New Phone & Computer Policies Create Problems
On the first day of the School Without Walls SY 26-27, students received their routine syllabi, did icebreakers, and filled in About Me worksheets. But this year, there was a major change. At the beginning of every class, students are now required to hand in their phones. Additionally, personal computers are not allowed and students must use their DCPS-issued laptops. Almost immediately, I noticed a lot of disapproval from the student body about this new policy. I began to wonder if these goals are actually accomplishing, what I assume, are the goals of putting these rules in place: Improving student focus during class, improving academic performance, enhancing mental health, and fostering social interaction. My conclusion? Not as effectively as DCPS thinks.
The goals behind restricting phones are understandable. Phones can be a source of distraction, and a student using one during a class is probably not getting much out of the lesson. However, taking away a phone from a student doesn’t automatically change that. If a student doesn’t want to focus, there are numerous other ways to become distracted: talking to friends, zoning out, etc. Research on phone bans is also more complicated than the idea that removing phones can automatically improve academic performance. A study on over 43,000 middle and high schools done by the Stanford School of Humanities and Sciences showed that phone bans did not have an impact on attendance, test scores, attention in class, or cyberbullying. Phone restrictions can reduce phone use, but that doesn’t mean a plethora of problems will be solved overnight.
The computer restriction creates a different problem. Unlike a phone, laptops are not simply a source of entertainment. For many students, it is a tool for schoolwork, extracurriculars, internships, and other responsibilities. For Walls students especially, who often are involved with sports, clubs, internships, and other extracurriculars that keep them at school after 3:30, this ban affects them directly. A student might have two hours between school and practice and want to do homework in the Student Center. Someone running a club might need to access content that is blocked on the school computers. A student with an internship might need to open files or that are only available on their personal computer. Under the technology use policy, students must only use their personal devices if not connected to DCPS wifi, and as such effectively lose access to their computers throughout the day. Furthermore, the electronic device policy requires personal devices to be stored away all day, meaning the usage of personal devices is essentially prohibited.
For a school like Walls, this seems contradictory. Students are encouraged to take advantage of opportunities outside the classroom. Students’ lives do not stop once their last class ends. If a student wants to stay after school to do work, attend an extracurricular, or work on an internship, their personal computers can make that significantly easier. The larger issue is that these policies treat technology as one category when it clearly is not.
DCPS might have a valid goal when it comes to reducing distractions, but removing personal technology altogether is not necessarily the best approach. At Walls, flexibility is important to students. The computer policy puts a considerable obstacle onto students balancing academics and extracurriculars. The phone ban, while more legitimate, isn’t that effective of a solution when outcomes are studied. A policy cannot be considered simply because it removes a problem if it creates new ones in the process.