This new policy has raised the question: Should state politicians in Jefferson City be dictating rules for a student in a St. Louis classroom? While our local district has already considered changing the policy, Missouri’s new law removes the decisions from local hands, from community members, a move even some lawmakers and school officials question.

State Representative Ian Mackey, who voted for the broader education bill that included the ban, acknowledges the tension. He believed schools were already doing a “pretty good job” handling phone use at the local level and didn’t think it needed to be a state policy. He supported the bill due to other elements he agreed with, including a policy he himself authored, but still had reservations about the phone ban itself.

“Their ideas about how to regulate, through state law, the interactions of youth, children, young people, and technology. It just could not be more ignorant sometimes. Just such a disconnect,” he said. “The idea that they wouldn’t think you guys could text from your laptops. Many of the other ideas we see come from good places. They come from wanting to keep you guys safe and wanting to keep you guys engaged in school.”

After Governor Mike Kehoe signed the bill into law in early July, the district had one month to codify it before students returned to school. Despite the short notice, they were prepared. Superintendent Nisha Patel had been tracking the legislation since it was first introduced in February.

“As soon as we found out, we started looking at our own policies. We started contacting our legal counsel … just in case, like ‘hey, if something like this passes, we want to make sure that our practices match our policies, and, of course, abide by the law,’” Patel said.

School Board President Stacy Siwak was also involved in the implementation process and has mixed feelings about the state’s interventions.

“I support phone bans because I think we need a distraction-free learning environment, and not having phones in our classrooms is the number one probable distraction,” Siwak said. “I’m not sure the state should be dictating what school districts do. I think that’s what school boards and local elected officials are for. So I’m not quite sure how I feel about the state dictating it, but I support the whole idea.” 

According to Representative Mackey, it is rare for Missouri to enact such a strict “all-out ban” that affects every district, preferring to leave decisions up to local school boards. 

“At the end of the day, if the state is going to make a decision that impacts schools, our job is to make sure we follow that law,” Patel said.

The district was already planning to change its phone policy regardless of the law. A Spring survey revealed that only 54% believed an adult would intervene if rules were broken, a sentiment with which Patel agreed. She explained that the district had already planned to improve enforcement among students and faculty before the start of the school year.

“We already knew that if we’re going to stay the course, we would try to do better in terms of enforcement, meaning communicate to the students well in advance of the school year, like, ‘hey, remember, in the classroom, no cell phones,’ make sure we’re having conversations with our faculty as well, reminding everybody what the cell phone procedure is at the high school. So we were going to stay the course, but we also recognized there were areas to improve,” Patel said.

Despite her issues with the state’s intervention, Siwak found a silver lining in the new law’s strictness. 

“Having it away bell to bell, meaning passing periods and lunchtime, gets kids in the habit of not taking it out at all during the day, that’s part of what makes it important,” Siwak said. “It was away during class time, but if you’re just ripping it back out of your backpack or your pocket in passing time or at lunchtime, it doesn’t become as much of a habit.”

By breaking these habits, she hopes students’ mental health will improve by no longer having their phones constantly available, a sentiment supported by scientific evidence; the U.S. Surgeon General’s 2023 Advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health stated that limiting the use of social media resulted in mental health benefits for young adults. 

“It will be better for everyone’s mental health,” Siwak said. “It’ll be better for socialization with friends, because lunchtime and passing periods are when you socialize. And if you have your head in your phone, you’re not going to be doing that. And I think it’s really important to have socialization times during school.”

Doug and Christina Meyer share their opinions regarding the new phone policy implemented in schools state-wide. (Christina Meyer)

While students adjust to the new cell phone ban, parents are watching closely from the sidelines. Some see it as a long-overdue step to curb distraction, while others question how far a statewide law should go. 

Christina and Doug Meyer, parents of Aspen, a junior at the high school, and Brynn, an eighth grader at the middle school, say the new cell phone ban reflects a problem they’ve long noticed. 

“I’ve been concerned about the usage of phones and with social media,” Christina said. “I feel like it’s an addiction to begin with.” 

For the Meyers, the primary concern is maintaining classroom focus. They have seen how phones and earbuds can pull students away from lessons, so they view Missouri’s ban as a necessary first step. 

“When kids are in the classroom setting and have their phone, they are just scrolling on their phones; they’re not engaged with the teacher,” Doug said. “[The problem] is bigger than just Clayton; it’s across the whole board. I think they needed to do something.” 

At the same time, the Meyers see flaws in a blanket plan. They would like teachers to have the ability to allow phones when appropriate. The couple pointed to England’s policy, which leaves teachers room to set expectations, and hope Missouri follows suit.  

“I support the ban,” Christina said. “I’m hopeful they can reevaluate and tweak it. I would like to see more flexibility in school districts’ hands.”

Mary Beth Carosello, a second-grade teacher, and her husband, Michael Perman, have two children at the high school: Luciano, a junior, and Lily, a freshman. Having moved from Los Angeles two years ago, the family was used to structured rules around technology. 

“For Lily’s school, [the phone] had to stay in her backpack the entire day,” Carosello said. “So when we came to Clayton, it was a shock to me that [the rules] were looser, even with the existing policy.” 

That background made Missouri’s ban less surprising. Carosello described her feelings as mixed, saying she supports limiting distractions but worries about safety, especially after last spring’s tornado. Perman focused on how cell phones can affect learning. 

“I think it’s probably good to have some checks and balances on cell phones,” Perman said. “It can get out of hand, and it’s probably a big distraction, not only for the students, but for the teachers.” 

The couple has already seen changes in Lily’s first weeks of high school. Without her phone, she has to coordinate with friends face-to-face rather than through technology, which her parents believe could be a positive development.

“Especially as a freshman coming in, I think the biggest benefit has been that Lily is a little more present,” Carosello said. “She has to be in the moment; students can’t be hiding on their phones.”

However, they question whether a statewide law was the right approach. The couple argued that cell phone policies should reflect the needs of individual communities. 

“Think about the state of Missouri and how different all the different school districts are,” Carosello said. “What might be an issue in Clayton might not be an issue in a more rural school district. So I do think a little bit of it is overreach by the state. I think that educational policy should be dictated by individual school districts that are controlled by local school boards and the needs of the community.”

Jessica Niehaus, whose daughter Flynn is a junior at the high school, said she first heard about the new cell phone law through district communication. She supports limiting phones in the classroom but believes there should be some flexibility. 

“I’m 100% in favor of phones not being used in the classroom unless it’s endorsed by a teacher,” Niehaus said. “I do support some flexibility throughout the school day, like lunchtime and free periods. I think that’s a reasonable compromise, because our students are going to go out in the world and need to be able to responsibly use technology. It’s not going away, so I am in favor of a balanced approach.”

Niehaus acknowledged parents value occasional contact with their children, particularly for mental health support. So far, she has not noticed major changes in Flynn’s school experience. She attributes this partly to Clayton’s open campus, where students can find opportunities to check phones outside of class. 

“For better or worse, I’m not hearing anything,” Niehaus said. “It’s not terribly different because they shouldn’t have been using their phones in class anyway.”

She worries less about the current rules than about where future restrictions might lead. 

“The policy that we have today, I think, is very reasonable,” Niehaus said. “I would be less enthusiastic if we did go to lock your phone up from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. I think that’s too far for today’s world.” 

(Kati Zustiak)

When Missouri classrooms opened their doors this fall, teachers were not just adjusting to new students; they were adjusting to a new reality: no phones. The statewide ban left lesson plans intact, but reshaped teachers’ delivery, forcing quick pivots in courses that once leaned on the devices. For example, the Digital Photography course used to rely on students’ phones to take pictures, but now has to adapt. 

“Students can still use their phones for the course outside school hours, so the opportunity to use phones for photography [hasn’t completely gone away]. [But,] in a photography class, you’re better off using the camera anyway, because it’s more [manual],” Robert Sralla, visual art instructor said. 

The class is currently stocked with old Digital Single-Lens Reflex (DSLR) cameras. They function as good cameras, but many modern smartphones take better photos. The administrators are currently working with Sralla and another visual art instructor, Laura Brugere, to provide them with up-to-date equipment for their classes. 

“Phones are great, but [they don’t] give students the skills and field experience they need to enter into a college-level visual art photo program. We are hoping to update our program so we have DSLR cameras that have interchangeable lenses and a better range of controls for all photo students,” Brugere, who has taught Digital Photo in the past, said. 

Because the state ban was passed three weeks before the start of school, there was little time to adjust their classrooms accordingly. The budget for Digital Photo was decided a year in advance, so there was no buying a classroom set of several hundred-dollar cameras immediately. 

“We have had the administrators come to us and ask if there’s any essential [materials] that we need due to the impact of the new law that’s in place. They’ve been really supportive. They’re trying to figure out ways that they can fund [adequate equipment]. [So] it’s going to be a slow build for the program,” Brugere said. 

Math teacher Kyle McCord believes that the students are generally accepting of the ban and that it has not caused any major disruption.

“I don’t think that they really have a problem with it. Nobody has reacted negatively to it. In my experience, I think because we had a pretty similar policy, at least with phones last year, kids were pretty well prepared,” McCord said. 

Science teacher Doug Verby thinks that the development of technology overall has had a positive impact on education, but that development comes with obstacles.

“We introduced computer animation so visualizations got better, and we’ve used more labware [in] physics, chemistry and biology to get more accurate readings. So technology’s always been good, but cell phones and AI have presented challenges. Taking the cell phone out of the class really helps students focus, and resets them for a more academic environment,” Verby said. 

Spanish teacher Nathan Fouquet believes that while the ban may inconvenience students, it has had a positive effect on the school’s environment. 

“I think they wish they could be able to utilize their phones for certain activities in class. But, when they can get past the conscious thought of the actual ban itself, I will say the mood amongst students has been overall lighter and seemingly happier. I feel like there’s a lot more person-to-person communication,” Fouquet said. 

Conversely, science teacher Adam Bergeron believes that banning the phones outright does not teach students how to use them responsibly. 

“We’ve absolved parental responsibility while asking schools to pick up that baton [while] not teaching you how…to use that device responsibly,” Bergeron said. “And then somehow fully expect—upon your graduation and transition to the next page of whatever you do in life—that you’re just going to figure out how to use it responsibly,” Bergeron said. 

Bergeron argues for the strategy outlined by author Jonathan Haidt in his book, “The Anxious Generation.” The book proposes that children should not have a smartphone until the age of 14 and should not use it to access social media until the age of 16.

“I think by [using Haidt’s strategy], we [would be] helping young people understand that there’s a place, [and] a way, to use these devices responsibly [while] showing you that they don’t need to be a constant distraction. They can actually be a tool to improve and enhance your learning,” Bergeron said.

Fouquet ultimately thinks that the ban will have a net positive effect in the long run, especially in terms of developing students’ social skills. 

“[The ban is] not without its challenges, not without its frustrations and inconveniences, but I do think that it’s healthy for students to connect interpersonally,” Fouquet said. “This is a move in the right direction of trying to foster and cultivate those skills in students nowadays. The phones are a tremendous resource and tool, but they also can, if misused, create some issues developmentally.” 

(Kati Zustiak )

Phones are something that have become interwoven into our everyday lives, especially for teens. Phones are used by teens for everything from texting with friends, checking social media, to scheduling conferences with teachers, writing down homework, and taking pictures of problems on the board when we can’t write fast enough. However, they are now banned in schools.

Over the summer, the Missouri legislature passed a sweeping educational bill, which included the banning of phones for students from the first bell to the last. 

But is this bill fair?

The budget for the School District of Clayton is around $77 million, or about $21,000 per student. The average for Missouri is around $15,900. The impact of phone bans extends far beyond removing distractions from classrooms; for example, for photojournalism, the cameras on students’ phones are often far superior to those provided by schools. A good-quality photojournalism camera costs around $ 3,000 per camera. While wealthier school districts, such as Clayton and Ladue, can afford the cost that may occur as a result, a district in Independence, which receives less funding, might not. The same can go for computers. Before the ban, depending on a school’s policy, many students could bring their own devices to do schoolwork on. Now, with the language of the bill seemingly banning personal laptops, the job of providing devices now falls to the individual districts, further increasing the financial cost to schools, which cannot afford it. 

There is also something to be said for the different policies of each school. For example, different schools implement policies that work best for them, tailored to the specific issue of phones within their own district. At Clayton we had a fairly strict phone policy during class, with some teachers using pouches, or requiring they stay in backpacks, some more rural schools may have used less strict phone policies, some may have used stricter policies when it came to phones, but the district and the school was ultimately in charge of their own phone policy, being able to make decisions and policies which fit their individual needs. 

At Clayton, the administrators put an emphasis on personal responsibility, using open campus to help prepare students for college when they are ultimately able to leave campus when not in class, but are then responsible for getting back to school in time, managing this off-time properly by prioritizing schoolwork and teacher meetings. Still, by removing phones from lunch time, it removes a part of learning how to behave once you leave Clayton High School, because, as was said, phones are interwoven into our lives, like it or not. 

Missouri high schools do not need policies to stop cell phone use in class. Phone use in class can be distracting not only for you, but also for others. The point is that the state making a one-size-fits-all policy for something like phones not only does not help but actively hurts schools, by removing the choice from the administrators who know their schools, districts, and students best.

It’s important to know that this is a state policy, not a teacher policy, a school policy or even a district policy, so advocating against the policy with teachers, principals or even the superintendent won’t solve the problem. The only way to express how you feel about this policy is to talk to the people who wrote it, the state representatives and state senators. If you don’t like the policy, call them, email them, go down to Jefferson City dressed as a giant phone with a sign that says let me free. However, if you genuinely care about the issue and believe it is unfair not just to you, but to others as well, then advocate for what you think is right.