Classroom vs. cafeteria: where do you draw the line?

By SOPHIA MULCAHEY
Guest Columnist

If a rule is designed to protect learning, what consequences will occur when it is applied to the sole part of the day where no learning is meant to occur?

Indiana’s own education code has spent two decades defining lunch as the opposite of instructional time – but this year, a new law is asking us to treat them exactly the same. Introducing SEA 78: irony in legislature’s clothing. This Indiana legislature bans student use of all cellular devices during the school day, (and also just so happens to have distinguished instructional time from the school day to define the whole period a student is present for instruction (Ind. Gen. Assembly, SB 78)) and taking effect during the 26-27 school year. Interestingly enough, lunch is included in this ban.

In this essay, three contentions will be dissected: the distraction rationale doesn’t fit lunch periods, the social-interaction rationale is much weaker than assumed, and the fact that a workable, more logical alternative exists.

Instructional time, as defined by Indiana state legislature is “time during which students are participating in: an approved course; a curriculum; or an educationally related activity…Instructional time does not include lunch or recess.” (Ind. Code § 20-30-2-1)

I would explain how lunch clearly does not meet this definition, but it seems the legislation already beat me to it.

So, if a rule was created specifically to reduce distractions, then what business does it have imposing itself on a period that Indiana itself has deemed non-instructional and has no set focus in the first place? A distraction implies the interruption of an ongoing task or focus; the problem with this is that there is no assigned task to be interrupted.

That’s the thing: legislation already knows this is an issue, which would explain why instead of just extending instructional time to cover lunch, they were forced to create the separate, broader term of “school day” as to not directly contradict themselves. If we hadn’t already established that lunch isn’t instructional, that would do the trick, because if it wasn’t a contradiction, they wouldn’t have needed a second term in the first place.

As we’ve now proven that students being distracted is a completely moot point, we can now move on to the slightly more believable theory Indiana has given us as reasoning for this ban: social interaction.

If having social interaction is the goal, does removing phones actually achieve it? The short answer: no. The long answer? Removing an option is not the same as producing an outcome; subsequently, creating a complete ban doesn’t automatically generate conversation or connection but likely will end up decreasing it. This policy assumes that if teenagers don’t have a phone to use, they’ll just start socializing. This is not exactly causation but rather correlation-by-hope.

A point that directly disproves this claim is the fact that not all phone use is anti-social. In fact, as a teenager myself, most phone usage seen at lunch is coordinating seating plans with your friends at lunch or socializing through social media by reacting to each other’s content or showing your besties at the lunch table a hilarious reel. I mean, it is called social media for a reason, right?

But don’t take it from me, take it from studies like one from 2025 (Bravo and Elupula) showing that students felt less connected to their peers. A blanket ban like this one is essentially just collective punishment but for inanimate objects, treating all cell use as equally disengaged. Removing one form of disengagement doesn’t guarantee re-engagement, but rather shifts what disengagement looks like. But who am I to say we can’t make invalid assumptions?

Even after all this, there is still a remedy. Having analyzed this essay, it would be most logical to create a ban of cellular devices during all instructional time, which is not lunch. A scenario where students had access to cellular devices only during lunch time would not only be logical but would also benefit almost every party discussed, as seen in North Carolina where cell phones were banned during instructional time only (Paragon Institute).

The line had already been drawn. Indiana had already spent two decades defining classroom and cafeteria as opposites. It was there all along; the ink was just faded. Some rules are worth enforcing everywhere, this one just needs a lunch break.

Sophia Mulcahey is a student at Fishers High School, Class of 2029.

* * *

Works Cited

Braun, Mike. “Gov. Braun Signs Bill to Keep Cell Phone Distractions Out of Indiana Schools.” State of Indiana, 13 May 2026, events.in.gov/event/gov-braun-signs-bill-to-keep-cell-phone-distractions-out-of-indiana-schools.

Bravo, L., and K. Elupula. “The Effect of a Mobile Phone Ban on Perceived Academic and Social Life: A Qualitative Analysis.” Journal of Social Sciences, Scientific Research Publishing, 29 Sept. 2025, www.scirp.org/pdf/jss_6500682.pdf.

Campbell, Marilyn, et al. “Evidence for and against Banning Mobile Phones in Schools: A Scoping Review.” Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 2024, journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20556365241270394.

Hamilton Southeastern Schools. “2026–27 Student Device Expectations: Frequently Asked Questions.” HSE Schools, 10 June 2026, hseschools.org.

“Indiana Code § 20-30-2-1. ‘Instructional Time.’” Justia US Law, 2024, law.justia.com/codes/indiana/title-20/article-30/chapter-2/section-20-30-2-1.

Indiana General Assembly. Senate Bill 78, Enrolled Act. 124th General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session, 2026, iga.in.gov/pdf-documents/124/2026/senate/bills/SB0078/SB0078.08.ENRH.pdf.

Paragon Institute. “Banning Smartphones in Schools: Review of the Literature Shows Positive Impact.” Paragon Institute, 5 Jan. 2026, paragoninstitute.org/public-health/banning-smartphones-in-schools/.

Smith, Casey. “Bell-to-Bell Cell Phone Ban Takes Effect This School Year.” The Brookville American, 29 July 2026, www.brookvilleindiana.com/story/2026/07/29/news/bell-to-bell-cell-phone-ban-takes-effect-this-school-year/1741.html.

Smith, Casey. “Indiana Schools Face Stricter Cellphone Rules under New ‘Bell-to-Bell’ Law Starting July 1.” Indiana Capital Chronicle, 13 May 2026, indianacapitalchronicle.com/2026/05/13/indiana-schools-face-stricter-cellphone-rules-under-new-bell-to-bell-law-starting-july-1/.

Stanford Report. “School Cell Phone Bans Deliver Benefits – But Not Right Away.” Stanford University, 4 May 2026, news.stanford.edu/stories/2026/05/national-study-school-cellphone-bans-benefits-research.