On September 23, 2024, California governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 3216, the Phone-Free School Act. This will require all California district and charter schools to develop a policy limiting the use of smartphones by July 1, 2026.
The Phone-Free School Act is aimed at supporting the mental health, academic success, and overall well being of California students. “The evidence is clear: reducing phone use in class leads to improved concentration, better academic outcomes, and enhanced social interactions” says Newsom in a letter written to school districts this last August. “Excessive smartphone use among youth is linked to increased anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues. A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 72% of high school and 33% of middle school teachers report cell phone distractions as a major problem. Common Sense Media found that 97% of students use their phones during the school day for a median of 43 minutes. Combined with the U.S. Surgeon General’s warning about the risks of social media, it is urgent to provide reasonable guardrails for smartphone use in schools.”
This is not the first law of its kind in California. In 2019, Gavin Newsom also signed into law Assembly Bill 272 (Muratsuchi), a law that gave schools the authority to restrict cell phone usage in K-12 classrooms. This law did not require schools to do so like this one does, but highly encouraged restrictions for the health and safety of the students. Assembly Bill 272 was similarly based on statistics regarding cyber bullying, depression, and low academic scores.
Of course, there are exceptions to when this law requires schools to monitor phone usage. The Phone-Free School Act does not authorize schools to monitor or access a students online activity, and states that parents and educators must allow students to use as instructed by a teacher, administrator, doctor, or the student’s IEP (individualized education program). Students must also be able to use their phones in the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger. This is likely written into the act out of fear of violence at schools and no access to call 911 or a trusted adult. Logistics of these exceptions are going to be different for every school, and how each decides to enforce the new law.
A solution to similar restrictions that has been increasing in popularity has been the Yondr phone locking pouch. These pouches work by placing your phone inside of a magnetic pouch, which would lock, and keep your phone unusable while inside. The locking mechanism is similar to magnetic security devices, where the lock must be placed on a strong magnet in order to be released. According to schools where these pouches are enforced, each Yondr pouch costs around 30 dollars per student, and students are required to pay for a new pouch if it is lost or damaged. This may be complicated to allow students to access their phones in emergencies or for medical reasons if they must unlock their device using a magnet that may not be nearby for easy access, but how these restrictions will be enforced is still yet to be seen.
Many students at Inspire had no idea that this legislation had been signed into law, or that it was even being discussed on a state-wide level. “I didn’t know about this, no one told me. I think it’s really disrespectful to me” says Eli Chesterman (9). “I think it’s not going to help. Because you know what? I need to go on my phone, for my phone games”. Julie Carhart (9) comments “I think if they execute it correctly, and enforce it in a way that doesn’t harm students, then it could be helpful to them… I don’t think it’ll have a huge impact on what school is currently like.”
Other students have more complicated opinions on the matter. Phoenix Coons (9) states “I feel like for mental health, definitely decreased hours on phones can be beneficial, however I don’t think the way to do that is outright banning [them]. I think we definitely need to have more education instead of just saying “no, don’t do this.” Give the reasons why, elaborate, and give students a chance to take accountability for themselves, and be able to try that out on their own terms instead of the school straight up enforcing it. Because when you enforce a policy like that, [it’s going to cause] students to be more sneaky with their phone using habits… they are just going to get sneakier with it.”
Jasper Bauer (9) also has mixed feelings on the matter. “I think that the mental health and phone usage thing is correlation, not causation. I think that [because] people with bad mental health issues will feel unable to do outside things, and thus will be more on their phone that causes higher levels of phone usage. I believe that because of that, people are constantly seeing that phones [are] causing mental health issues. And I believe that banning that will not [create] the solution, it will just cause people to be sneakier. I get that, of course, paying attention during school, during lectures and tests is incredibly important, but I believe that the constant and entire ban of phones during schools will not be as beneficial as people want to assume and think.”
Regardless, we will have no idea what these kinds of restrictions will look like at Inspire, and the current upperclassmen will likely never find out first hand. Current freshman and sophomores (the classes of 2027 and 2028) will end up seeing this legislation to fruition. Until July of 2026, we will have no idea what kinds of effects the Phone-Free School Act will have on Inspire.