By Taro Porschke
The age-old writing prompt comes up again - should we ban cell phones in school - and this time, it's being answered by New York City.
According to reports by Chalkbeat, NYC is "considering a plan to ban cellphones in its roughly 1,600 schools starting in February," based on reports from principals who were informed of the policy.
But, will it work?
Columbus student Cristian Martinez said, “It might work, but not to the extent that people may hope. It would probably cause kids to rebel and try to sneak their phones into schools, which builds even worse habits than just phone addiction, leading to a negative outcome overall.”
And I have to agree, for the most part. Florida was the first state to require all public schools to ban phone usage in class, even during lunch. I attended school under this policy and saw that the ban, although it worked somewhat during classes, lunch was a free-for-all with only those obstinately terrified of getting in trouble not using their phones. Even in class, it was largely conditional on the teacher; it was not so much about whether their class was interesting or not, but whether they could get away with it.
After all, according to a Reviews.org study, more than half of Americans (57%) admitted to being addicted to their phone. Globally, the numbers aren’t too different, with many sources claiming almost half of the world is cellphone addicted. It’s especially prevalent among teenagers, who many sources argue have the worst phone addiction for any reason - games, social media, social pressure, etc.
Columbus seems not to differ from the statistics: every person I asked, in every grade level, admitted to at least spending more time on their phones than they should have if they didn't fully admit to being addicted.
However, reports also say it doesn't matter - a compelling argument for any school that wants to implement a phone ban. Students and teachers agree that a phone ban, no matter how addicted you are to your phone, works to improve engagement in class.
After students give up on trying to get their phones back they're forced to be engaged and talk with friends. And, the idea seems compelling. It makes sense and seems to come as a logical consequence.
Rising sophomore Nicholas Maglio agrees with the sentiment of a phone ban improving productivity but admits that he doesn't think it would work at Columbus, due to parental concerns, among other things.
In the end, it comes down to how the phone ban would be implemented. The NY policy allows schools to decide their policies, and many different strategies for approaching the problem exist, each with its pros and cons.
The Chalkbeat article mentions two options: collecting devices at the day's beginning or placing them in "Yondr pouches," small, locked containers for phones that can be opened with an external device, sort of like the security tag you might find on some items at stores.
Punishment for breaking the rules would also be a factor and an important one. But, the biggest obstacle to such a policy would definitely be parent complaints.
Rising senior Luke Meinhardt said, "Maybe a ban where you put the phone in your backpack would work, but anything else is probably too restrictive where students wouldn't care about following the rules."
These are all good points, but across the board, the answer to the question of whether a phone ban would work at Columbus was, you guessed it, a resounding no.
I was able to interview a student from New York about his opinions on the topic; his school isn't included in the region the ban spans, but he still brings up good points.
Jack Borman, a student who attends public school in New York agreed with most other people I interviewed. He said that the phone ban wouldn't work - kids would sneak it in, and it's not a good idea. However, he gave a good, new perspective to the debate. Borman suggested that a phone ban wouldn't change anything - kids would just switch to being distracted on their computers, then their tablets and the cycle would infinitely repeat, with the idea that kids are inevitably going to slack off.
Although these are good points, he still, like everyone else admits that his productivity would probably benefit from a phone ban, and that's where the crux of the debate lies. A phone ban, even solely in theory, makes sense. But with the data that shows a phone ban having material impacts on classroom engagement and learning - through whatever metric, be it AP scores, test scores, or just teachers feeling like their kids are actually paying attention again - it's impossible to waive off a phone ban as a bad idea.
It really comes down to the safety argument, in the end. Are parents comfortable with having their kids go to school lacking immediate access to contact them at any time they want? Well, that's up to the parents to decide.
コメント