Following the rollout of the recent revisions to Howard County’s phone policy, students have been pushed to adapt to complete separation from personal cell phone use in the school environment. Some have struggled to make the change, but many others have noticed little to no difference in their in-school experience.
Although student perspective on the matter generally differs, one commendable aspect of this ban was its rollout; prior communication from the front office and staff members regarding the policy’s timing, rules, and consequences proved helpful during the adjustment period. Much of the smooth transition can be attributed to MRHS’ multitude of Q&A sessions, in-person reminders, and intercom discussions held by the front office.
Generally, students have largely been impartial to attempts to appeal the phone ban, taking an ambivalent yet primarily indifferent attitude. In a fair proportion of the more rigorous courses here at MRHS, phone usage was already limited due to the need for academic focus. This indifference is exemplified by the largely unattended walkout conducted on the first day of the new policy and the fairly minimal need for policy enforcement so far. Research suggests an immediate period of significant student resistance, and prior to the ban teachers and staff members brought forth concerns that students would need to adjust in a way that was entirely alien and difficult; however, a first day confiscation of only six phones flew in the face of this sentiment. “For me it just happened一there was no real benefit or disadvantage,” says freshman Seelos Kim.
The limited student action to appeal or address the policy does not necessarily correlate with student satisfaction, though. MRHS students have expressed that, while not necessarily intrusive in their day to day experience, the policy is excessively harsh in its punishments. Currently, phone usage during school hours is grounds for referral, resulting in a permanent mark on one’s transcript. In comparison, the first penalty for being caught with illicit substances may be a warning by administration or a referral. From a student perspective, comparable punishment between phone usage and drug possession seems disproportionate to the severity of each policy infringement. For seniors, the potential for excess punishment leaving a permanent mark on their transcript is a frightful prospect in the context of universities’ tendency to revoke scholarships and admissions for such violations.
From an administrator’s perspective, the high severity of punishment outlined by the policy likely improves the odds of mass adoption. However, this policy is not equitable to HCPSS students, who had limited input in the policy’s development. In our previous article, we outlined the discrepancy between student participation in policymaking and the level at which the new policy directly affects the county constituency. Student mentalities reflect this general disparity, with junior Anvay Mukherjee stating that, “it’s a bit unnecessary to have this strict of rules when we’re still performing well… the consequences are too strict for a single instance when [a personal device] could just fall out of your bag or your pocket.”
An unfortunate downside of the new policy is that phones may no longer serve as a convenient information resource, nor as a photography tool to quickly capture notes. With the new vacuum created by the lack of phone accessibility in classrooms, students have increased usage of chromebooks. Chromebooks technically offer these capabilities, but are severely limited in their processing power; the school-issued laptops struggle to quickly conduct search queries for quick reference. Additionally, while the average HCPSS chromebook has two webcams accessible through an inbuilt camera application, the computer’s poor photo quality and clunky shape make this feature annoying to use. When questioned about the chromebook’s cameras, MRHS students generally expressed distaste.
The consensus among students regarding the new policy was largely to be expecteds: while hardly detrimental, the abolition of personal device usage in schools is not representative of the changes students were seeking in their educational environment. The actual policy decisions made by the board are misaligned with the results of polls held before the policymaking process. Students may contain more capability to resist technological distractions than HCPSS administrators are willing to give them credit for, which contradicts the harshness of this new policy. Ultimately, long-term effects of this ban will remain to be seen.