By Minh Nguyen
On April 14, 2025, Governor Katie Hobbs signed House Bill 2484, which required charter and high schools to limit cell phone usage. H.B. 2484 limited students’ cell phone usage, allowing phones to be used in cases of emergencies, for educational purposes directed by an educator, and for medical reasons.
However, due to this phone policy implemented in school, there are mixed feelings about it. At Ironwood Ridge, phones are not allowed to be used in class, during passing period, or during advisory. Phones are only allowed before and after school, as well as during lunch.
Student Amy Chaar has mixed feelings on the policy. She thinks a benefit of this policy is that classrooms have been quieter and there are fewer distractions, but she says there are still students who sneak onto their phones. “I feel like it’s not actually fixing the real issue. The behavior of students remains mostly the same, and the policy harms students who don’t exhibit bad behavior, Chaar claims. Chaar shares that her typical day in school and in the classroom is the same because she does not use her phone in class, so the phone policy does not personally affect her, as she uses her phone during lunch. With the phone policy implemented, it never affected her education, but in previous years, students who were on their phones distracted her a lot. She thinks the phone policy decreased distractions. The current phone policy at school prohibits the use of phones during passing periods, which Chaar disagrees with. She would change the inability to be able to utilize phones during passing period because it is typically the time when she checks her phone to see if her family has reached out.
Another student, Ember Brown, believes that the law is an unnecessary measure to try and help students remain focused in school. Brown mentions an issue where there could be a situation where a student has a personal situation going on, and they may not want to communicate it to a teacher or the office; they would rather directly contact their parents. She believes that the law was implemented to eliminate distractions in schools. “I don’t know if the pros are outweighing the cons necessarily,” says Brown. Many kids still go on their phones, but there is a small difference between this year and the previous year. Brown feels that the school environment remains the same for the most part, but some kids communicate with others more.” I’d say most kids still go on their phones, but I’ve seen, like, a little bit of a difference,” shares Brown. On one occasion, Brown had to text her mom because her doctor had called her, but her teacher punished her for declining the call. That event ruined her day, and she was unable to focus on class because she was upset. Even though advisory is not necessarily a free period, it’s a time for students to catch up and do club activities. Brown thinks phones would be a great tool for studying and academic purposes.
Evie Tomeh, a junior, shares that the phone policy has made it difficult, “Because I’m in student government and we rely on our phones a lot.” Student government relies heavily on their phones to create posters and other crafts, Tomeh shares. However, the phone policy does have a positive outcome. The phone policy has encouraged students to interact more, and Tomeh believes it has brought many people together. Being in school without her phone has been a bit difficult because she likes to have her phone in her hand in case something happens, and she has direct access to it, rather than having to reach for it in her backpack. She mentions the emergency lockdown trial that happened on Wednesday. That event scared her, and that’s why Tomeh would like to have her phone with her at all times. Even though she is a good student and has never been on her phone during classwork, students who were on their phones in previous years distracted her a lot, but now, with the policy implemented, fewer distractions are coming from students on their phones. With the current school phone policy, she would like to modify the strict “No Phones Allowed” policy, making it less restrictive. She believes the harsh punishment is unnecessary, so she would lighten the severity of the punishment. Tomeh also would like for students to be able to use their phones during advisory without getting punished. The way her change of policy would impact her is that she would be able to focus more if she were able to listen to music during class when students are being distracting.
Mr. Bennett, the 2D art teacher, has a positive view of the phone law. He believes that the law helps support the phone rules that had already been in place. However, he feels that the phone ban could be interpreted differently. Bennett explains that the law is somewhat open-ended, so school policies differ, but that could be considered a positive. Due to the effects of the phone law and policy, Mr. Bennett has seen more focused students. “There’s a lot less distracting behaviors, like showing people videos or photos on their phones,” Bennett claims. And if students are on their phones, Bennett says the law gives his request to tell them to get off their phones more weight, as it is “set in stone.” Bennett thinks the school phone policy is fair and does not need to be altered. He believes that the warnings provide a chance for students to change their behavior, and the policy helps to reach out to parents on the second warning. According to Bennett, most students don’t reach the third warning, which “limits the amount of paperwork and referrals.” Since Bennett believes that the current phone policy at school does not need any changes, he shares his favorite part of the policy: “My favorite part is that there’s a little bit of a phone open time.” Students are not allowed to use phones during class hours, but they can use phones during lunch. So instead of not being able to use phones all day, there is a time for phones, which Bennett likes.
Mr. Welsh, a history teacher, feels that the phone law has calmed down most classrooms. Mr. Welsh doesn’t have to worry as much about students being on their phones playing games, texting, or snapping. He has more students on task compared to previous years. With this, he’s happier because he is getting more work turned in, and since students can’t go on their phones, nothing is holding them back from doing work. However, he would like to bring back the phone cubbies. “It fixed a lot of the problem” because both the teacher and the students knew where their phones were. It would provide peace of mind because the phones were away and out of reach, so they could not be on their phones, but students would still find ways to be distracted.
Consequently, Welsh thinks the phone policy is just a band-aid for a problem that will take a while to fix. The phone policy “still not fixing the problem”, students who had problems with the phone policy previously would only think about how they can sneak onto their phone or when the next time they can use their phone next.
Mr. Watkins believes “ legislation or law was necessary, but I appreciate this.” But he thinks the drawback of this law does not give teachers as much flexibility in the classroom. Watkins feels like it puts teachers in the position of enforcers of the legislation. However, the benefit in Watkins’ class is that there are fewer eyes on phones and more eyes on education. According to Mr. Watkins, the spirit of the law is that the decrease in cell phone usage in the classroom has increased productivity. Watkins does not like utilizing Chromebooks in place of phones because using Chromebooks instead of phones is a longer process; with phones, we have information right at our fingertips. Watkin thinks that without being able to use phones, it increased engagement and productivity in the class because there were fewer students on their phones. Students aren’t able to procrastinate to do their work, according to Watkins. Although the phone policy is straightforward, Mr. Watkins would like for teachers to have more agency on when students can and can’t use their phones. This would simplify things and provide information at the fingertips of students.
A chemistry teacher, Miss Greene, believes that the phone ban could be good if implemented correctly. Due to a generational problem of short attention spans, Miss Greene thinks “it’s good to have a universal policy throughout the state.” But there is a drawback to this phone policy. This change was big and sudden, which makes it hard for students and teachers to transition from using phones to not using phones, because phones have played a major role in life. Phones are used for emergencies to maintain instant contact with people. Miss Greene has noticed that students have been more focused and more productive, which makes it a happier environment. This happier environment allowed Miss Greene more time to teach and engage with her students. Compared to Miss Greene’s first year of teaching, those first-year students were defiant when she asked them to put their phones away, but with the law implemented, students tend to listen more after a simple redirection. Although the phone policy requires phones to be in backpacks, she would still like to have her charging station back. With the charging station, she knew where her students’ phones were and didn’t have to worry about them being in their pockets or behind their Chromebooks. If Miss Greene were able to bring her charging station back, then it would be a win-win situation for both her and her students because she would know where students’ phones are, and students would be able to charge their phones. It would also be easier to keep track of phones during tests.