Recent rumors have been spread about Helix’s phone policy come fall of 2026. What do these rumors say, and is there any validity to them?
What Could Happen
As I’m sure many students have heard by now, California’s governor has approved Assembly Bill 3216, or the “Phone-Free Schools Act” as of last year. Many schools are implementing the phone ban next school year, including Helix, potentially. There’s a lot of speculation regarding the new policy, including systems that mimic some of those currently in place in Texas (i.e. submitting your phone to a staff member at the beginning of the day, or using a pouch to restrict phone access). Though students are worried about the upcoming policy, Helix’s hands are tied; forced to comply with AB 3216. According to the bill, however, any staff member may allow/disallow phone usage during school hours, depending on the school’s individual policy. Should this be the outcome, it is implied that students will continue to have their phones on them, at least during passing periods and lunch, mimicking our current policy at Helix. The reality is that, if Helix continues to base their decision on anti-phone research, students likely won’t have access to their phones for the entire school day unless they have special permission. This topic is incredibly important, and even more complex for Helix.
Why the Law is Changing in California
Assembly Bill 3216 lists multiple reasons for the restriction of phones, some of which students may not realize are as important as they are. For starters, the digest for AB 3216 lists Dr. Jean
Twenge’s book “iGen” as a reason for passing the bill, as in it Twenge highlights a correlation between screen time and suicidal risk: “teenagers who spend three hours a day or more on electronic devives are 35% more likely to demonstrate risk factors for suicide, such as suicidal ideation, and teenagers who spend five or more hours on their devices are 71% more likely to demonstrate a risk factor for suicide.” Since California and especially Helix act with student safety and health in mind, the potential policy changes are meant to help students, even if it doesn’t seem that way.
The digest then goes on to list multiple studies comparing student test scores and mental health quality before and after phone bans in France and Spain. These show an uptrend in test scores after phone bans are put in place. These qualities of phone bans are a large part of why AB 3216 was passed in the first place: improvements to test scores and student mental health is something that schools want, even if against the will of the students.
I’m not entirely happy with the upcoming phone policy either. Importantly, we need to remember that smartphones aren’t inherently detrimental to one’s mental health. Rather, as many studies have stated, social media and distracting apps are the real culprits.
Why the Policy Would Change for Helix
In an interview with Danielle Yee, Helix’s current ninth grade social worker, she attributes disconnectedness felt by phones to “algorithm-fed media that we consume on our phones,” and relates phone usage to the idea of a “healthy diet,” equating social media usage to junk food; something that feels good but isn’t necessarily good for you. In this instance, the “junk food” of phone usage is something that takes up our time, not allowing us to spend as much time as we would otherwise with our friends or family, adding to and amplifying feelings of disconnectedness. Yee also calls in-person connection a biological need, connecting lack thereof with depression, anxiety, and recursive isolation.
In relation to academic performance, Yee references studies showing even having your phone on you can cause a distraction due to social media’s (and by extension, phones’) addictive nature. Phones continue to be addictive through multiple means, like how certain apps are designed to make you continue using them; whether it be mobile games using eye-catching colors or cosmetic incentives, or social media providing hits of dopamine with every scroll, many apps are, by design, meant to grab your attention and keep it for as long as possible. Again, I want to emphasize that phones are merely the means by which the actual problem affects us; it’s not the phones’ fault the apps we use are designed to get us to use them. Phones are a great tool; they can help you keep in touch with friends and family and deliver news so you’re caught up. Everything boils down to how we use our phones.
My interview with Ms. Yee wasn’t just about the negative impacts of phones, however, as she also provides methods of preventing phones from taking away from your relationships. One method she shared was turning on a grayscale filter on your phone after a certain time to be less addicting, or even simply turning off notifications to be less distracting. Simply consuming media consciously is a great first step towards taking control of phone usage, and being less dependent on your phone for dopamine. You don’t need drastic changes, like revoking students’ phones or downgrading to a flip phone; you just need to be aware.
We (staff, students, family) have no confirmation regarding the changing policy at this time. We don’t know what the policy will look like, including repercussions or details about special cases.
In an interview with Kevin Osborn, Helix’s executive director, he revealed that a team of Helix’s stakeholders are actively researching the effects of phone free schools, both good and bad, for students and for Helix. Of course, they are keeping student health and safety in mind the most, sticking to Helix’s purpose, as every action Helix makes is meant to support our mission and purpose.
So really, regardless of what the new phone policy will look like, students need to remember that Helix and California are acting with students’ safety in mind. Granted, teenagers arguably deserve more autonomy, but either way: as things can change now, so too can they change later. Who knows, maybe this new policy will result in more students having flip phones so we’re not addicted to them anymore.
