Next week, facing a July 1 state-imposed deadline, San Francisco Superintendent of Schools Maria Su is asking the school board to adopt a ban on student cell phone use without public input or discussion. Instead, she has committed to public engagement in Fall 2026, leading to another vote of the school board in Spring 2027.
Concerns about cell phone use by students have been expressed for over a decade by parents, other education and mental health experts, and law enforcement agencies both here in the United States and internationally. Adults gaining access to young people via cell phones and other electronic devices has also facilitated adult criminal behavior such as stalking, cyberbullying, hate crimes, threats, and scams.
In September 2024, Governor Newsom signed legislation requiring school districts to take action, based on their specific community characteristics, to prohibit or limit students’ use and access to cell phones while on campus. The law, AB 3216, gave school districts until July 1, 2026 to “develop and adopt” their own local policies.
Many of California’s roughly 1,000 school districts and 58 county offices of education have adopted policies in response to AB 3216. San Francisco, for now, is largely sticking with a cell phone use policy that predates the new law’s requirements. The superintendent’s proposal on next week’s agenda is a restatement of a 2024 policy, available in the SFUSD Student Handbook, which allows students to have cell phones and other electronic devices on campus, but prohibits their use during instructional time, including time between classes. Implementation of existing policy varies from school to school. Some students and parents complain that enforcement is too rigid and question prioritizing strict enforcement of the policy over other goals and safety protections.
In a school safety crisis, cell phones can provide critical connections to families and emergency responders. At other times, cell phones can be disruptive and distracting to students and teachers.
The school district’s current and proposed policies track state law by recognizing reasonable exceptions to the bar on cell phone use, such as when phone access is required by a student’s Individualized Education Program or in response to a perceived danger. At the same time, the proposal repeats weaknesses in state law, such as allowing cell phone use “in the case of an emergency” without clarifying what constitutes an emergency or whether it is up to a student, a parent, or a school employee to determine whether an emergency exists. Similarly, while it repeats state law that allows student possession or use of a cell phone when it is “necessary for [the student’s] health or well-being,” this determination must be made by a “licensed physician and surgeon,” a category that likely excludes nurses, psychologists, or other mental health professionals. The state expected districts to augment and adapt the general framework to local needs based on community feedback.
To date, the school district has attempted to take a middle ground by banning cell phone use, but not prohibiting cell phone possession on school grounds. The school district policy affirmatively allows possession, but requires devices to be “put away.” In limited circumstances, a school official can take a device away from a student and secure it until a parent comes to retrieve it. However, if a phone is lost, damaged, or stolen, the school district does not take responsibility for it.
The new proposal adds model language the California School Boards Association has recommended for individual school districts to adopt. But the proposal lacks student or parental input. State law requires that “development of the policy shall involve significant stakeholder participation in order to ensure that the policies are responsive to the unique needs and desires of pupils, parents, and educators in each community.” The school district proposes to get around this requirement by holding two community meetings this fall and conducting an on-line survey organized by a committee of school board members that has yet to be appointed. It will then hold a third community meeting for input on a new proposal that ultimately will be presented to and voted on by the school board next year for implementation during the spring semester.
The reasons for the school district’s lack of engagement with the community on this policy over the past two years are unclear. The school district has expanded its governance and communications staffing while its major crises, such as budget balancing and strike negotiation, have involved parts of the administration not directly responsible for classroom and school site activities. Placing the new plan onto the school board’s consent calendar keeps commissioners from discussing or debating it prior to a vote.
In a school safety crisis, cell phones can provide critical connections to families and emergency responders. At other times, cell phones can be disruptive and distracting to students and teachers, even potentially leading to their own medical and mental health emergencies. Separate from cell phone use, access to certain social media apps can be harmful to students. State law and sound decision-making require that these and other aspects of cell phone use policy include comprehensive community input that the proposal now lacks.
