Phones at lunch are here to stay. For now at least.
At the Wednesday, March 12 WSSD School Board Policy Committee meeting, the committee members unanimously approved moving forward with a revision of Policy 237 and its accompanying administrative regulation.
The policy and administrative regulation presented at the meeting largely resembled the objectives of the “Screens Off, Minds On” initiative implemented at the high school. Phones are not allowed in classes and are to be placed in “designated storage areas” like caddies, but are allowed at lunch, between classes, and for educational purposes.
The new administrative regulation promised a crackdown on smartwatches and earbuds, as well as progressive disciplinary measures ranging from verbal reminders at the first and second offenses to consequences like detention or Saturday School after a fifth offense.
The regulation also promised an education program on digital responsibility and the dangers of screen time.
The meeting lasted over three hours, with many parents advocating for a total ban while students and some other parents argued for permitting phones at lunch.
Haven Hold the Phone, a parent Facebook group dedicated to banning phones in WSSD schools, had lobbied for months in pursuit of a phone ban, including at last month’s policy committee meeting on February 12. At that meeting, a similar version of the current policy revision was sent back by the board for changes after survey data was presented, and three school board members, as well as numerous community members, expressed support for a total ban.
In response to this meeting, some students were stirred to advocate against the total ban Haven Hold the Phone had been pushing. Two sophomores, Henry Hewitt and Noah Henderson, organized a petition against the potential ban, gathering over 300 signatures.
According to Hewitt, one of the reasons he decided to start a petition was to defend student rights.
“When something is going on at your school that is wrong, ideas that are wrong, you need to stand up against that,” Hewitt said. “And I think that’s the true idea of America.”
On Friday, March 7, some school board members and Interim Superintendent Dr. James Scanlon visited the cafeteria during B lunch to talk with students and investigate the claims of a “silent cafeteria” spread by those hoping to ban phones. That Friday was coincidentally the same day Hewitt began the petition.
At the March 12 meeting, school board member Nanette Whitsett, who had previously supported a total ban, said that her mind had been changed by visiting the cafeteria. She cited conversations with students and her observations of lunchtime.
“I thought that I was going to go into the cafeteria, based on some of the emails we have gotten, and it was going to be totally quiet,” Whitsett said. “To the contrary, I found a lively group of high school students engaging. They even have a few of them that play poker during lunchtime.”
Board member Christine Dollé also favored a total ban but reluctantly agreed to move the policy revision forward, conditional upon revisiting it in the future, calling it a “good start,” a sentiment shared by many board members.
“I understand that this involves changing norms, and that takes time, so I’m hesitantly supporting it, but with that caveat that we take a look and revisit it once we have more consistent implementation of consequences,” Dollé said.
Board members Rachel Holbert and Mary Jo Witkowski-Smith also were previously in favor of a ban but chose to advance the policy like Dollé and Whitsett.
Despite this, Haven Hold the Phone members voiced their concerns. Speakers cited survey data shared during Scanlon’s presentation to the board showing 54% of Haven parents would consider a bell-to-bell policy as a mandate for a ban. Others raised concerns about the policy’s language and grammar.
“Tonight I am asking you to do more, because our students need you to,” community member Alex Becker said.
Those same students also spoke at the meeting, with Henderson, Hewitt, and senior Riley Smith speaking out against a ban.
In her comments, Smith primarily raised concerns about taking away student responsibility, saying that students need to learn how to manage technology on their own.
“These devices aren’t going away,” Smith said. “Rather than forcing a ban, I think we need to educate our students on how to regulate themselves with their phones. As for the all-day ban, I think lunch is a free period.”
Some community members in favor of a ban directly addressed students in the audience, attempting to explain the need for a total ban.
“This is not trying to infantilize you,” community member Tom Melvin said. “We’re not restricting you. We are freeing you by being able to turn these things off for six hours a day and get the education you deserve, so you can have the opportunities we all want you to have. We’re going to keep trying, because we owe you that.”
In Henderson’s comments, he noted that students see this push as adults looking down on students.
“Phones aren’t just distractions,” Henderson said. “They’re part of our culture, they’re a part of our lives, and taking them away is kind of a part of the older generation looking down on the new one in their way of socializing. This is how we interact, this is how we spend time with each other.”
Henderson also highlighted the importance of phones for communications regarding after-school activities for students, a point that Hewitt, who leads the Envirothon and Model UN teams, also emphasized in his comments.
“It is crucial that both students involved in extracurriculars and athletes are able to communicate and schedule activities during their break periods and during lunchtime,” Hewitt said. “Morally and practically, this proposition for a total ban by Haven Hold the Phone causes direct harm to students.”
The board unanimously approved moving the policy forward. At the March 24 regular school board meeting, board members voted to advance it to a second read.
