The Positives of the New Cell Phone Policy, written by Bryce Presley:
In today’s tech-based world, schools face the challenge of balancing student engagement with cell phone use. This year, GA’s Upper School implemented a new policy limiting phone use in certain areas and during specific times, aiming to promote a more engaged community. While many see the restrictions as ridiculous, this policy can help our school’s environment.
One of the biggest benefits of the new policy is more face-to-face interaction. With our phones being away, we are more likely to engage in meaningful conversations and build deeper connections with one another. Hallways and other areas around the school are now more talkative than I’ve ever seen before.
Researchers from the National Library of Medicine even state, “Positive social interactions have been highlighted as an important protective factor in the relationship between social embeddedness and well-being.” This is important for creating a community where students are able to feel connected and comfortable.
In a time when technology is used as a major source of communication for people, developing social skills is very important because many people lack them. The new policy reduces the distractions of having our phones and allows people to practice a skill that will benefit them well in the future.
Limiting cell phone usage also enhances focus during classes. With fewer distractions, it allows students to be more engaged with the material they are learning. This results in creating an environment more conducive to education, which is the reason why students are at school in the first place.
While many students don’t love these new changes, the policy makes them focus more on their own surroundings. It makes the students engage with the world around them rather than be glued to their devices. I even notice more people having conversations during lunch rather than being stuck to their screens.
GA’s new cell phone policy gives thought to enhancing education. By encouraging more face-to-face interactions, improving focus, and people skills, the policy helps create a better sense of community within the school. While technology is obviously essential, finding a balance between the two is very important. Embracing this new policy can help lead to a better-connected school as a whole.
Criticism of the New Cell Phone Policy, written by Aiden Swartz:
This year, the Upper School has been enforcing a new policy regarding cell phones. This new policy limits phone usage in certain areas of the building and at certain times with the intent of creating a more engaged GA community. Additionally, students who do not follow this policy are given a detention.
I firmly believe that this new measure implemented by the GA administration was done with all good intentions. I believe that there is a screen addiction taking place in front of all of our eyes, not just locally but also nationally, and there needs to be action taken against it. With that being said, I am hesitant to acknowledge this measure as the most effective solution.
For starters, this policy – whether directly or indirectly – implies that all students have more or less succumbed to cell-phone addictions. Personally, as a student who has never received a detention during high school, I can’t help but feel like I am being punished for others’ actions. Also, the guidelines for what constitutes a detention in the first place seems awfully gray. Can I get one for excusing myself from class to contact a parent in an emergency? The rules would suggest that if I were to be in the hallway at that moment then that would be a detention, which seems unreasonable.
There is also an apparent lack of clarity regarding what is and what isn’t a no cell-phone zone. It feels as though the zones keep changing on a daily basis, and the updates are often out of the blue. For instance, per a Morning Meeting announcement, cell phones were seemingly, to many students, suddenly banned in bathrooms. Although they were never permitted in bathrooms, this was never clearly communicated, causing conduction and dismay.
While I don’t see any issue with the actual ban itself, the fact that there has been no notice before the announcement, or after the announcement, certainly raises questions as to the efficacy of the implementation of these new banned areas.
And if I do get caught using my phone in a gray area that hasn’t been clearly outlined as a no phone zone, then I would be punished in the same way as someone who is a repeat cell phone policy offender. I would argue fundamentally that these types of practices disincentivize repeated good behavior because messing up once is treated the same way as messing up ten different times.
While there is a punishment for being a three-or-more time repeat offender, I just found out about that yesterday – which probably means that once again the lack of communication between the students and the faculty on this matter is heavily contributing to students’ confusion over how, where, and when they can be punished for cell phone use.
If I were to change the system, I would change the way in which we deal with the punishment system. While deterrence isn’t perfect – and some might say it would push people to just hide where they use their cell phones – it also doesn’t label all students into the same “addicted” category. An example of deterrence would be strengthening the punishment of phone usage within the classroom. If getting caught using your phone in class meant three detentions instead of one, more students probably would avoid using them within the classroom.
In my perspective, it is also important to note that GA has, since the implementation of this new policy, provided few, if any, lessons or educational activities to give students a new perspective on why less cell phone usage is valuable in the first place. The only attempt at deterring students was a graph that said that increased cell phone usage leads to increased anxiety in teens with no explanation as to why this is the case.
Many credible studies right now show how cell phones – especially with new generation short form content – ruin the attention span of high school students. I know for me, when a speaker came into GA last year and told us about the harmful things that big social media companies do to turn a profit, it really stuck with me. One of the helpful tips that I took from him was that instead of having my cell phone turn on simply at a glance, I have to click a physical button. This small change forces me to consciously decide whether or not I want to be on my phone at that moment.
I, like many other high schoolers, firmly believe that cell phones do have negative effects; but if we fail to properly educate students on why these effects matter, there is no way that any of these policies will have any lasting effect come the end of the school day.