Voices: As a teacher, here’s what I wish students knew about cellphone bans

The 2025-2026 school year brought a significant change: Cellphones are now banned from Utah schools.

SB178 keeps phones out of classrooms to reduce distractions. The law reflects a national trend, with states responding to research about “The Anxious Generation” and the movement to phone-free schools.

Utah’s cellphone ban has been implemented statewide, with each district having the autonomy to apply it in the way that works best for its student population. For example, Washington County intermediate and middle schools ban cell phones on campus entirely, while high school students are permitted to use cell phones during lunch and class breaks.

Curious about students’ perception of the new policy, I shared a voluntary survey with several hundred secondary students, teachers and parents in Washington County this fall. The survey revealed positive teacher and parent responses, but also showed that many students see the ban as punishment rather than protection. I believe these students are unaware of the research and rationale behind the policy.

Not surprisingly, teacher perception of Washington County’s cellphone ban is overwhelmingly positive. Many teachers already had classroom policies restricting cellphone use, so SB178 was validating.

One teacher commented, “It is going great. I was used to having students put their phones in the pockets up in front of the class, so it wasn’t much of a change. It was just good to have real teeth behind the policy backed up by the state.”

Another teacher, who states they had never restricted phone use, was pleasantly surprised: “I honestly have not seen a lot of pushback from students like I thought I would! It’s been really well-received.”

Teachers have noted the detrimental effect of unrestricted phone use for years, so the ban has been a relief. In my own conversations with local administrators, they have noted increased rates of engagement and student learning in their schools. Likewise, parent responses mirrored the relief, validation and excitement expressed by teachers. One parent enthusiastically commented: “As a mom, I LOVE knowing her day is less screen time and more learning. Less distractions and SAFER in the locker rooms!”

High school students have varied responses to the new cell phone policy. One senior student reports in the survey, “I think that it really is a good thing that the phones are being prohibited in classrooms. It helps students to be less distracted and to actually focus on what is being taught.”

However, another student expressed concern that they are not being prepared for technology regulation as adults because they no longer have the opportunity to practice in schools: “I understand that phones can be distracting; however, I feel that by taking our phones, schools aren’t preparing us for the real world…Rather than taking phones, I think schools should teach kids how to work effectively and efficiently with them around.”

The survey highlights a misunderstanding of why phones are being restricted. In the survey sample, 67% of students disagreed with the policy. One student said it was not the state’s job to restrict phones; rather, teachers needed to work harder at engaging students. Many expressed concern about not having phone access in the case of an emergency. Another group of students argued that not practicing phone regulation in the classroom leads to the inability to regulate in the workplace. Many students saw the purpose of the law, but feel it is too harsh: “I think that the Utah cellphone policy is decent; however, I think it is kind of harsh. It can be hard to know the limits of the policy.”

Student responses reveal a generation caught between dependence on technology and the policies of adults. The gap is not defiance — perhaps it can be attributed to a lack of information.

So how do we bridge this gap? Start with transparency. For example, teachers may share engagement research, such as John Hattie’s Visible Learning, to help students understand the science of learning and how technology-based distractions can be detrimental. Students’ concerns about emergency access are valid, but schools maintain multiple communication channels during crises. While the workplace-preparation argument has merit, the reality is that workplaces do not allow unlimited screen time during training, either. Learning to focus despite distractions is in itself career preparation.

Teens absolutely need to be heard and have their concerns addressed. Schools need to give surveys or have an open forum to gather student input. Additionally, English, debate and government classes are excellent places to share opinions, either through in-class discussions or argumentative writing. Likewise, parents and teachers might share research about what unregulated cell phone use is doing to the adolescent brain.

Phone-Free School Movement is a great starting point in navigating the extensive body of research. Parents and community members can all model appropriate cell phone use and engage students in reflective conversations.

SB178 has the right goal. It will work when students understand the ultimate purpose is not about control — it’s about giving students back their learning, their focus and, ultimately, their autonomy. If we explain the why, show students the science behind the policy and genuinely address their concerns, we will lead the nation in creating informed, empowered adults.

Rachel A. Robins is an instructional coach and teaches CE English and the CTE K-12 Pathway at Crimson Cliffs High in Washington, Utah. She is also a Utah Teacher Fellow and is passionate about empowering students and teachers.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.