Across schools, classrooms are becoming increasingly dysregulated environments. Educators report heightened distraction, emotional volatility, shortened attention spans, and escalating conflict over seemingly minor redirections. While many variables contribute to this reality, one factor has emerged as a near-universal stressor at the Tier 1 level: smartphones.
Cell phones are no longer peripheral to student behavior. They are embedded in the neurobiological, emotional, and social lives of children and adolescents. Yet school systems continue to approach phone use primarily through policy enforcement and consequence frameworks, rather than through a developmental and regulatory lens. This mismatch has created a growing gap between what students’ nervous systems are shaped for and what schools are asking them to do.
Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
Dopamine, Reward, and the Developing Brain
This creates a predictable pattern: when access to a highly reinforcing stimulus is restricted, the nervous system does not experience simple disappointment. It experiences dysregulation. Irritability, defiance, withdrawal, and escalation are not moral failures. They are physiological responses to interrupted reward loops.
Schools, however, often interpret these responses as willful noncompliance.
Dysregulation Disguised as Misbehavior
When this pattern repeats across classrooms and supervision settings, the cumulative effect is profound. Educators report feeling as though they are “fighting an uphill battle” while trying to preserve relationships. Students experience constant correction without understanding the why behind expectations. Both sides become dysregulated together.
Research increasingly shows that chronic dysregulation impairs learning, memory consolidation, and relational trust (Porges, 2011; Schore, 2019). Yet Tier 1 systems rarely account for regulation as a prerequisite for behavior.
The Tier 1 Gap
The result is a Tier 1 deficit. Expectations are stated but not neurologically scaffolded. Enforcement exists without shared language. Students are expected to self-regulate in environments saturated with stimuli engineered to undermine regulation.
This gap pushes students prematurely into Tier 2 and Tier 3 responses, not because they require intensified intervention, but because Tier 1 failed to account for brain development.
Why Policy Alone Is Insufficient
Recent legislative efforts, such as California’s Assembly Bill 3216, reflect a growing recognition that unrestricted phone use undermines learning and well-being. However, policy alone cannot resolve a neurobiological problem. Limiting access without addressing regulation simply relocates dysregulation elsewhere.
Moreover, blanket solutions such as phone lock-up systems ignore a critical reality: students need access to phones for legitimate safety and health reasons. More importantly, restriction without education does not build internal capacity. It builds compliance when supervised and resistance when not.
What is missing is a developmental bridge.
What Is Needed Now
What is required is a Tier 1 reorientation that centers regulation as foundational, not supplemental. This includes teaching students how dopamine works, why phones are compelling, and how attention can be trained rather than demanded. It requires adult language that calms the nervous system before correcting behavior, and systems that prioritize relational safety over immediate compliance.
This is not about lowering expectations. It is about aligning expectations with how brains actually function. Until schools address the regulatory and neurobiological dimensions of phone use, cell phones will remain a proxy battle for a deeper issue: a growing mismatch between modern stimuli and outdated behavioral models.
The question is no longer whether phones are a problem. The question is whether schools are ready to meet the problem at the level it actually exists.
Lets make this fit this post! Lets create a picture that can capture our CALMER method.
References (APA)
Schore, A. N. (2019). Right brain psychotherapy. W. W. Norton & Company.
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking. Developmental Review, 28(1), 78–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002
Volkow, N. D., Wang, G. J., Fowler, J. S., & Tomasi, D. (2017). Addiction circuitry in the human brain. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, 57, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010716-104731
POST COMMENTS