What do you believe will be some of the short-term and long-term effects of implementing a statewide mandatory cell phone ban in Illinois?

Hinze-Pifer: Many schools already have policies in place regarding cell phone use, so this bill may primarily serve to standardize those across the state. In that way, its short-term effects might be minimal for schools already aligned with its requirements. However, cell phones are undeniably disruptive, and the real challenge lies in implementation. How educators respond when a phone is used during class is crucial. Responses can range from a verbal reminder to a disciplinary referral. Without careful planning, this policy could contribute to inequitable discipline, as students may receive very different consequences for the same behavior depending on the school or teacher.

How can educators and administrators effectively enact this ban, and what are some strategies they can implement to ensure all students are treated and disciplined equally?

Hinze-Pifer: It’s essential for school leaders to establish a consistent, school-wide approach that is clearly communicated to teachers, students, and families. The bill gives a great deal of discretion to educators and school districts, so a standardized plan is crucial. For example, in Champaign Unit 4, a similar policy has been implemented, but it’s not always clear to families how it’s enforced, especially with modern devices like smartwatches. Transparency and communication are key. Student codes of conduct should lay out clear expectations and graduated responses to violations so families understand the consequences and see fairness in enforcement. In many cases, the least disruptive and most developmentally appropriate response to cell phone use does not require formal discipline.

How successful have other states been at implementing similar bills?

Hinze-Pifer: There’s significant variability between states and even within districts. Some treat it as a state-level issue, while others leave it to local control. Even in states with standardized policies, there can be large gaps between the written policy and its actual implementation. What happens in practice can vary greatly between schools, depending on how the policy is interpreted and enforced.

Supporters of the bill cite cyberbullying as a reason to decrease cellphone use in schools. Has there been an increase in cyberbullying in the past ten years, and does research support lowered cyberbullying with lower cellphone use?

Hinze-Pifer: Cyberbullying is only one part of the broader issue of how students’ social lives exist online. There’s growing research showing that screen time – particularly in the evenings – can negatively affect mental health. The concern isn’t just about bullying but also about the general effects of always-on connectivity, reduced physical activity, and disrupted sleep. While limiting phone use during school hours might help reduce some negative behaviors, it’s only one piece of a much larger puzzle.

Many parents view this as an overreach of government and school power, arguing that students need their phones in case of an emergency such as a school shooting. Is there a way to address this argument in a district plan?

Hinze-Pifer: As currently written, the policy doesn’t prohibit students from possessing their phones—only from using them during instructional time. The current version of the bill in the Senate includes a number of exceptions. In emergency situations, students would still have access. The policy seems focused on managing daily classroom distractions, not eliminating access to phones entirely. Districts can and should communicate this clearly so that parents understand the distinction and feel reassured.

In your work on the impact of school discipline policies, what do you see as the overarching benefits and drawbacks of discipline practices, such as cell phone bans, in addressing social inequality within schools?

Hinze-Pifer: When relatively minor behavioral issues like cell phone use are addressed through exclusionary discipline like suspensions, they can contribute to racialized inequality. These policies risk treating some students more harshly than others for the same behaviors. It’s critical that implementation doesn’t rely on punitive approaches, but instead focuses on clear communication, equitable enforcement, and non-exclusionary responses. If done carefully, policies like this can support a positive school culture. If done poorly, they can alienate students and worsen existing disparities.

This article was originally published by the University of Illinois System Institute of Government and Public Affairs.