Locked Screens, Locked Freedom: Opinion on Phone Policy

Since SMCPS implemented its strict cell phone policy, which bans phone use during the school day except for lunch, administrators have praised its impact, while students remain divided. According to staff surveys, the policy has led to improvements in student behavior, attention, and academic performance. However, with hundreds of confiscations, disciplinary actions, and ongoing complaints about enforcement inconsistencies, questions remain: Is this policy truly effective, or is it creating more problems than it solves?

According to Mr. Pirner, our Principal, during the first quarter of the school year, 287 phones were confiscated at Chopticon alone. In the second quarter, that number dropped to 145. While this decline could indicate increasing compliance with the policy, it may also suggest that students are simply getting better at hiding their cell phone use. Additionally, in-school suspensions (ISI) related to cell phones have remained steady, with 19 in the first quarter and 21 in the second, which are usually given to students who refuse to surrender their phones or become argumentative with staff

The steady amount of suspensions raises the question: If the policy is fully effective, shouldn’t the numbers be dropping across the board? Instead, they suggest that some students are following the rule, while others continue not to care. 

Now, to be clear, this policy wasn’t implemented without discussion. Before SMCPS enacted the ban, a committee was formed to discuss how to create a meaningful and consistent plan across all schools. The committee included principals, teachers, students, parents, and even Superintendent Scott Smith. As part of this discussion, school officials said they believed that certain classes rely on technology and would need alternatives. 

Per Mr. Pirner, the following were provided to address this issue:

• Five iPads for AP Physics to conduct experiments using slow-motion video.

• A set of iPads for PE classes to analyze technique in physical activities.

• Digital cameras for photography and yearbooks to replace the need for smartphones in those courses.

These additions were meant to ensure that students had access to the necessary technology for academic purposes while still maintaining a strict phone-free environment.

Despite these efforts, some teachers have expressed concerns that the new technology does not fully replace the accessibility of smartphones. For example, Mrs. Webb, an AP Physics teacher, said that while the iPads provided do serve their purpose, the number available is not enough for larger class sizes. With 27 students in her largest class and only five iPads, students are forced to work in groups of five or more for certain labs, which she said is not reasonable.

Additionally, enforcement of the policy has been inconsistent. While smartphones are strictly prohibited, students are allowed to use smartwatches and laptops, both of which you can use to text other people and access the internet. Some students have pointed out that they can still send texts from their computers or watches, raising the question of whether the policy is addressing distractions from cell phones or simply shifting them to other devices.There have also been reports of teachers enforcing the policy differently. iPads are technically allowed, yet some students have had them confiscated depending on the teacher’s interpretation of the rule. This has created frustration among students who feel the policy is not applied fairly across the board.

But for school officials, the policy isn’t just about keeping students off of their phones. Per Mr. Pirner, it’s about instilling discipline and reducing distractions. He compared cellphone use in class to allowing a child unlimited access to candy: something they might want but that ultimately harms them in the long run. He argues that phones contribute to lower attention spans, weaker academic performance, reduced social interaction, and increased conflict between students and staff.

However, students have voiced concerns about how the policy affects their ability to communicate in important situations. Som-e examples include:

• A student missing her keys and having to step outside to make a phone call.

• A sick student being unable to text a parent for pickup, relying instead on a teacher to relay the message.

• A student being reprimanded simply for glancing at their phone while walking out the door.

These suggest that while the policy is intended to eliminate distractions, it may also be creating unnecessary stress for students who need to use their phones for legitimate reasons.

Teachers who support the policy have noted positive changes in the classroom. According to many teachers, the ban has led to fewer late assignments, increased class participation, and more face-to-face interaction among students. While the policy may be unpopular with students now, teachers argue that it will ultimately benefit them in the long run.

With hundreds of confiscations and continued disciplinary issues, the question remains: Is the policy truly working as intended, or does it need to change to include more exceptions?