Posted by By Co-Editor in Chief, Shelby De Jong
You’ll find them hidden under desks, shrouded by a backpack, or camouflaged by a water bottle….cell phones are a ubiquitous presence at New Paltz High School. As the possibility of the cell phone ban becomes reality, students reported their displeasure on it. In a survey conducted by Superintendent Stephen Gratto, 97.6% of a 420 student sample voted “no” to a policy at NPHS similar to that of the middle school. But without regulation and supervision, it is just too tempting to open your phone throughout the day, and with Kathy Hochul’s ban coming on the heels of NPCSD’s very own regulations it is a sure reality for the upcoming school year.
“When you no longer have access to something that’s ongoing and immediate, you have the ability to be present and process,” NPHS principal Dr. Simms observes, describing her hope for change next year as, “Real Time Focus.”
“I think that I’m excited to see people interacting with others, you know, and talking to each other more, and just generally being less on their phones,”
NPHS sophomore, Lujayn Eljamal
In the modern world we are all connected to our phones, whether in a productive manner or not. School is no different, as students use their phone for anything ranging from background music while in study hall to completely tuning out their teacher. Often at the mention of the phone ban, students argue that they need their phone to text their parents for one reason or another. This is an easy excuse – when a teacher catches you on your phone in class, saying “I’m texting my mom!!!” is a convenient, although frequently false, defense.
“Students, even though their intention is to go and check the time or to text their mom, which is the number one thing people wanna do on their cell phone,” snipes art teacher Mr. Martin, “ can be easily distracted to do other things – catching up with their snapchat streak.”
There is a line drawn between where phones are effective tools that make our lives easier, safer, and smarter, and where they deteriorate attention spans and provide excessive distraction in place of productivity, but this line is not always clear. The phone ban has the possibility of providing a break from that, taking away the easy option of reaching for your phone during an awkward pause in conversation, or a boring stretch of class, and fostering connection with peers, or with a teacher’s lesson. In an ideal world that is precisely what it would do, but in practice it is much less simple.
The NPHS phone ban comes in tandem with New York State Governor Kathy Hochul’s recent mandate to ban phones in schools. Although the initial decision to ban phones during the 2025-2026 NPHS instructional year came just before Hochul’s restrictions, it works nicely – despite the fact the statewide ban comes with no funding to NPCSD – because it still provides the infrastructure and motivation for New Paltz to enact the ban.
“We do have members of our school community…who are in agreement with a phone ban so it has come up in the past,” Dr. Simms starts, “the Board of Education’s stance and the new law has solidified plans for implementation of a phone ban here [at our high school] this fall.”
The ban, although not received particularly well by students, objectively would bring benefits to our school community. Phones are an easy distraction, but not such an easy elimination. Although students and parents have voiced concerns surrounding communication in emergencies and other practicalities, Hochul’s mandate requires that there be a way for students to get in touch with parents, and in NPHS each student’s phone will only be one locker trip away.
“Spending the day without a phone will be kind of nice. Once the school day is over you can scroll and do what you need to do,” says Dr. Simms.
But this can be said about many policies that are in place – NPHS currently operates under a phone ban that changed with this past 2024-25 school year, yet, as far as most students are concerned, there hasn’t been much change in phone usage. Due to the difficult logistics of attempting to get high schoolers to keep their phone in a locker for 6 hours a day against their will, teachers and students who are in support of the ban are still skeptical of its success.
“I feel like it’s going to be a positive; I have a lot of students who are very distracted and could benefit from not having their phone and the rest of the class benefit from me not having to stop every five seconds to stop using the phone,” remarks social studies teacher Ms. Kiley. She continues on with her reservations on the ban, saying, “I feel like it’s going to be tricky, though, with how it’s going to pan out in the lockers and if they’re going to be there, and how that’s going to be… a lot until it gets going, but I think that ultimately it’s going to be positive.”
The current setup of the phone ban – as orchestrated by a committee consisting of administrators, teachers, and 3 students – is that students will put their phone away in a locker upon arriving at school, and if they fail to do so their phone will be taken and locked away.
Proposed repercussions range from phone being taken away and phone calls home, to repeated offenses resulting in the phone being brought into the main office every day for a certain amount of time to ensure it is off the person, according to Dr. Simms. There will be options for students to use their phones in the main office for emergency phone calls or other important communication matters, and students will simply need permission and a pass from their teacher to go retrieve their phone and use it in a sanctioned area. And, as always, parents can call the main office to contact their child. A few offices throughout the building will be designated as places students can use their phones as well. Although the ban may come with a rocky start and require some adjustment, there is a positive outlook from many individuals, and it has the potential to change the school day.
“I think that I’m excited to see people interacting with others, you know, and talking to each other more, and just generally being less on their phones,” NPHS sophomore Lujayn Eljamal comments on the prospect of the phone ban, “I think it could go either way because people can get really annoyed by it, but I feel like if it works out the way it’s supposed to it will be a positive change, but I guess we’ll see.”
Although it will be inconvenient for students to communicate compared to the phone policy currently, this is a change that people are likely to adjust to with time, and overall the benefits are likely to outweigh the costs.
“Students will always find a work around. But it at the very least is the start to a better classroom environment,” states Ms. Kamrass, NPHS English teacher.
“I feel like it’s going to be tricky, though, with how it’s going to pan out in the lockers and if they’re going to be there, and how that’s going to be… a lot until it gets going, but I think that ultimately it’s going to be positive.”
Mrs. Kiley, A NPHS History Teacher
Alternately, though, students and teachers alike are against the ban because of the infrastructure that is being considered – namely the unarmed security guard. This is a reasonable concern, considering the effectiveness and need for a security guard “to help oversee entry to the building in the mornings, to patrol the school hallways and other areas, to monitor school security videos, to monitor the school parking lots and entrances and exits, and to help enforce the cell phone policy,” as Superintendent Gratto stated in his Community Update on January 16, 2025. But the possibility of a guard is only viable if $51,000 can be allocated in the already tight budget of NPCSD. Talk of a security guard feels striking to many members of the community, when staff cuts are being made left and right, and “the district will almost surely be unable to cover the anticipated expenses for 2025-2026” according to Gratto.
“I think the idea that we might have an additional security officer added to the school to mitigate cell phone possession while getting rid of teachers is a loss of vision of our priorities,” remarks Mr. Cook, continuing on to say, “I would prefer not to have a cell phone ban and to have teachers and students try and mitigate the issue.”
“I do think that the phones are a significant distraction for a good number of students, and that some are unable to manage those distractions,” Mr. Albert Cook said. “But I know that it is definitely harder for some students. I know from my personal experience, students that have other issues learning that also have phone and electronic addictions it is probably going to be much better for them. But for the larger, wider school, I’m not convinced.”
These thoughts are echoed by junior Alexis Ames, who said, “I feel like it could be a struggle to get off their phones, but I feel that’s more on an individual scale and most kids I don’t think have a problem with phone usage. Some may need to be spoken to by a teacher, and they can have their own personal regulations about phones, but to put it across the entire school I just think is not a responsible choice.”
The issue of phones is both too great and too individualized to be addressed, with technology dependence being an issue in this generation beyond, yet not something that will be solved with this ban. And as those above said, in many cases the issue of phones is based more on the individual perpetrator than the school at large. But overall, it is a mandate that must be enacted as required by the NYS governor, and although it will logistically face some obstacles it is an attempt and a step in the right direction.
As Dr. Simms explains, “It’s kind of nice to just kind of put it away and then like, you know, you get it back at the end of the day and then you can scroll and do what you need to do, but you had a chance to just be.”
The Maroon 