On Sept. 23, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill No. 3216 into law, requiring all California school districts, county offices of education and charter schools to create and adopt a policy to limit or prohibit students’ smartphone use by July 1, 2026. 

The legislation, known as the Phone-Free Schools Act, aims to curb distractions, reduce cyberbullying and improve student mental health by limiting phone use during school hours. The Phone-Free Schools Act is a step up from Assembly Bill No. 272, signed into law in 2019, which gave school districts the authority to regulate smartphone use during school hours. 

The school is already ahead of the curve, as it adopted the TPHS Student Cell Phone Policy — which prohibits phone use from bell to bell — at the beginning of the school year. 

“I was happy that we were out ahead of the state,” Principal Rob Coppo said. “We had been following the news and the research behind it, and our teachers have been really implementing this same practice for years.”

Although the new legislation calls for districts to formalize the policies, Coppo does not predict significant changes to the school’s current approach. 

The Phone-Free Schools Act states that policies must be updated every five years and developed with “significant stakeholder participation.” This means that input from students, parents, educators and other members of the school community must be considered to ensure the policy addresses the unique needs of the community involved.

“I think [input from students] is very important, because without communication, there can be distrust [from] the students,” Penelope Lee (11) said.

In creating the current phone policy, Coppo has relied on input from a wide range of voices. 

“I like to talk to teachers, I like to talk to my admin team, classified staff, students, [to] figure out what makes the most sense for everybody,” Coppo said. 

Coppo previously considered making the campus entirely phone-free, but decided against it in the end.

“At a high school level, it’s almost impossible,” Coppo said. “… I oppose a full ban … but I don’t know of a single principal who’s not in favor of limiting access to smartphones during the school day. How exactly they implement it is going to be unique to each school, and I respect each principal’s decision to do it the right way.”

The Phone-Free Schools Act lists research linking unrestricted smartphone use in learning environments to numerous negative effects. Studies cited in the legislation show an increase in distractions, lower academic performance, cyberbullying, academic dishonesty and adverse impacts on student mental health.

While students generally support the current TPHS Student Cell Phone Policy, they point to various nuances within the topic of smartphone use. Two months into the school year, Nathan Pham (12) noted the benefits of the policy, but also recognizes the challenges it presents.

“You’re more focused in class, you don’t really worry about your phone, but then also more people are trying to sneak their phone and break the rules … [Students are] rebellious because we’re teenagers,” Pham said. 

Pham also believes that the responsibility for phone use should lie within the student.

“If you don’t pay attention and you’re on your phone in class, that’s on you,” Pham said. “That shouldn’t be on the school or on everyone else who pays attention.”

Other students like Shireen Sabouri (10) described instances in which phones are useful in class. 

“In ceramics, I use [my phone] to look at some inspiration on what to make,” Sabouri said. “A lot of the things on the chromebook are blocked, so on my phone, I can go on other websites that I actually use.”

Most students view the relationship between phone use and restrictions as a matter of balance. 

“The extent that we’ve gone to now is a good balance between having your phone and not having your phone,” Lee said. “I think that [restriction] can be taken too far.”

Coppo acknowledges the inevitability of resistance towards smartphone use restrictions, especially from high school students. 

“Teenagers are naturally rebellious, and so if you take something away, they’re going to hold on to it that much tighter, just as a knee-jerk reaction,” Coppo said. “Over time those issues will come up, and I think we’re going to start exposing some of the phone addiction.”

Despite the challenges of implementing the policy, Coppo has personally observed positive changes in students’ social-emotional well-being. 

“We’ve had many students who have come and thanked us for the ban, because they know that it’s a bit of an addiction … but again, it’s going to take some time before we get some data to show the impact,” Coppo said. “I’m confident that we’re going to see it.”

Coppo, along with the administration team and the counseling department, continue to use anecdotal feedback, data from the California Healthy Kids Survey and nationwide research to assess the state of students at the school. Ultimately, Coppo believes in maintaining a balanced approach to phone use and technology in general. 

“You can think about a smartphone like fire,” Coppo said. “It’s … a very powerful tool when it’s used effectively, and when it’s used destructively, it’s also a very powerful tool.”