With an imminent phone ban approaching MRHS students on March 3rd, it is important to note both the process by which this was enacted, but additionally what the future will look like for technology in schools as an increasing quantity of research creates a fuller depiction of the relationship between phones and the developing mind.
Under the new phone policy, students will now be obligated to keep cell phones away and silent at all times during the school day, including at lunch and in between class periods. Exceptions to this ban are personal laptops, which may still be used at teacher discretion unless noted that a Chromebook is required for instruction. Administrative staff will be monitoring to watch for enforcement of these rules, with a first incident resulting in confiscation until student retrieval at the end of the day and a second in confiscation until parent or guardian retrieval.
Research in support of this conclusion has been mounting over the last decade, as a myriad of studies and surveys among educators have pointed towards an enhanced educational experience for schools which had stricter bans on cell phones. A Norwegian study on phone bans in 2018 resulted in gains in both GPA and externally graded mathematics exams on the order of 0.22 standard deviations, with the benefits being particularly strong for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Effects were additionally potent at schools with the strictest bans, requiring students to hand in or lock away their phones, not just place them on silent mode. According to Pew Research, 72% of high school teachers say students being distracted by their cellphones in the classroom is a major problem, and a third of middle school teachers say the same. Very little research suggests that phone bans are ineffective, as the argument for the use of technology in the classroom typically advocates for use in ways that chromebooks or other personal computers can provide without smartphones. Besides some specific instances which lend some nuance to the situation, the primary argument against a ban is the potential hindrance of students in the long term, as the ability to learn self regulation in a somewhat controlled environment is key to lifelong success.
The timing of this ban, however, brings forth several questions, particularly among seniors who are just now experiencing a radical shift in policy at the end of their tenure with HCPSS, raising serious questions about the timing and motivation behind the policy change. With a recent shift in administration, HCPSS board members that have come into office this school year seem to be pushing a number of issues to the forefront of the public consciousness, including the controversial decision to limit cell phone use. The mid-year introduction of such a sweeping change seems likely to avoid the disruption of student protests or pushback that would arise if the policy were introduced at the start of the next semester or a new academic year. By implementing this change now, the administration avoids student dissent that might otherwise emerge if more time were given for debate and opposition to build.
A more significant concern, however, lies in the policy’s lack of student representation. Despite the potential benefits of limiting cell phone use in schools, it remains highly questionable whether students—who are directly impacted by this policy—were adequately included in the decision-making process. Publicly available statistics show that fewer than 3,000 of the estimated 40,000+ students in the district participated in the recent vote regarding the policy.
Furthermore, the poll itself is riddled with potential flaws that call into question the reliability of the data. The survey allowed for multiple responses from individuals, undermining its ability to provide a representative snapshot of student opinion. If the tool used to gauge public sentiment is fundamentally flawed, can policymakers justify making such an impactful decision based on that data? This raises a crucial concern: when the mechanisms for gathering public opinion are flawed, the resulting policies may not accurately reflect the collective views of the student body, leaving many students without a proper outlet for their concerns.
The policy itself also fails to fully account for the nuances of cell phone use in educational environments. While it is understandable that some students may be distracted by their phones, the blanket approach of banning phones overlooks the potential educational benefits of mobile technology. Under the new policy, teachers retain the discretion to allow phone use in specific cases, such as emergencies or urgent communication, but this still misses the broader picture. It is undeniable that the modern world of professional work involves significant usage of personal technology for purposes of communication and mobile work. For students to develop the personal self discipline they will need when entering this modern world of work, having access to a phone can be crucial for gaining an understanding of proper technology usage.
The need for a more flexible, nuanced policy is evident. Rather than broadly banning phones, HCPSS should consider allowing for targeted use of mobile devices in specific educational contexts, recognizing the valuable role they can play in facilitating learning. Teachers should have the discretion to use their professional judgment to determine when phones enhance the educational experience, while also containing the ability to stop any phone usage outside that which is related to schoolwork.
Considering the increasing student population and growing class sizes, it is surprising that the administration has not tailored its approach based on educational level. Over this past year, teachers from schools across Howard County have been laid off due to budget constraints; in contrast, the district’s middle management seems just as bloated as ever. In recent years, HCPSS administrative offices have refrained from downsizing to free up budget, all while proposing layoffs that would remove hundreds of teachers from their jobs. One would expect that such a quantity of administrative eyes and ears would be more able to participate in the development of more representative and tailored policies.
While the phone ban may have been conjured with good intentions, the lack of meaningful student representation in the decision-making process reflects a larger systemic issue in Howard County. The limited opportunities for students to engage in public discourse, combined with the apparent lack of proactive outreach by the Student Member of the Board (SMOB), further complicate the policy’s legitimacy. Teachers, too, lack direct representation on the school board, leaving them without a voice in discussions that impact their classrooms. Until student perspectives are more effectively incorporated into these decisions, policies like the phone ban will lack the nuance required to properly address the needs and concerns of the education system as a whole.