On Thursday Sept. 25, members of the Hamilton community met in the Kirner-Johnson Building to discuss the costs and benefits of cellphone bans in schools.
The arguments for banning the use of cell phones include decreasing distractions for students and improving mental health. However, those who oppose the ban argue that banning cell phones outright prevents students from learning how to use them responsibly by removing their choice in the matter. Additionally, in a world where a significant amount of communication is digital, banning cell phones makes it more difficult for students to stay in touch with each other and their guardians throughout the school day.
Currently, eighteen states in the U.S have completely banned the use of cell phones in public schools, and sixteen others have instituted partial bans. As of this academic year, New York State falls into the former category, as the New York State Distraction-Free Schools Law was passed last May. According to Governor Kathy Hochul, she supported the ban because she wants kids “to enjoy the experience of real human connection.”
Several students at the talk who experienced cell phone bans in high school recalled the difficulties that administrators and teachers faced when attempting to enforce them. Generally, it seemed like the majority of students felt like the bans were ignored, and people were on their phones regardless.
Despite this, the majority of participants agreed that cell phone bans have a positive impact on students’ learning and mental health, particularly for younger students. Attendees generally agreed that if children learn to go without cell phones and other devices when they are young, they will be less likely to become dependent on them when they are older. In addition, students claimed that phone bans are easier to enforce among young students because younger students are more likely to follow the rules set out for them.
In addition to the varying efficacy of the bans based on students’ age, the effectiveness of different types of bans was also discussed. New York State enforces a “bell-to-bell” cell phone ban, so students are not allowed to use their phones throughout the entirety of the day. However, some schools have implemented less extreme bans. For example, a school might ban phones when students are in class, but allow them to be used during lunch or free periods.
Most participants in the discussion agreed that allowing students to use their phones during free time would negate many of the benefits of phone bans. If students cannot be on their phones outside of class, they will theoretically spend more time socializing with their peers in person, without the distraction of a cellphone.
While the general consensus among participants was that cell phone bans were a positive thing, many also agreed that the goal of these bans should be to eventually not need them at all. In their ideal world, students would be taught the self-discipline and control to stay off their cell phones without needing enforcement from school administrators. This especially was people’s hope regarding cell phone bans for younger students. Theoretically, if younger students never become overly dependent on their phones, they will stay present and engaged even when they have the option to use them.
This conversation on cell phone bans was a part of the Levitt Center’s Community Conversation program, which aims to bring students, faculty and other members of the Hamilton community together in order to discuss relevant issues. While they will not be covering this topic again, there will be another Community Conversation discussion on Oct. 14 on the relationship between legality and immorality.
