School board weighing student cell phone policy

“As a school, it’s not just what you’re learning in class”

By Kendra Walker 

During their February 23 and March 9 meetings, the Gunnison Watershed School District board reviewed its cell phone policy and how to manage students using personal electronic devices in a world growing more and more reliant on technology. The board will continue to gather feedback and information as they review the policy, and plans to discuss the intentional use of technology, including cell phones, with the district’s technology integration specialist Katie Gallagher over a work session on March 23.

Superintendent Leslie Nichols explained that a Colorado law requiring the district to post its cell phone policy on its website is the impetus for the policy review and update. Under the current policy, the district has a cell phone ban in the elementary and middle schools and a management plan in the high schools.

For grades pre-K-8, students are not allowed to use personal electronic devices on school premises during the designated school day, from bell to bell. In general, Nichols said phones are not prevalent in the elementary and middle schools. “We’re encouraged by the improvements, by the students’ awareness that if they make a mistake and have the phone out when they’re not supposed to, they get it, they own it,” said Nichols. “The personal technology devices are not a big distraction or taking up a lot of our time in management or teacher time in management.”

She continued, “It still happens, that kids have their phones with them when they’re not supposed to. The struggle is more with kids wearing smart watches because parents want to be in touch with them. It’s not ever going to be perfect.”

In the high schools, students are not allowed to use cell phones during instructional time. Nichols explained the understanding is that phones are away during class, except with explicit teacher permission for a limited use. “The expectation is that the class is phone-free,” she said, noting that kids put their phones in a pouch, have them stored in a backpack out of sight or leave them at home. Students can have them out between classes and at lunch.

However, Nichols said cell phone use is more complicated to manage at the high school level. “We have the big competing pressures for the big kids with jobs and taking care of their siblings and leaving campus and coming back to campus as part of their regular schedule,” she said.

“It’s not that they’re doing anything wrong. I will say it’s still a frustration for teachers,” said Nichols.

“I feel pretty strongly that it merits a big discussion especially given the fact that it was brought up quite frequently during our superintendent interviews and stakeholder engagement,” said board member Katya Schloesser. “I think as a board we have to determine what our priorities are, especially with a new superintendent. I think it is a really important discussion. My biggest priority is our students’ mental health. The research is there that this is a very dangerous thing and I am a strong proponent of bell to bell.”

Schloesser continued, “I hear you say at the high school there’s different factors like jobs, childcare, on and off campus privileges…and I get that,” said. “I also get that when I’m at my job, I can’t respond to my phone for three hours when I’m in an important meeting. And that’s a skill as an adult. So can you help me understand why the bell to bell [policy] doesn’t carry over to the high school?”

“Because we agree it’s a skill that needs to be taught,” said Nichols. “Parents feel like it’s a little bit of a teaching responsibility of how to manage these devices. We’re also looking at what is reasonable on our administrators’ time and effort for enforcement. But the value of teaching the management skills feels really important.”

“Yes, it’s important to learn how to manage that tool, but my biggest concern is those passing periods and lunch periods where there isn’t any regulation,” said Schloesser. “As a school, it’s not just what you’re learning in class. I think that the downtime in passing periods and lunch and free periods, that is where students have the opportunity to talk to one another face-to-face. Students’ social skills are important more now than ever. If in a school building, we are not providing the opportunity for students to interact with each other and allowing for the multi-billion-dollar industry of attention-grabbing social media and everything else on their phone to win during passing periods, we’re doing our students a disservice.”

Julie Marshall, grandparent to kids in the district, spoke during public comment in support of a cell phone ban bell to bell for all grade levels. She noted that in speaking with teachers in the district, the current policy is inconsistently enforced. “And it often requires teachers to take an undue amount of time out of what would otherwise be educational instruction. Evidence is accumulating rapidly that supports a range of negative effects of cell phone use, especially in adolescents 10 to 25 years old. We have neighboring school districts in Durango and Boulder County who have gone bell to bell K-12,” she said. “The other thing is parent education, to understand how cell phones are impacting their children’s mental health and academic achievement, because it’s not just in school.”

Schloesser said she also understood the hurdles of enforcement, having been a teacher and accumulating a desk full of phones by the end of the school day. “It’s policy versus practice – investing in our students’ ability to have a conversation with another human and not an AI bot or swiping advertisements. Is it worth that investment?”

Board member Mark VanderVeer noted the additional predicament with the schools utilizing technology more and more in teaching practices. “I am still a little concerned about the amount of technology that’s forced upon the students, even in  K-8. If we’re going to say technology is bad, cell phones are distracting, I also don’t necessarily think technology is often the best way to learn subjects,” he said. “So I would like to see the whole thing holistically to make sure that they’re not contradicting.”

“I don’t think technology is bad,” noted Schloesser. “I think it’s an important tool, it’s really complex. I think we also need to help teach students.”

Nichols agreed, “Because it’s not just screen time, it’s what are you doing while you’re looking at that screen. And we’re building those skills for our teachers all the time in the intentional use of tech to get better learning from our students. Those are important distinctions.”

“It’s a complicated, somewhat foreign territory for all public schools across the nation because we don’t know long-term effects, but we do know a lot of research that has evidenced cognitive abilities that have been challenged compared to previous generations,” said board member Jody Coleman. “I very much appreciate the opportunity to discuss and listen to our constituents. I think we need to be very thoughtful and intentional in our work in creating this addition to this policy. Thank you for allowing us this time and I welcome all constituents to comment about their desires.”

Board members agreed the topic of cell phones warranted further discussion before making any updates to the policy. They will hold a work session to discuss technology and cell phones on March 23. The school district also recently hosted a well-attended parent education night on February 26 that covered some major technology topics related to kids and phones.

“The time that we spend with Katie will be super ripe for everything that you’ve brought up for further exploration,” concluded Nichols.