Introduction 

It’s the second week of school in Massachusetts, and already, students are navigating new cellphone restrictions. Some districts require students to lock their devices in magnetic pouches. Others have banned phones entirely during the school day.

These policies aren’t coming out of nowhere. They’re being created in anticipation of potential state legislation that would restrict or ban phone use in schools. But because the law isn’t in place yet, districts are moving ahead with their own approaches—creating a patchwork of policies across the Commonwealth.

Why This Matters for Disabled Students

For disabled and neurodivergent students, cell phones are not simply distractions. They’re tools for communication, regulation, and access.

• Assistive Technology: Many students use phones for text-to-speech, organizational apps, or other supports that help them access learning

• Safety & Regulation: Phones often function as self-regulation tools, offering music, visual breaks, or grounding apps. For students with trauma histories, phones can feel like lifelines.

• Inclusion: Without clear accommodations, students may have to “out” themselves to receive exemptions, reinforcing stigma and exclusion.
  
  

At the same time, I understand why this legislation surfaced. Device access has become a huge distraction in classrooms. For many students and families, over reliance on phones reinforces unproductive patterns, fuels hypervigilance and anxiety, and even creates peer conflicts that could otherwise be avoided.

Here’s the key: there are screenless and wireless alternatives for nearly every IEP accommodation and coping strategy a phone currently provides. From noise-canceling headphones to visual timers, sensory tools, and specialized communication devices, students can have the same therapeutic and learning benefits without being tethered to a phone.

But these options cost money. Right now, neither families nor districts should have to shoulder the financial burden of replacing a tool that’s being taken away. If Massachusetts truly intends to restrict devices, it must also fund the alternatives that make equitable access possible.

The Unintended Consequences

When policies roll out without comprehensive guidance or funding, unintended consequences are inevitable:

• Compliance Gaps: How will schools balance a ban with IDEA and Section 504 obligations?

• Mental Health Risks: Students who feel unsafe or unsupported may disengage, avoid school, or experience heightened anxiety.

• Staff Burden: Teachers and administrators are left to enforce policies without additional training, resources, or systemic support.
  
  

Right now, there’s no dedicated funding to help districts manage this transition. No grants for alternative assistive technology, sensory tools like noise-canceling headphones, or the creation of sensory-friendly spaces. Schools are being asked to do more with nothing extra.

Why Cold Turkey Doesn’t Work

In most areas of behavioral health, we know that going “cold turkey” isn’t recommended. Abstinence can work for some people, but not for everyone—and often it creates more harm than good. The most effective guidance is to develop replacement behaviors that meet the same need in a different way while slowly decreasing use of unhelpful behavior in a harm-reduction approach. With cell phone bans, however, we are forcing students into an abrupt, all-or-nothing withdrawal. In swinging the pendulum toward total restriction, we miss a crucial opportunity: to actually teach digital wellness. Digital wellness doesn’t mean going off the grid. It means helping students think intentionally about when, where, and why they use technology—choosing interaction with purpose, not out of habit or compulsion.

An Opportunity to Build Sensory-Friendly Schools

If phones are restricted, we can’t just remove them and walk away. This moment creates an opportunity—a call—to build school environments centered around nervous system safety. When we design for the needs of disabled students, the benefits ripple outward to every child. Ideas informed by the principles of polyvagal theory show us what this could look like:

• Safe social engagement woven into the school day, through practices that help students arrive grounded and ready to learn.

• Sensory-friendly spaces available to everyone, not as “extras” but as essential infrastructure.

• Body-based regulation strategies like breathing, movement, humming, or rhythm, embedded into classrooms to support focus and emotional balance.

• Co-regulation with trusted adults prioritized as a pathway to independent regulation, recognizing that safety and connection are prerequisites for learning.
  
  

These practices are not hypothetical—they are rooted in neuroscience and widely recognized for their effectiveness. For educators and leaders interested in learning more, the Polyvagal Institute offers accessible resources and training.

Phones are just one way students seek regulation and connection. If we remove them, we need to replace them with intentional supports—tools, practices, and spaces that make nervous system safety a daily reality in schools.

Calls to Action: Building Equity into Cell Phone Policies

This year is a test case. With districts voluntarily adopting bans before the law exists, we have a chance to:

Collaborate on Sensory-Friendly Solutions. Parents, disabled students, and schools can work together to design sensory-friendly spaces and interventions. These don’t just benefit disabled students—they create calmer, more supportive environments for all learners.

Ask About Supports. When schools talk about restricting phones, ask: What alternative tools and supports will be provided? How will existing accommodations under IDEA and Section 504 be upheld?

Advocate for Resources. If cellphone restrictions are adopted statewide, schools will need more than guidelines—they will need funding. That includes resources for alternative assistive technology, sensory tools, and staffing—not just training existing staff, but hiring additional staff to enforce policies and support students. Without this, the burden will fall on administrators and teachers who are already stretched too thin.

Monitor and Share Impact. Schools and districts should track how phone restrictions affect students—especially those with disabilities—and share this data with legislators. Documenting both the benefits and the challenges will ensure that future policies are informed by real experiences, not assumptions.

Closing Reflection

This isn’t about being “for” or “against” cellphone bans. It’s about recognizing that when schools restrict something that many students rely on, they must also invest in alternatives. Otherwise, the cost will be borne by the very students least able to pay it.

Massachusetts has an opportunity to get this right: to pair policy with funding, to honor the voices of disabled students and their families, and to build schools where safety and connection don’t depend on a phone.