Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders and California Governor Gavin Newsom may have different political ideologies, but they both agree on one thing: the need to ban cellphones during the school day. This idea has been gaining bipartisan support in various states.
Over the past two years, bans on certain activities have been enacted in at least eight states. Additionally, several more states are currently considering proposals to implement similar bans this year.
The movement to ban cellphones has primarily been motivated by concerns surrounding the negative effects of screen time on children’s mental health. Additionally, teachers have expressed frustration over the constant distractions caused by cellphones in the classroom.
Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy, an advocate for warning labels on social media platforms regarding their impact on young people’s well-being, emphasizes the need for schools to establish designated phone-free periods.
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, a staggering 77% of schools in the United States claim to have policies in place that prohibit the use of cellphones for non-academic purposes. However, this statistic can be quite misleading, as it does not necessarily indicate that students are adhering to these bans or that all schools are effectively enforcing them.
Kim Whitman, one of the co-founders of the Phone Free Schools Movement, highlighted the growing recognition of the issue. Parents and teachers across different political spectrums, whether in red or blue states, are grappling with the repercussions of children constantly using mobile devices.
“It doesn’t matter where you reside, be it a bustling metropolis or a quiet countryside, children everywhere are facing difficulties and require a seven-hour respite from the constant influence of phones and social media throughout their school day,” she emphasized.
Several states across the United States are enacting bans on various activities or items. These bans vary in nature and cover a range of issues. Some states are enacting bans on specific substances or products, such as the ban on flavored e-cigarettes in Michigan. Other states are enacting bans on certain activities, such as the ban on texting while driving in many states. Additionally, some states are enacting bans on certain types of weapons or firearms, such as the assault weapons ban in California. These bans are being implemented by state governments as a way to address specific concerns and protect the safety and well-being of their residents.
In several states, including California, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ohio, South Carolina, and Virginia, there have been laws put in place to prohibit or limit students from using cellphones while at school.
Florida took the lead in implementing strict cellphone policies in schools. In 2023, the state passed a law that mandates all public schools to prohibit cellphone usage during class hours. Additionally, schools are required to block access to social media platforms on their district Wi-Fi networks.
By July 2026, California’s nearly 1,000 school districts must develop their own cellphone policies as mandated by a 2024 state law.
Many other states have not implemented a ban on phones in schools. Instead, they have taken alternative approaches, such as encouraging school districts to establish their own restrictions or providing funding for the storage of phones during the school day.
Last year, Sanders introduced a pilot program that offered grants to schools implementing phone-free policies. Over 100 school districts eagerly joined the initiative. Sanders is now aiming to make the ban on cell phones during school hours mandatory for all districts. However, she plans to give the districts the freedom to design their own policy in accordance with this proposal.
“Cellphones are not only a major distraction, but they are also significantly impacting the mental health of many students,” Sanders explained during a press conference last Thursday.
Several governors have recently joined the call for bans, including Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who was sworn in this month, as well as Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds and Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen. Governor Kathy Hochul of New York has indicated her intention to pursue a statewide policy, although she has not provided any details at this time.
There are several reasons why there is opposition to the bans. One of the main arguments against the bans is that they infringe on personal freedom and individual rights. Supporters of this viewpoint argue that individuals should have the autonomy to make their own decisions about what they consume or engage in, without government interference. They believe that adults should have the right to choose whether or not they want to use certain products, such as plastic bags or cigarettes, despite any potential negative effects.
Another argument against the bans is that they can disproportionately impact certain groups of people. Critics argue that bans on certain products or activities can have a greater impact on lower-income individuals who may rely on these products or activities for their daily lives. For example, a ban on plastic bags may be more burdensome for individuals who cannot afford reusable alternatives or who rely on plastic bags for various purposes, such as carrying groceries or transporting items.
Additionally, opponents of the bans argue that they may not be effective in achieving their intended goals. They contend that banning certain products or activities may simply lead to the development of alternatives that are equally harmful or have unintended consequences. For example, banning plastic bags may result in an increase in the use of paper bags, which can also have negative environmental impacts. Critics argue that a more effective approach would be to focus on education and awareness campaigns, as well as promoting sustainable alternatives, rather than outright bans.
Overall, the opposition to bans stems from concerns over personal freedom, potential disproportionate impacts on certain groups, and doubts about the effectiveness of such measures. These arguments highlight the complexities and nuances surrounding the issue of bans and the need for careful consideration and evaluation of their potential impacts.
Some parents argue against the cellphone bans, stating that they require immediate access to their children in case of emergencies.
In recent school shootings, access to cellphones has been a lifeline for some students who needed to reach out to their loved ones during those terrifying moments.
Supporters of the bans have highlighted the potential risks associated with students’ phones during emergencies. They argue that these devices could distract students or inadvertently expose their location, particularly in active shooter situations.
Parents who are against the ban have also expressed their desire for their children to have access to their phones for various reasons, including coordinating transportation.
According to Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union, she shares concerns about the impact of social media on children. However, she believes that the bans being proposed by states are too broad in their approach. Rodrigues argues that simply prohibiting the use of devices during the school day will not address the root causes of issues such as bullying and the dangers associated with social media.
“We, as adults, have failed in our responsibility to equip our children with the necessary skills to effectively navigate this technology,” she expressed. “Instead, we have neglected our duty and left them to figure it out on their own, throwing them into the deep end of the pool when they are alone after school.”
