Update on Cell Phone Policy

Beka Ruehle

Disclaimer: I would like to acknowledge that although I have publicly voiced my personal opinion on the issues discussed below, I have reported the events in as unbiased a manner as possible. 

In 2025, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers signed Assembly Bill 2 into law, requiring that all school districts in Wisconsin adopt policies by July 1st, 2026 that prohibit the use of personal technology including phones, headphones, tablets, etc. during instructional time. Although the current “no phones during instructional time” policy in RUSD already meets this criteria, the Board of Education is interested in enhancing the policy due to the breadth of the impact that cell phones have had on classroom engagement and learning.

Digital Exclusive: Student Government Meeting with Superintendent Gajewski

On May 8th, 2026, the Park High School Student Government met with district Superintendent Gajewski to discuss students opinions surrounding an upcoming change in the district cell phone policy. Mr. Gajewski explained that the board was deciding between a full bell-to-bell cell phone ban or a more regulated version of the current policy, and he wanted to garner student opinion on which they would prefer.

Students were largely against the idea of a bell to bell policy, but had varying views on how heavily regulated phones should be within the classroom. Student arguments against a bell-to-bell policy included the logistical and safety issues with such a rule, as many students leave and return to campus frequently and would need their phones while they were out of school, which would implicate the need for an administrator to constantly check phones in and out. Students also pointed out that there are several legitimate reasons why phones may be used in a classroom setting, including translating and as a medical monitoring device. Students may also find it much easier to focus while listening to music in class, especially those that are neurodivergent. 

Those Student Government members who were in favor of a less regulated policy pointed out that high school students can’t learn how to self-regulate their phone usage if they are never given the opportunity, and phone self-regulation is a vital skill in the adult world. Lastly, students pointed out that with the current 90 minute block period, they often have downtime in classes. Furthermore, one member identified that if students don’t have their phone to distract them, they will simply distract themselves in a more disruptive manner. 

At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Gajewski stated that he would communicate the student’s opinions with the members of the Board. 

Board of Education Meeting: 

The Board of Education meeting was held on May 18th, 2026, and the discussion about cell phones lasted almost an hour. It commenced with the Assistant Superintendent of Cluster 2, Mr. Burns, presenting an informative video on the research surrounding cell phone policies and how it pertained to the board. He compiled the video based on findings from University of Pennsylvania professor and psychologist Angela Duckworth’s “Phones in Focus” research, as well as other sources. 

The Problem: 

The video began by explaining the problem- citing that the average middle school student receives 300 notifications a day, primarily from social media apps. Although the origin of this exact statistic is unclear, a collaborative study between the University of Michigan Health and Common Sense found that teens receive an average of 240 notifications a day and that social media apps make up about 42% of a teen’s smartphone usage. The video also stated that cell phones can have negative impacts on cognitive and emotional development, a statement that is widely regarded as true due to the correlation that many studies have found between increased rates of mental health issues and cell phone usage. The video also cited a positive correlation between increased physical distance of phones and increased GPA based on the psychological concept of “situation modification,” as spoken about by Angela Duckworth at the Bates College Commencement ceremony in 2025. 

The video went on to explain that an “off and away” policy for cell phones often isn’t as simple as it sounds due to the presence of peripheral devices such as earbuds and smartwatches. It concluded by summarizing the policy options, which include the current policy, a complete ban on cell phones in school, and a policy in which phones are stored away during the day. It stated that no matter what policy the board decides on, for it to be successful it must follow an implementation path of staff training, parent education, and fair enforcement. 

The Options: 

After the video, Mr. Burns provided a recap of the cell phone policy options. He stated that the storage options during the day included a backpack, locker, or pouch, and if the Board decided on a bell-to-bell policy the biggest decision would be the location of cell phones during the day. The pouches, or “Farday bags” would be a locked bag that students could put their phones in and have on them during the day. He mentioned that it was vital to have a plan for students with medical exceptions to this policy, and to have absolute consistency across the district. He then explained that the rollout of any policy would include a  soft launch, student orientation, parental outreach, frequent communication, consistency, and administrative support. 

After Mr. Burns spoke, the principals at Gifford and Park both spoke on their experience piloting the program TRUCE. TRUCE is an app that, with parental consent, disables all of the apps on a student's phone during the school day except for TRUCE. Mr. O’Malley from Park and Ms. Harris-Day from Gifford both explained that there was limited student participation in their piloting of this program, and that many parents preferred other methods of limiting phone usage during the day that were less invasive. Ms. Harris-Day also identified that because the app requires parental consent, the board would be unable to implement it consistently across schools, making it an unlikely option moving forward. 

After the overview of the TRUCE app, the school board members had time to ask further questions and give their insight. Many of them agreed that the current policy was far too lax, but had varying opinions on what the best option would be. 

Mr. Bellagio originally held the opinion that an absolute phone ban would be the easiest solution to implement, but Mr. Burns provided insight into the complications of this type of policy, including pushback from students and the extra time and support it took from administrators. He also stated that one of the options for limiting cell phone usage is Faraday bags, which block cell signals and can be locked, but they have had issues in the past with students damaging the bags because they were unable to get their phone unlocked before they had to leave.

Mr. Clements inquired about the price comparison of the potential policies, and the response was that Faraday bags and the TRUCE app would have similar costs of a quarter million dollars, whereas having staffed metal detectors at each school to detect cell phones would be far more expensive. A cheaper alternative would be placing cell phone caddies in every classroom, with the caveat that this option would place more of a burden on teachers to regulate. Mr. O’Malley added that the caddy system is in place at several classrooms at Park and works well. Ms. Docksey and Ms. Villar also mentioned later on that the business community would be inclined to financially support a bell-to-bell policy, due to their need for a non-phone addicted workforce

Ms. Docksey stated that she falls “strongly in the bell-to-bell category.” She reasoned that the current policy is very inconsistent, and emphasized that she was not in favor of a teacher-regulated policy because of the importance of minimizing opportunities for student-teacher conflict. She also stated that it is unrealistic to expect students to self-regulate 

due to the addictive nature of phones.

Ms. Villar was the final board member to speak, and mentioned that as a parent she regulates her daughter’s phone through an app, but even that isn’t perfect. Lastly, she asked for the opinions of both administrators that were present. Ms Harris-Day stated that the current Gifford policy of having no phones at the elementary level but allowing 7th and 8th graders to use their phones during lunch works well, but the biggest issues they’ve faced are the lack of consistency across the district and the need to use phones is some educational environments due to the lack of one-to-one technology.  Mr. O’Malley stated that the majority of people don’t want cell phones in school, but there are already so many systems in place that rely on phone usage such as Infinite Campus, translations, and QR codes for school forms. 

After the school board members had made their remarks, I made the sole public comment regarding cell phone policy. I stated that I am against a bell-to-bell policy due to the need for students to learn how to self regulate, the fluctuation of students in and out of school, the technological systems already in place within the school building, and the use of cell phones as a tool within the classroom. I ended my remarks by asking the board to carefully consider how integrated phones already are into the daily lives of students, and to evaluate their financial priorities and the opportunity cost of pursuing a costly phone policy.

Ultimately, the Board of Education will make their final decision on the new cell phone policy at their work session on June 1st. In the past, work sessions have been open to the public without the option for public comment. Mrs. Barbian mentioned during the conversation that the Board may implement a policy with some sort of “pilot” process due to the magnanimity of the decision. Whatever the board does decide, there will certainly be changes to cell phone usage at Park High School next year.