The Lewiston School Board adopted a policy on Jan. 27 based on the Phone-Free Learning Act ordered by Idaho Gov. Brad Little.
According to the Idaho Department of Education website, Little issued the Phone-Free Learning Act executive order on Oct. 31. This policy applies to all students’ personal devices, including cell phones, headphones, earbuds and smartwatches. The rules implemented by the order vary from school to school, but LHS rules state that personal devices must be put away during instructional time and aren’t allowed in the hallways from bell to bell.
While this policy is probably meant to help students learn better and stay on task, students have met it with a lot of disagreement and defiance, as found in results of the Phone Policy Survey conducted by The Bengal’s Purr between Jan. 28 and Feb. 22.
Students said some of the biggest problems in school are their own lack of attention and desire to learn. Instead of helping with those issues, the policy is aimed exclusively at cell phones, earbuds and other personal devices. The narrative that the “kids are always on those phones” seems to be one of the driving forces of the “new” rules enforced at Lewiston High School. Before this policy was passed, the rules about phones were already strict enough. They weren’t allowed in the classrooms or hallways, and they would get taken if someone was spotted with them, which is pretty much the same.
The survey was for students to show their feelings about the rules and enforcement of the new policy. Many of the questions were multiple choice, prompting simple yes or no answers about liking or disliking the aspects of the rules. There were three questions in which students could type out answers about what they liked and didn’t like about the policy.
After sending out the survey in English classes, the results showed overwhelmingly negative feelings. On the question “How do you feel about the new phone policy?” only 1 out of 131 responders said they liked it. Fifty-seven responders said it was terrible; and the remaining 63 either didn’t care or wanted a few changes.
In response to the end of the survey, which asked, “Do you have any further comments?” a plethora of students sent entirely constructed paragraphs or responses resembling essays. They called the policy stupid and unproductive, and expressed that they wanted it to at least be less strict.
It is partially true that phones and other personal devices can distract from the classroom. The Harvard Graduate School of Education shows studies in which phones negatively impact test scores, but they are not the root of the problem. If someone is not interested in the subject and/or does not want to learn, they just won’t. It doesn’t matter if a teacher takes their phone; they will find other ways to distract themselves and, inevitably, distract those around them.
Before everyone had a computer in their pocket, grades weren’t spotless either. Short attention spans are a teenager thing. According to a study by The Treetop, a therapy organization, 16-year-olds have an average attention span of 32-48 minutes.
This rule also hinders the flow of some classes. Forensics and other science classes require taking pictures through microscopes, a task that is impossible on Chromebooks but simple with cell phones. Many courses with health-related topics have to fight Smoothwall internet filters as well, which isn’t an issue if phones are available.
Good intentions aside, this plan is an unproductive and unrealistic attempt at forcing students to learn at the expense of those who do pay attention. The rules are messy and make the school day miserable. Some restrictions should have been implemented, but this was not the way.
