Over the summer, the Texas government passed a law stating that all personal devices, including smartwatches, Bluetooth headphones, personal laptops, and mobile cell phone devices, are prohibited from use from the first bell to the last, including lunch and passing periods. At Randall, this has sparked a range of differing opinions and has directly impacted day-to-day lives at school.
“I don’t agree with the phone ban as far as not being able to use them during lunch and passing periods,” sophomore Erik Vallejo said. “I think as high school students we should be able to have that freedom.”
Many students don’t think the law is fair; however, a few argue that they believe the ban may be beneficial to students.
“Honestly, I think the ban is a good thing because everyone is talking to one another more,” sophomore Ragyn Ackors said. “If I had the choice to change it, I don’t think I would because it just doesn’t feel like a very big concern to me anymore.”
Despite students being well-informed about the rules they must follow regarding our cellphones, around 73 phones and smartwatches have been confiscated since school started.
“The violations have seemed to be getting worse as time goes on,” secretary Brittany Word said. “I think as students are getting more into a routine and are relaxing a bit, this new law is being forgotten or not taken as seriously.”
Math teacher Casey Alley said there are benefits to the new law, especially in the classroom.
“I think students are more engaged in class, but they seem to be having a hard time adjusting,” Alley said. “I also think that it is a little strict now, not allowing students to have it during lunch, but I do think it’s perfectly fine in class.”
D • Apr 24, 2026 at 3:38 pm
I’m a little late to the party, but I want to share my thoughts, too!
In all honesty, the law for the device ban hasn’t changed a thing. Students still get on their phones, they still hide it, and they still don’t pay attention in class. That’s not to say I’m entirely innocent, either.
Most of my concern goes to students who need to contact their family members. Some parents/guardians aren’t able to call right away. Take me for example. My father is a cop, and my mother works in a hospital. They hardly ever have the time to give me a call when they’re at work. But if I send them a text, they can answer almost lickety-split!
I have a pretty good example for that part. In the later months of 2025, I had to get a root canal because one of my teeth had broken in half, leaving the pulp inside to get infected and leading to decay. This all happened while I was in my Algebra II class. I felt a pain so searing in my jaw that I felt like I was going to pass out. I had to text my mom, and my sister had to rush up to the school to get me to my dentist. I wouldn’t have been able to call my mom because she was in a meeting. I was lucky to have reached her through a text. But that’s the problem; I’m not supposed to because of the law.
The other grievance that I have is the authority of the ban (not sure how to word that part). Sure, I can understand not wanting students on a device for any reason other than educational, but when you’re not in the classroom, that rule just seems entirely ridiculous. Students should be allowed to spend their time outside of the classroom freely. There’s no distraction to be had when there’s nothing to be distracted from.
All in all, I think the law could be a good thing if it was adjusted. I can totally get behind the whole “no personal devices in the classroom” bit, but an exception for emergencies would be wonderful. In addition, giving students the ability to use their phones (or other devices) during passing periods or lunch wouldn’t do anything to the environment in the classroom, because they wouldn’t be in the classroom!
That’s all I have to say. Wonderful articles, by the way!
E • Jan 9, 2026 at 10:52 am
Funny thing about this law is just how poorly thought out it clearly was. Enforcement is inconsistent at best, and phone usage is actually more common in class than during, say, lunch, because enforcement is just objectively harder. I haven’t asked personally, but one can infer that letting a kid use his phone silently is less of an overall class disruption than making a scene about it.
But the biggest issue, quite frankly, is that the law doesn’t just go after phones, but all personal devices. Students who used to use personal laptops just…can’t anymore, which is a bigger problem than it might initially sound because the provided school Chromebooks are just largely inadequate for most tasks. This isn’t entirely the fault of the district (though there is something to be said about the IT Policies), but rather the lack of funding that public schools get from the state.
Yes, the state issues a 20 million dollar grant to aid in enforcement, but that’s spread across the entire state, and doesn’t provide sufficient funding to address the hardware inadequacy. For me at least, who’s used to having their own hardware with my own muscle memory and workflow, has been affected by this. There have been several instances of my (now mandated) Chromebook seizing up while doing basic assignments due to underpowered hardware (and awful device management), which has repeatedly forced me to wait to do assignments until I get home. This isn’t “increasing productivity in the classroom”, this is incentivizing distraction.
Laws like this are exceptionally reliant on certain criteria that are rarely met nor acknowledged. If this were simply a phone ban, that would be one thing. That’s not what this is though, this is what I can only justify as a power grab, a law passed for the sole reason of either control or to say that they’re doing something to “think of muh children.” Anyone with an ounce of tech literacy can see right through this law, which makes you wonder how it was passed in the first place…