On May 6th, 2025, New York State Governor Kathy Hochul announced a new “phone-free schools” policy aiming to ban cellular and non-school affiliated devices from “bell to bell.” For Hastings High School, this policy took shape with the ‘pouch system’—students being asked to lock their phones in magnetic pouches throughout the school day, as well as leave personal computers at home. However, efficacy and consistency of the policy has been largely debated across the district, with frequent student discipline for using phones or personal computers during the day.
Phones can be spotted under the tables at lunch, and personal computers have been disguised with Yellowjacket stickers. At first glance, the frequent noncompliance with the policy may seem to prove that the policy has not worked. However, teachers who have experienced the change firsthand described something more complicated: a policy that has been both successful and unsuccessful, depending on how success is defined. If success means perfect compliance and a complete lack of phones and personal devices, then no, the policy has clearly fallen short. But if success focuses more on student interactions, reducing visible phone use, and making classrooms easier to manage, many teachers report positive effects. Their responses suggest a larger question: is the policy only successful when all technology is gone, or can it succeed by simply changing aspects of student behavior?
In terms of student behavior during the day, teachers have undoubtedly noticed a shift: science research teacher Mrs. Shandroff reported a “definite improvement in phone use in [her] classes” and doesn’t “really see phones out during class like [she] used to prior to their introduction.” World history and Macroeconomics teacher Mr. Hunt expressed a similar view, describing the phone policy as “largely a success,” explaining that while classroom phone use had not been the main issue before, phones had dominated social spaces outside of class. Before the current policy, he said, “phones were everywhere. Before the start of every class, half of my students would be in the hallway checking their phones….waiting until the last minute to enter the classroom. In the cafeteria or in the lobby, you’d find groups of students all looking down at their phones, hardly interacting with each other.” Under the new system, he thinks that things “have improved a great deal,” and students tend to interact more with each other rather than simply stay glued to their technology. Other teachers pointed to similar changes in attention and social interaction outside of the classroom, with one anonymous teacher stating that immediately after the policy’s implementation in the fall when students adhered more closely to the policy, they “did seem to be more engaged in class,” were “paying more attention,” and appeared to be “on better behavior in the classroom.” Even more noticeably, along with Mr. Hunt, this teacher noticed more positive changes in the hallways and cafeteria: “students were engaging more and more with their peers and friends, and the overall conversation seemed to be better.” English teacher Mr. Abrams furthered that observation, noting that “the alcoves sound louder during lunch this year” in part, he suspects, “because students are talking to each other more.” Together, these responses suggest a broad pattern of social improvement within Hastings High School as a result of the phone policy.
Despite these positive results, many have noticed that the policy did not seem to truly get rid of phone use. Mrs. Shandroff acknowledged that she knows that “students are not putting the phones in their pouches or locking the pouches anymore.” But for her, that contradiction does not equate an unsuccessful policy; it just reveals that its impacts extend past a mere enforcement mechanism. Mr. Hunt added, “Do students use the pouches? No. But as long as the phones don’t come out, I’d consider it a success.” Similarly, Mr. Abrams compared the rule to a speed limit: not enforceable at every moment, but still enough to change aspects of people’s behavior. As he put it, “the possibility of having your cell phone confiscated is likely to drive down usage.” However, not all teachers view the policy in this same way. An anonymous teacher stated, “I am not sure if the law from New York state, or the fear of the school district being reported, is enough to keep the phones away. As we have seen all year students are really trying to push the rules and bring out their devices again.” Even still, as student rebellion is inevitable, this skepticism reinforces the policy’s larger tension: is reducing visible phone use and shifting student behavior enough, or is anything less than total compliance a failure?
At the same time, teacher responses also clearly indicate where the policy has had less of a positive impact. For many teachers, the issue is not merely phones, but the larger attempt by the state to ban all non-school devices, especially personal computers. The anonymous teacher noted that while the policy is “great when it comes to cell phones,” it “needs modification when it comes to computers.” They note that they understand why it is critical for personal devices to be banned within schools, but contradictorily, “personal computers are often much faster and more useful than the school issued chromebooks.” They also address the further case of inequity by some students having personal computers to fall back on when the school-issued devices inevitably break or fall short of certain programs. Most prominently, Chromebook issues include the breaking of (and inability to fix) keys and screens, the blocking of certain websites and programs, and the overall unreliability of school-issued devices. These issues may impact a teacher’s ability to assign diverse, engaging work when students are unable to access certain material, thus affecting students’ ability to learn with what they are provided in school. The teacher states, “I do not know the solution, but the current chromebooks are an unacceptable device for high school students in 2026.”
Mr. Hunt similarly said that the policy would “work much better if the students had access to better devices” and brought up how in Dobbs Ferry, students, his daughter included, are allowed to bring both a Chromebook and personal computer to school everyday for certain in-school activities like Science Research. Even further, Mr. Abrams described laptops and iPads as “the most difficult challenge at the moment,” especially because school-issued Chromebooks are often faulty. According to the anonymous teacher, if personal devices were to be allowed in school, standards and regulations to these devices would be necessary, but ultimately, “[Hastings High School] can’t have the current system of Chromebooks and think it is benefiting student learning.” All in all, many teachers appear to believe that the larger personal device ban has remained more complicated in practice than the phone policy and requires reworking to fit the reality of high school work.
Notably, the teachers who addressed policy enforcement described strong administrative support, especially in the midst of implementing such a major shift with limited staff and time. The anonymous teacher “[feels] extremely supported by the administration with regards to phones,” but also notes that “the administration is small in numbers and there is only so much they can do” when students do inevitably rebel against the policy. Mr. Abrams echoed that view, saying that he “definitely [feels] supported by the administration in this policy,” while noting that “it’s not the easiest task to implement a huge culture change like this” given the current era of technological dependence.
Teacher responses to the implementation of the pouch system point to a conclusion that is far less straightforward than an answer as to whether the policy fully worked or not. Clearly, the phone ban has not produced a perfect compliance within the student body, and many still find ways around or ignore the rules. Yet by many teachers’ accounts, the policy has still changed the overall atmosphere of the school day: phones are less openly present and social spaces are far more prominent. If the policy were to be judged solely by whether every phone and personal computer is locked away, it has clearly failed. But if judged by whether the policy has shifted larger habits, expectations, and parts of school culture, then many teachers seem to view the policy as a success for Hastings High School.
