Schools continue considering cell phone policy

An addiction for kids that has significantly impacted student attention and engagement

By Kendra Walker 

The Gunnison Watershed School District board is still reviewing the district’s cell phone policy and how to effectively manage students’ use of personal technology devices (PTDs) in the classroom. The board held a work session with the district’s technology integration specialist Katie Gallagher on March 23, hearing feedback from administrators and reviewing examples of policies in other districts. Board members continue to debate the benefits of a strict bell-to-bell cell phone ban versus teaching older students responsible tech use, and reviewed options for the draft policy at their regular meeting on April 6. They plan to hold another work session to review the draft policy on April 20.

Under the district’s current policy, elementary and middle school students are not allowed to use personal electronic devices on school premises during the designated school day, and high school students are not allowed to use cell phones during instructional time but can have them out between classes and at lunch.

Students have access to other technologies in the classrooms, such as their school-issued Chromebooks. “It’s used in addition to high-quality teaching and it allows us to deepen those 21^st Century skills. It allows kids to collaborate, to think critically,” said Gallagher. She emphasized that the intentional technology is used to support student learning, unlike PTDs like cell phones or smartwatches.

“The difference between the cell phones and the use of educational technology is that educational technology is structured and intentional. There’s a clear purpose and why we’re using it. It’s used alongside those in-person experiences and it’s targeting specific skills and learning objectives…versus the cell phones, with the social media and the mindless scrolling.”

The board, administrators and Gallagher agreed that cell phone use, specifically social media, has become an addiction for kids and has significantly impacted student attention and engagement.

“A lot of this is out of our control, but we do have some control as to what it looks like in our schools,” said Gallagher.

She reiterated, “We all want what is best for our students. And the question I want us to keep coming back to is, how can our policy minimize cell phone distractions in order to maximize academic growth, learning with purpose and relevance and student well-being?”

Gallagher also shared examples of cell phone policies from other school districts, including the Boulder Valley School District that has implemented its “Away for the Day” policy prohibiting phone use for all K-12 students during school hours. But in general, superintendent Leslie Nichols noted that the GWSD is not doing anything radically different from what she’s seeing at other districts.

The board heard from administrators from Crested Butte Community School, Gunnison Middle School and Gunnison High School. They told the board they like the current policy but could support a stricter ban if the board went that direction. Overall, they said consistency is key.

“This policy is as good as the teacher enforcing it in the classroom. We would rather not cut into instructional time. So, when we as a school and as the adults are consistent, it makes the classroom run a little more efficiently and it becomes less of a distraction,” said Gunnison High School principal Jim Woytek.

Board member Katya Schloesser asked the administrators if they see any value in students having access to their phone during the day. “What would you do if you could wave a magic wand?” she said. They agreed that it’s the addictive social media apps that are the issue, and while they saw no value for cell phones in the elementary and middle schools, the high school level is complicated.

“I think it’s difficult to paint a broad stroke because I think there is value in communication. We have young adults who have jobs or they have responsibilities for younger siblings. I think there’s a case for teaching young adults to be young adults and using a tool,” said Woytek.

“What I hear is that parents are afraid that they can’t get a hold of their students should there be school violence,” said board member Katya Schloesser. “Have you had any fears from parents around not being able to get a hold of their child in an emergency?”

Woytek noted the recent scare when Gunnison High School received a phone threat and the schools were placed under lockdown. “Nobody called us and said, I can’t get a hold of my child…actually the pain point was parents sharing misinformation with their kids, and students were freaked out about things that were not true. That was eye-opening.”

However, he said, “I think parents by and large are very supportive of what we’re trying to do and they see the value in it.”

Board member Jennie Reithel noted that she wasn’t hearing any strong reactions in either direction after speaking with CBCS high school parents. “But then it gets to the implementation, and how much of a burden is that for administrators and teachers?” she said.

The board agreed they would like to hear more from teachers and whether there are strong opinions for a full ban or not, with the question of how the policy can minimize cell phone distractions to maximize academic growth, learning with purpose and relevance and student well-being.

“It doesn’t sound like the pain points are that painful. Is that accurate?” asked Schloesser. “Because you all seem like you’re managing it. How much is it really interfering with education and social interaction? Is it painful? Are we worrying about this because it’s in the media and that it is a national concern? Or is this a real concern in our schools?”

The administrators felt that overall, the schools have been able to manage well and it’s only a small portion of students who consistently violate the policies. “I don’t think that if you ban cell phones, you’re never going to have a cell phone in your classroom. There’s always going to be some sort of a battle,” said Woytek. “So my hope is that we can teach our young adults to manage it more effectively.”

During the April 6 meeting, Nichols also followed up with feedback gathered from students. “Their feedback aligned with what we spoke about,” she said. “Students with off periods would likely leave our building instead of work in the library or commons. Students use phones for communicating with families, employers and siblings. Systems would need to be altered to accommodate for the speed of messaging that we’re used to. They see a need for practicing responsible use, not an all-out ban. Consistency is key. Teachers must be consistent with expectations and messaging must be clear. A full ban would take as much policing as our current policy.”

“I was very opinionated in our last meeting about how I think there is no place for phones in the schools,” said Schloesser. “But on the other hand, we are doing our students a disservice if we are not teaching them how to manage the attention economy.”

The board is currently reviewing two options for consideration. Option A is to revise and clarify the existing policy language to reflect the current practice of no PTDs at the elementary and middle school level from bell-to-bell, and at the high school level PTDs must be silenced and out-of-sight during instructional time, and discouraged during passing periods, lunch and off periods. Option B is to adopt a more restrictive, bell-to-bell cell phone ban across all grade levels.

“No matter what we do with our policy, I would love this conversation to evolve into further conversation about digital and media literacy,” said Gallagher. “I encourage us to think about where we are actually teaching students how to be media literate, how to be news literate, how to be healthy, how to create boundaries with the technologies we have in our lives and where is that happening.”

“I would push that further to AI,” added Schloesser.

The board agreed and will continue the discussion at the April 20 work session.