On January 8th, 2026, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law a statewide ban on phones inside of classrooms. The law, in itself, does not take specific action against cell phones, rather, it delegates authority to the Commissioner of Education to develop policy guidelines, and individual Boards of Education to implement a policy at the local level. To cite the law:
A board of education shall, except [if made exempt by the Commissioner of Education], adopt a policy concerning student use of cell phones and social media platforms internet-enabled devices during regular school hours, on a school bus, or during school-sanctioned events when the student is under the direct supervision of a teaching staff member or employee of the board of education. The policy shall address the use of internet-enabled devices in the event of an emergency situation or in response to a perceived threat of danger. The policy shall be consistent with the policy guidelines developed [by the Commissioner of Education].
Thus, in the same month that Murphy signed this law, the Commissioner of Education published guidance for schools on how to implement these policies. One quote summarizes this document quite well:
At a minimum, schools must prohibit the use of personal internet-enabled devices during the entirety of the school day for students in kindergarten through grade 12.
Barring something completely unforeseen, in September, Gateway’s Board of Education will have implemented this policy. With the stroke of Phil Murphy’s pen and a simple “yes” from the members of the school board, radical changes will be made to the school environment.
But is this really necessary? Will the phone ban actually have an impact on students? Several Gateway teachers shared their opinions on the future of high school with this new law in place.
Nearly everyone at Gateway, except a few 7th graders, have a personal cell phone. Roaming through the school, one can observe students using their phones throughout the day. The average day of phone usage might look something like this:
Before School: Use Snapchat to text others on the bus
Morning Meeting: Scroll Instagram reels, TikTok, or look at other forms of social media, only being interrupted to say the pledge
On the way to 1st period: Text a friend
First period: After listening to the teacher give instructions, open TikTok and continue the scrolling session started during morning meeting.
The cycle continues throughout the rest of the day; this is simply the reality of life for the average middle/high schooler.
Though most have become accustomed to it, this is incredibly different from the landscape just a few years ago. Going back 15 years, phones were in their infancy. Texting and calling were the only things phones were useful for. Not to mention, those without a full keyboard needed to devote significant cognitive effort into just sending a text—tapping the “1” key once for an A, twice for a B, or thrice for a C may seem simple enough—but typing out an entire text message proves difficult. WiFi was also not prevalent; one had to go to a computer lab or be at home in order to access the internet.
Ms. Desmond, an English teacher at Gateway, has seen the change in cell phone usage in the classroom over different generations of students. Starting at Gateway in 2003, she has taught thousands of students—many of whom had primitive cell phones at best. In fact, she reports that when she first started teaching at Gateway, not a single student had a cell phone.
When asked about the evolution of cell phones, Ms. Desmond responded that cell phones were a growing issue in her classroom. However, she reports that cell phones are primarily a post-pandemic issue, stating that they became ubiquitous in the mid 2010s, but were not an issue and only really became one after the pandemic.
Ms. Desmond also believes that certain populations are being “exploited” by their cell phone—they do not yet have the ability to restrain themselves from constantly scrolling on their phones.
I have [some] students, who are less developed, and I don’t mean this as in they’re less intelligent or smart, but they’re less mature, their brains are still developing, they haven’t developed that “frontal-lobe control” yet, and for them I do see [phones] as a real problem. They have a really hard time putting it away, forgetting about it. It really affects their ability to concentrate for extended periods of time.
When asked if the same students would have the same problem 10 years earlier, Ms. Desmond replied:
No, I don’t think so. I’m not saying that we didn’t have attention problems then but it was very different. Kids have always not wanted to pay attention. I spent my high school years staring out the window. But [students] have this thing which is constantly demanding [their] attention, which is different than not paying attention. There is a difference between [how] I used to sit in my math class and stare out the window because I would get bored – OK, but there is a difference between that and constantly looking at your notifications, because you’re engaging with something completely different that is occupying your brain. Whereas [in the first scenario], the teacher could [ask if the student is] paying attention, and bring [the student] back, but now, it’s not that you’re just drawing someone’s attention back, you’re competing with something else that is taking up their attention. And that is really different.
Asking if an all-out phone ban would be good for students, Ms. Desmond provided a juxtaposition between phones and other issues that affect high school students:
I do. I think it’s wrong that we expect 14-18 year olds to have self control over something that we know is addictive, that we know is designed to be addictive, and that we know creates attention issues, mental health issues, self esteem [issues]. To not do anything to control that, I think is irresponsible on our part. Like we don’t say to kids, “Go ahead and drink.” Even though we know kids drink, obviously, we don’t just act as if this isn’t an issue we’re not going to deal with. Like if you came into school with a fifth of alcohol, we wouldn’t just be like, “Kids.” But I feel like with cell phones, we’re kind of like, “Well, kids.” And I’m like, “No, we now know it’s harmful, and we have to do something about it.”
Ms. Desmond showed that phones have become more prevalent in younger generations, and more people feel the need to use their phone in the classroom. “I’m not kidding, last year I had classes where it was literally the entire class [was using their phones] all the time,” said Ms. Desmond.
But, is banning phones really the right way forward? According to Gateway’s psychology and criminal justice teacher, Mr. Widener, phones are definitely an issue, though an all-out ban may not be the best way to handle them. Mr. Widener graduated high school in 2012, meaning smartphones were quickly being adopted while he was a student in high school.
Mr. Widener, interestingly, sees some benefits to phones in the classroom. Though reporting that phones are used every day by students in his class, he believes that if used properly, they can actually be a tool used to aid in one’s learning.
He believes that students would need clear and defined boundaries of when and where they can use phones in the classroom for them to be helpful.
I think there would be structure of when to use the phones and how to use the phones, similar to what I was saying with the brain breaks. Giving a student autonomy where they have their phone on them, are they going to follow that? Most likely not; it may be a system where they have [a phone storage solution at the front of class], students access their phones for 5 minutes to get a break from whatever is going on in class, and they put them back, ready to learn.
Mr. Widener brings forth a policy which may resonate more with students and parents: let students have access to their phones, but only at appropriate times. This would allow many of the benefits of phones, such as communication with parents and friends, while giving teachers the ability to teach material without forcing them to compete with cell phones for students’ attention, as Ms. Desmond noted.
As many readers may know, Gateway implemented a new phone ban in the middle school at the beginning of this year. Gateway’s administration refers to this as their “Away for the Day” policy. The “Away for the Day” policy meets all policy guidelines for the state-mandated phone ban that Gateway will be required to implement for the whole school in September. The policy is in Dr. Pierro’s weekly newsletter:
- Cell phones and personal electronic devices must remain away from the start of the school day until dismissal.
- Devices may not be used in classrooms, hallways, bathrooms, locker rooms, or during lunch.
- Students observed using a device will be given a verbal warning. Repeated violations will result in disciplinary consequences.
- In case of an emergency, parents/guardians should call the main office, and we will promptly relay the message to your child.
An anonymous teacher was able to share information as to how Gateway’s changing phone policies have been applied and how a new policy might be implemented in the high school.
When asked about Gateway’s policy on phones, they said that for many years Gateway had no policy regarding phone usage in classrooms, meaning teachers could do little to discourage their students’ phone usage. Later on, Gateway did implement a general policy. The anonymous teacher stated that this policy did help—teachers now had the autonomy to make their classrooms a “phone free zone” or to write up students who used their phones. However, due to variations in enforcement between teachers and significant amounts of effort required to create student writeups—the consensus being around an hour per write-up—the policy was largely ineffective. This led to the creation of the previously mentioned “Away for the Day” policy for the middle school earlier this year.
As a teacher who has seen the “Away for the Day” policy at work in the classroom, they were able to shed some light on the effectiveness of it in it’s first year:
It definitely lowered the amount of students in their cell phones in class, and improved [their] education. I’d say that it was a little more effective, at least in my classes, in the beginning of the year, and now I am seeing more and more students on their phones as the year progresses. But it definitely has really helped.
As a proponent of a phone ban, they touched on their time as a student teacher, stating:
When I did my student teaching, it was at a school where they had a policy that if a student was seen with a phone it was an automatic write-up, and everyone was consistent in communicating that, and enforcing that, and as a result students, for the most part, kept their phones away. And if a student was seen texting under their desk, it was a write-up.
They believe that a clearly communicated (and simple) policy on a phone ban is the right way to implement this.
In order for it to be effective, there needs to be unity in what the policy is. There needs to be clear communication in, not just the policy, but how the policy is to be enforced, because that is the breakdown for when it doesn’t work. Because, for example, you can say that there is a “no-phone” policy at Gateway, but then, what should the teacher do when they see a student on [their] phone? I have heard different things. Some administrators say that it’s an immediate write-up if you see [a phone], and some say that you should warn the student first. But what constitutes a warning? Is it one warning? If you see it again, is [the student written up] if they are on [their phone] for a particular duration? It gets murky. I can’t keep track of what student I’ve warned and what student I haven’t warned and it’s difficult for me to be fair. I think that if there were a unanimous policy where if [a student’s phone] is out, it’s an automatic write-up, you would have an initial influx of writeups, but after that period, phones would be away.
Gateway has had a phone policy in the high school and the middle school, which has existed for a few years, being superseded by the “Away for the Day” policy in the middle school only. To quote the 25-26 District Code of Conduct,
Students are required to silence their phones and put them away during class. Students may only use their phones if they obtain express permission from the teacher for an educational benefit. Students who violate this policy will be held accountable pursuant to the code of conduct.
Curiously, all 3 phone policies explored in this article are inherently similar. The state-mandated phone ban, Gateway’s policy in the high school, and Gateway’s “Away for the Day” policy all share the same content: Phones are not allowed in the classroom. Thus, the introduction of the state-mandated phone ban in September is unlikely to be a major policy update for Gateway. Rather, it will be a time for Gateway to rethink the implementation of its policy. Learning that the “Away for the Day” policy has been more effective than their previous policy, albeit not fully effective, Gateway may continue along the same path: maintaining that phones cannot be used throughout the school day, and continuing to make it easier for teachers to enforce this policy through better communication with teachers and a more effective system for handling cases where students violate the policy, as the anonymous teacher pointed out could be beneficial.
Many high schoolers—especially upperclassmen and about to be ones—wish to see their next year(s) of high school with their phones. Why? Because they have become accustomed to their phones, instant access to their friends, a quick tool to look something up, check the weather, or read the news. They can also be used in a school setting, such as to read and send emails, make hall passes, check grades, assignments, and use it in lieu of a calculator.
When asking high-school students about their phone use, many said that they truly stayed off their phones during their middle school years. This new policy will simply be a return of that, just instead of a gradual change where phones slowly started being used in classrooms, they abruptly stop.
Woodbury High School, just a few miles away from Gateway, has implemented a phone ban using Yondr pouches. These pouches use the same technology that anti-theft tags on clothes use to lock phones in pouches; they are very easy to lock, but require a strong magnet to remove. These magnets are located at the exit points of the school and allow students to open their pouch.
Woodbury students report disliking the policy. Teachers, on the other hand, have a different viewpoint. One Woodbury teacher has reported that teachers don’t have to work as hard to get the attention of students, and students engage in more socialization with those around them.
These pouches tend to be a mixed bag, however, as many schools report having issues with students destroying them, buying powerful magnets from Amazon, or putting dummy phones in the pouch, as one New York Times article points out. However, Woodbury’s model shows the effectiveness of such a wide-scale phone ban. It shows what can happen when students are actually forced to put their phones away—whether through pouches, threat of write-ups, phone lockers, or another model—and the positive effects it can have on learning.
However, there may be a better solution that doesn’t involve thousands of dollars of taxpayer money.
Math classrooms have racks with fabric pouches for a classroom’s worth of calculators. Such racks could be easily repurposed for phones; when students walk into class, they place their phones in the calculator rack. This would not only provide a relatively cheap solution for schools to implement the state-mandated phone ban, but one that also simplifies the procedure of taking attendance: if a student’s phone isn’t in the calculator rack, they are marked absent. In case of an emergency, the students have their phones easily accessible—only a few feet away.
However, one negative to the phone ban many do not consider is that students will need self-control regarding their phone in order to keep a job. When one is at their job, they are always going to have their phone on them—whether or not they use it for work is a case-by-case basis—but it’s always there. If these students never had to learn the self-control to keep their phones away, they will not magically develop it at their job day one and would most likely face several warnings about their phone—if not being fired from their job entirely. Thus, a phone ban—especially one where phones are locked up in pouches or another medium—stops students from developing self-control with the unregulated phone access one would have at their job, leading to possible issues early in their career.
On the contrary, some argue that a phone ban would do the opposite at a job—students will grow up understanding that school, and by extension the workplace is a phone-free zone. By removing phones from their environment, students would grow up in a learning/working environment completely without phones and thus feel no need to use them on the job. Since these former students never got the chance to use their phone at school, they’ll develop the skill of being able to live and work without their phone.
Banning phones is a very complex issue and neither extremes are great; if students are given completely unregulated access to phones, a number of students will not get off them and will end up making teachers’ lives a nightmare. On the other hand, if they are completely banned, students and parents will be up in arms over their concerns over safety—and a disruption to the status quo.
Ms. Desmond addressed the very question of safety and communication with parents. When asked on the subject, her immediate concern was not safety, but rather the development of adolescents when they have constant access to their parents:
I feel like it’s important [that], especially teenagers, to have their own space to develop who they are. There’s this really good book by [Sherry Turkill] called Alone Together, and she does all this research on psychology and technology, and in it there’s a whole chapter called The Tethered Child and what the effect has been on adolescent development where kids are constantly in contact with their parents about every decision, every thought, and how their identity is linked to their parents now. She talks about sitting with adults who are struggling to be independent, and how they still look to their parents for approval.
However, she also addressed the question of safety itself:
I know a lot of people are like, “What about an emergency?” And I know I’m going to sound terrible, but in an emergency, the phone isn’t going to save you anyway. Yes, if we had some horrible emergency here, would I want to speak to my husband on the phone? Obviously, yes. But it’s not going to change the outcome of that emergency.
Another interesting issue schools must consider is two-factor authentication. For example, College Board (which controls all AP classes and the SAT) accounts often require a code from a phone or email to log into. Per the advice of many Gateway teachers, these are associated with students’ personal emails, as they will need access to the account if they graduate or switch schools. Two-factor authentication is arguably non-negotiable because College Board stores credit card numbers when students sign up for the SAT—especially seeing as many have weak passwords. Thus, consideration should be made for solutions to issues like these, where a phone is the only way to check a personal email account or receive a text.
Such scenarios are covered under a specific exception to the law (citing the released guidance for schools on the policy):
When no reasonable alternative to the use of the internet-enabled device for a specific purpose exists (upon authorization by the chief school administrator, principal, or designee)
But why do students react so negatively to this despite having lived a phone-free life just a few years ago? Students feel as though they are having their civil liberties (which differ from civil rights) infringed upon. When balancing civil liberties with government interests, courts almost always look at one thing: does the reduction in civil liberties serve the public to the extent that eroding individual liberties is justified? It seems that teachers almost unilaterally agree that a phone ban would be a net positive. Not to mention, there is evidence showing that phone usage is negatively affecting students themselves.
To quote the Commissioner of Education’s policy guidance:
Research from Twenge et al. (2022) highlights strong associations between frequent social media use and increased levels of anxiety, depression, and sleep disruption among high school-aged youth.
But the answer to the question of whether a phone ban would properly balance civil liberties and public interest is up to the individual and is one that requires consideration on your (the reader’s) own behalf. Teachers (and many students themselves) believe the answer to be a resounding “yes.” Clearly, the state shares that belief.
So: will students truly enjoy a phone ban? No.
But will students accept it and the benefits for them it comes with? They must, or the detention teachers will see their paychecks skyrocket.
