> Yeah it wasn't new, for some reason these articles just never mention that it's really about a "new" policy that means actual enforcement

This is confirming some of my suspicion.

Smartphone ban articles are trending, so journalists feel pressured to write something about it. They all around to schools and learn about their smartphone policy, then write that as a new-ish thing so they can jump on the trend.

The first sentence of the article:

> New York City students are one week into the statewide phone ban.

Yes, this is a new thing.

The statewide ban is a new thing, but phones were already banned when I went to school decades ago, along with gameboys, MP3 players, and all other electronics except a calculator. If you had it out in class, it would get taken away.

That kids were ever allowed smartphones to begin with is a regression from the status quo we had not long ago.

It sounds to me like the distinction here is that the ban in NY specifies the entire school day, as opposed to just during class.

I think the other user's question is asking a broader question than you're answering. They likely know the statewide ban is new, but the school policy may not be entirely new.

Unlikely that phone usage was unlimited in class with no restrictions before the statewide ban.

I acknowledged that, but I was asking specifically about the article’s implication that phones were allowed in class. Read further down and there’s a comment from someone who said they finished their work and just had to stare at a wall instead of using their phone.

That’s what confuses me: Many of these articles are implying that phones were allowed everywhere previously, whereas my understanding was that the previous status quo was that they were only allowed in between classes, at lunch, or before/after school hours.