Students say cell phones in school a distraction to other students, but not themselves
Big Horn County School District Four shared the results of a recent survey about cell phones in school and one response by students really stood out.
When asked if cell phones distract them from learning in school, the majority, 84.3%, said no. When asked if cell phones are a distraction for other students in school, the majority, 68.5%, said sometimes. Twelve percent said yes.
Riverside Middle and High School Principal Matt Jensen led a discussion at the forum to discuss the results and solicit opinions of those at the forum. In addition to students, parents, staff and community members were asked to take part in the survey.
Jensen said the district started looking at their policy because cell phones in school are increasingly becoming an issue.
“Trying to control cell phones in school when they are not being used appropriately,” said Jensen. “It’s a tough thing for us to deal with in school because we know cell phones are a little bit of a distraction for most of our students.”
He noted that as an administrator, it is hard to monitor. The district needs to make sure the policy is updated, usable for everybody, fair and workable, especially as technology grows. Some new technology, Jensen added, can be frightening.
He explained there are now smart glasses which allow people to record without anyone around them knowing. With Artificial Intelligence (AI), a robocall can come in, record a few seconds of conversation and generate a voice that sounds like the speaker.
STUDENT RESPONSES
Students were asked the main reason they use their cell phone in school and the number one answer, 86.1%, was to communicate with friends and family. The second highest response, 32.4%, was for schoolwork. Entertainment, checking social media and other were also responses.
Jensen pointed out the student response that claimed they were not distracted by their phones, but their peers are. He said there is a big disconnect.
Almost 27% of students said they have an emotional attachment to their phone. They were asked if they feel anxious without it and Jensen said he occasionally has students that won’t give up their phone. It is the FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out).
“Some of the kids don’t have much,” he explained. “The phone is the one thing they do have. It is their connection to their friends. They have an emotional attachment to their phones. That is scary. It isn’t healthy for anybody to have that much attachment to technology.”
PARENTS RESPONSES
Parents were asked whose responsibility is it to educate students on responsible cell phone use. Their response was overwhelmingly parents/guardians with 84.5%. Jensen said in reality, he believes it is everyone’s responsibility to help out.
When asked if they would support a policy requiring students to store their cell phones in lockers or with a teacher during school hours, 77.6% responded in the affirmative.
Jensen, whose daughter is a seventh-grade student, said that she admits she is a different person when she has her phone versus without it. This is important for kids and parents to recognize.
“As parents, we all have concerns about our kids and their devices because there are so many things out there that are scary,” said Jensen.
“It is kind of like opening up a portal for kids to receive things they are not supposed to receive. On the other end of it, you are hoping you taught your children well, that they won’t be doing things on they shouldn’t be doing on their phone.”
Parents were also asked what is the primary benefit of allowing cell phones in school. Emergency contact was the number one response.
“It’s kind of sad that we live in a society today where school shootings are not rare anymore across the United States. As a parent, I completely understand those concerns and having the availability of a cell phone in case there is some kind of an emergency,” Jensen remarked.
STAFF RESPONSES
The majority of the staff, 53.8%, said the current policy isn’t workable and must be updated.
Jensen noted that the biggest thing for the staff is logistics. “How to appropriately police cell phones. Because right now, every classroom is different. Some (staff) will use cell phones in their class, like using the calculator (…) some that say absolutely no cell phones, then there is everything between, that is where we are as a staff. We want to make sure it is policy that everybody is on the same page about and enforceable.”
He added that the school needs to figure out where cell phones should be to minimize the distraction in the classrooms. Boxes in the classrooms, lockers, etc.
CONSENSUS
All of the groups surveyed agreed that cell phones should be allowed during lunch periods. Every group also recognized that cell phones can be a distraction in school.
In addition, every group recognized there are concerns with cell phones impact on mental health. Jensen noted, “This is a quiet generation. I remember getting yelled at all the time on the bus, ‘Shut up back there. You’re being too loud!’ Bus rides and lunch hours now are quiet because everyone is on their phone.”
AUDIENCE DISCUSSION
Liberty Harding, a Riverside student, attended the forum. She was asked about cell phone policies at other schools she had attended in different districts. Harding answered that Basin is stricter and enforces their policy more, and she mostly leaves her phone in her locker.
Harding said she believes students would benefit if the rules were the same in every classroom. In some classes, the students’ phones are put in a box for that period. In others, phones are out and used by the students the entire time. She said more work gets done when there aren’t phones.
Her mom, Amber Harding, also weighed in. She said she believes that District 4 being stricter on cell phone use is a good thing. She added that if Liberty comes home to complain about a bad day, she also tells her mom that the staff is there for her, acknowledging her feelings and encouraging her.
“From a mom’s point of view, it feels safer here,” said Amber. “There is a lot less drama.”
Liberty added that the staff in Basin follows through and the stricter rules benefit all. He mom agreed and said she is in favor of having boxes in the room.
“Everyone can learn a lot by putting down their phones and looking people in the eye.”
DeAnn Jensen, who teaches at a learning center in Powell, was also at this meeting. She asked what, if any, feedback has been received since the school district banned phones in school.
She replied, “Overall it’s been good. There were some reservations that there would be push back. One of the things we noticed right away was how social students became: they played games in the common areas and visited (with each other) because they didn’t have the distraction of their phone to hide behind.”
Riverside teacher Magda Stone said she sees a difference in the classroom when there are no phones. Students use their phones for social interaction, but receiving a text from a friend in another classroom is distracting. “There is too much drama,” she explained.
School counselor Kellie Gloy also worries about privacy as phones can record and those recordings are then shared. Things that happen outside of school are brought into the school.
“It didn’t happen in school, but it becomes a school problem and vice versa,” she said. “If the phones are not available (at school) then these things can be avoided.”
Principal Jensen said he believes the hardest thing to monitor will be student use of smart watches and other devices. While they will continue seeking feedback, the next step is for the committee to put together a general proposal. The policy will take effect the next school year.
LEGISLATION
Wyoming Senate File 0021 was introduced in December and placed on the general file on 1-20-25. The bill read in-part, “AN ACT relating to education; requiring school districts to adopt policies prohibiting students from using cell phones and smart watches in schools as specified; providing exceptions; providing a definition; specifying applicability; and providing for effective dates”
SF 0021 was recommended by the Education Committee to advance. It failed when it came before the entire Senate.