Students at Granada Hills Charter (GHC) face very strict restrictions on cell phone usage during the school day. According to the school’s Parent-Student Handbook, private electronic devices including cell phones, smartwatches, earbuds, and more, may be brought to campus but cannot be displayed, turned on, or used during school hours. The restriction also appears to before and after school programs such as tutoring and After Hours Activities (AHA).
Violations carry clear consequences: the device will be confiscated, the student will be assigned detention, and a parent must come to school to pick up the device.
The policy reflects a broader trend in California education. The statewide “Phone-Free Schools Act” mandates that schools restrict student cell phone use by July 1, 2026. Local jurisdictions retain discretion, and exceptions are allowed for emergencies, medical needs, or authorized instructional uses.
Supporters of phone restrictions argue that they reduce distractions and improve classroom focus. A 2024 survey by the National Education Association found that 90 percent of teachers support banning phones during instructional time, citing distractions from social media and notifications. Schools in some regions, such as the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) have implemented “cell phone hotels,” designated storage spaces during class, with positive feedback on engagement and stress reduction.
But one question remains unanswered: what about staff?
Although GHC’s handbook outlines detailed consequences for students, it does not include information about teacher or staff cell phone use. Discrepancies between student and staff phone use, even if unintentional, can undermine policy credibility and school culture.
Students are often penalized for simply having earbuds visible, while some teachers can be seen using their phones freely during the day.
This imbalance highlights a double standard: while students risk detentions and losing their phones, teachers appear to operate without equivalent accountability.
The lack of consequences for staff undermines the fairness of the policy, suggesting that the rules are enforced more as a means of control than as a tool for academic focus. If the goal of limiting cell phone use is to minimize distraction and promote productivity, then holding only students to these standards sends a contradictory message and erodes trust between students and staff.
GHC enforces strict cell phone policies for students aligning with broader trends across California. However, without clarity about staff practices, the picture remains incomplete.