The tidiest relationship in this survey is one the write-up does not draw. Among secondary teachers, 44 percent said the rules were consistently enforced at their school [9]. The shares reporting change since the new rules sit just under that: 36 percent said students were more focused on learning, 33 percent said students were less distracted, 33 percent said peer relationships had improved [15]. That is 8 to 11 points below the enforcement figure [6]. Elementary schools show the same alignment at the other end, with more than 70 percent reporting consistent enforcement [9] and 68 to 75 percent reporting each benefit [14]. Reported benefit moves with reported enforcement, which is what you would see if the rule does its work when applied and does nothing when it is not.
One item refuses the pattern. Just 17 percent of secondary teachers reported less cyberbullying, 27 points below their own enforcement number [15][7], against 72 percent in elementary [14]. The written policy anticipates that gap: through Grade 6 the phone is out of reach for the entire school day, while in Grades 7 to 12 it is restricted only during instructional time [5][6]. The secondary rule leaves the unstructured parts of the day alone, and cyberbullying is the one outcome on the list that does not need a classroom [6].
Two variables move together across the comparison, though. The students differ in age, and the rule they live under differs in scope [5][6]. So the support figures, twice as many secondary teachers feeling not at all backed by parents and three times as many by administrators [11], are consistent with the enforcement-burden reading without isolating it from adolescence. The cleaner contrast is internal, and the authors report it without numbers: in the minority of secondary schools where enforcement was consistent, teachers described the same gains, including increased marks [16].
What none of this measures is a phone. There are no device logs, no grades, no mental-health instrument; "increased marks" is a teacher's impression of marks [16], and the 32-point satisfaction gap between the two panels [4] captures how teachers feel about their school's response [13], not what students did. The 1,242 respondents [1] were reached through the two Toronto teacher unions that partnered on the work [7], with elementary voices outnumbering secondary by two and a half to one [2], and the write-up reports no response rate or sampling frame [20]. The results have been submitted to conferences and are not yet published [8].
The companion study is thinner: 285 undergraduates at one Ontario university, sorted by the strictness of the high school they happened to attend [17], with the stricter-school group reporting less use at bedtime, in class and while studying, and more academic use [18]. Nobody assigned those students to those schools, so family norms and school intake remain live explanations.
Here is the view I will commit to, with its condition. Across 2007, 2019 and 2024 the policy text was rewritten and the failure mode stayed put [1][3][4], and a teacher in this round says administrators do not enforce because they are afraid of parental opposition [12]. That points at backing rather than drafting. The condition: the evidence is teacher report throughout, and a study that measured actual device use in both cohorts could still hand the difference to age.
