771 responses, including 935 parents and guardians, 539 students, 214 school-based staff members, 59 community members, and 24 district-level staff members. The goal was to gather input on a proposed policy intended to create a focused learning environment while establishing consistent expectations across schools.
The feedback revealed broad support for limiting phone use during instructional time, but it also highlighted concerns that continue to surface nearly a year later.
Parents generally supported reducing classroom distractions but worried that restricting phone access could make it harder for students to communicate with family during emergencies or coordinate transportation and after-school activities.
Students were more divided.
One Gray’s Creek High student predicted that “nobody will follow it to the extent it needs to be along with teachers who will still allow kids to be on their phones,” raising concerns about inconsistent enforcement before the policy was ever adopted.
Other students argued that phones could be useful for communication, organization and educational purposes, while some supported restrictions during class but opposed a complete ban.
Educators largely supported limiting phone use during instructional time but emphasized the need for administrative support and consistent implementation. School-based staff members called for stronger enforcement mechanisms and stressed the importance of applying expectations fairly across schools.
In fact, one of the most common themes identified across stakeholder groups was the need for “clear expectations and consistent enforcement” across classrooms and campuses.
The school board’s policy committee reviewed the proposed policy during its August 5, 2025 meeting before forwarding it to the full board. The board formally adopted the policy on September 9.
What the District Tracks—and What It Doesn’t
One challenge in evaluating the policy’s effectiveness is that the school district does not track unauthorized cellphone use as a standalone disciplinary category.
Melody Chalmers McClain, the associate superintendent for student support services, said cellphone infractions are not coded separately within the district’s student information system, making it impossible to generate a report of all incidents related solely to unauthorized cellphone use.
Instead, district staff reviewed discipline records and identified incidents in which a cellphone was referenced within disciplinary narratives.
“Because cellphone-related concerns may be addressed at the classroom, school, or administrative level in varying ways, the available data should be interpreted with that context in mind,” McClain said.
Those records show the following number of student suspensions that included references to cellphones:
Middle schools
- 2021-22: 40
- 2022-23: 262
- 2023-24: 144
- 2024-25: 258
High schools
- 2021-22: 184
- 2022-23: 374
- 2023-24: 257
- 2024-25: 384
Policy Returns for Revisions
On May 5, 2026, the board’s policy committee approved language explicitly prohibiting students from using wireless communication devices to record audio, video, or photographs of identifiable students or employees without consent inside school buildings, on school buses, or at school-sponsored events.
Board Attorney Nick Sojka said the language was not entirely new but was being added to make expectations clearer within the cellphone policy.
“This same language, with just a few different tweaks, has appeared in your disruptive behavior policy that’s part of the student code of conduct for some time,” Sojka said.
He said school boards across North Carolina have been incorporating similar provisions into updated cellphone policies and that the district wanted to address situations involving students recording conflicts and disruptions on campus.
“We don’t want students making videos of their classmates, of their teachers and folks in the school,” Sojka said. “As a practical matter, you can imagine this language—getting at that phenomenon of making videos of disturbances, scuffles, students having conflict with each other, none of which is helpful to the safe and orderly environment.”
During the discussion, board member Jackie Warner questioned whether schools were consistently enforcing the district’s existing cellphone policy.
“My concern is that in some of the schools I’ve been in, cellphones are out,” Warner said. “Is there any way that we could assure that our principals will hold students accountable or teachers accountable?”
Warner said she also continues to see students wearing headphones throughout the school day and worries that inconsistent enforcement creates disparities between schools.
“I just think we’ve got to do something so this is taken care of,” Warner said. “Otherwise, that’s where you see the discrepancies. Some schools do what they are supposed to do while other schools are not doing what they’re supposed to do.”
Superintendent Eric Bracy asked board members to share specific examples.
“I would say when you see that happen, email me and let me know where it was happening,” Bracy said.
The board unanimously approved the revised policy during its May 12 meeting, though Chair Judy Musgrave did not attend. The board will consider the policy again during a second reading.
