Overview:
After the cell phone ban debates, here’s what we learned
Last year, I wrote to the Glendale Unified school board to call for a ban on smartphones.
Since then, the landscape has changed in ways that sharpen the conflict. The Los Angeles Unified School District began its ban in February 2025 and the lessons learned have now been collected. The Free School Act of Gov. Gavin Newsom needs every state in California to adopt the policy by July 2026. And Glendale Unified has been discussing updates to its mobile device policy, with the board weighing how strict it should be.
As a doctor, local health official and parent of an incoming Glendale Unified student, I think the initial evidence makes the case for a total ban clearer than ever.
After the last few years, I understand why families may struggle with some policies that may feel like someone is telling them what to do. But who is really making decisions about their children’s attention right now? A handful of Silicon Valley companies have spent years engineering products to capture and capture the growing minds of children. The bell-to-bell ban gives that authority back to parents by creating a rarefied space where apps and algorithms can’t reach their kids.
Currently, even parents who want a free school day for their child cannot achieve it themselves, because social pressure and the culture of constant communication make individual opt-outs almost impossible. The regional policy solves that collective problem and gives every family what many already want.
A free school day is about giving back to our children something that was quietly taken from them.
Los Angeles Unified’s experience over the past year tells a useful story. Teachers in schools with the same rule report calmer classrooms and face-to-face conversations between students. But compliance was uneven. Students have found creative ways to fix Yondr bags (where cell phones are kept until class ends), and nearly half of the district’s schools have opted for the honor system, which produces poor results. The lesson is clear: Unclear policies produce unclear results, and schools that drew a clear, uniform, physically enforced line saw stronger compliance.
Some think tanks have argued that the real target should be telecommunications companies, not phones. I sympathize with this. California has already passed legislation requiring platforms to automate privacy settings for children, and the push for stronger regulation is encouraging. Voices from both sides want to be held accountable for the damage these products cause to children. But schools can’t wait for companies to redesign their platforms out of the goodness of their hearts. School-level phone policies and industry regulation are complementary strategies, and we should pursue them both.
The data from the Los Angeles County Health Survey that originally inspired my book is still shocking. Nearly a quarter of Glendale’s children reported feeling very anxious, worried or scared in the past year, 70% higher than the statewide average. An additional 11% reported deep sadness or depression. Although the city-level data was less accurate in exact terms, the trend is still there. I’ve seen it when I work in a clinic with children who don’t sleep well, who can’t pay attention, whose anxiety is linked to food and who can’t stop checking. There is no single policy that will fix all of this. But removing one intense stressor for seven hours a day during the time when students should be learning and growing is a sensible move.
At the November 2025 board meeting, the Glendale district’s survey results showed strong public support for stricter bans, along with real concerns about emergencies, teacher workloads and grade-level segregation. Those problems need answers.
As the district prepares to finalize its policy, a few principles from the past year stand out. Physical separation works better than a trust-based system. Emergency access can be built in, and modern systems already allow workers to unlock devices in seconds. The ringing rate is easier and more accurate than recording valid windows during periods or lunch. Even better for teachers. Disarming police officers disappear when the law is the same and the machines are out of reach. While high school students may seem to warrant more latitude, the evidence for limiting their access during the school day is equally strong. And any ban must be paired with the hard work of creating school environments where students really want to be.
A free school day is about giving back to our children something that was quietly taken from them. They need the freedom to be bored, to dream, to have an uninterrupted conversation with a friend, to sit with their thoughts for more than a few minutes at a stretch. That’s what childhood should feel like. LAUSD teachers are seeing signs that it’s coming back. Glendale has the evidence, community support and federal mandate to achieve this right.
•••
Naman ShahMD, Ph.D., is director of medical and dental affairs for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. The opinions expressed are his own.
The views expressed in this description represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes comments that represent a variety of viewpoints. If you would like to submit a comment, please review our guidelines and contact us.
