By Stephen Smoot
As attention continues to focus on the effects of cell phones and other personal electronic devices on children, the West Virginia State Legislature passed an act last spring requiring all 55 county school systems to pass policies to ban use by students in the classroom.
Wisely, that same act gave county systems flexibility to craft their own policies down to the school level and avoided the “one size fits all” approach that often produces unintended consequences.
Earlier this month, Michele L. Blatt, West Virginia State Superintendent of Schools, shared legal guidance with all counties. It read “Under H.B. 2003, personal electronic devices shall not be accessible to students for use in a classroom setting during instructional time.”
Pendleton County Schools superintendent, Nicole Hevener, has worked to make sure that all understand the policy and also the process that led to its adoption.
She shared the directive from the state and explained that in legal terms “shall not means cannot, will not.”
Some confusion has developed on the policy. Although Hevener does not oppose the policy, she stated that “some parents are under the impression that this is a county decision,” and were not aware that this is a state mandate. Even some teachers did not know that “we didn’t have a choice.”
Hevener shared that some real issues may have to be worked upon and provided the example of the rise of two factor authentication. Students trying to open email on school issued chromebooks for academic reasons may need to use their phones to verify their identity for security checks or other reasons.
“That’s a separate issue,” she noted, adding that this would represent a reasonable and academically based reason to use a personal electronic device.
The new policy does allow for waivers in certain situations, such as “if the student needs the phone for a medical condition.” Hevener shared that some conditions now require electronic monitors that work with the student’s phone app. In Pendleton County, these also will connect to the school nurse’s iPad so that they can react quickly to any problems.
Every school in Pendleton County has a nurse assigned to it.
Another exception could come if the student’s individualized education plan, or IEP, recommended it for whatever reason.
Although school has only been in the fall session a short time, Hevener stated that “the students are doing okay with it.” She added that even they see phoneless classrooms as less distracting.
One difference in Pendleton County versus other systems lay in the discipline aspect. Hevener explained that some counties followed guidance to focus discipline on the student. Pendleton County focuses it on the object. She explained that as much as possible, the intent lies on “not removing the student, but removing the device.”
That said, the policy also allows that consequences can escalate if student behavior warrants it.
Confusion has also occurred because many interpreted the policy as oriented toward cell phones. All along, every conversation has emphasized that the policy applies to “personal electronic devices.” That category includes earbuds and wearable communication devices, such as watches.
Hevener emphasized that “change is always difficult” and shared an example from when she served as Pendleton County Middle/High School principal last year. She explained that as an educator, she always felt better when teachers left their classroom doors open. It maintains connection in a sense with other classes and the rest of the school.
She stated that some policy changes are “not different than needing the doors to be shut as a security issue.” The new reality of threats to schools, teachers, and students means that it now “makes sense to keep them shut and locked.”
In other developments, the conflict between the state government and the West Virginia Department of Education on vaccine exemptions continues. One court sided with the WVED, but the case still can change on appeal. Pendleton County Schools will follow WVED policy, but the final outcome “is still in flux.”
She also stated that parents will no longer be able to use the live online grading system used in years past, but will have to change over to the WEVIS portal.
Change can also bring benefit. Hevener stated that last year, middle school students could not have access to their phones all day. She described the difference in interactions between middle schoolers, as opposed to high schoolers at lunch.
“You would go into the cafeteria” where the middle school students were having lunch, she said. “You see interaction. You hear ‘noise,’ but not in a place where you need to be quiet.”
Hevener found that “noise” refreshing. It was not loud misbehavior, but what people from a different time would regard as the normal hum of conversations and interactions in a large group setting during free time.
Conversely, she described the high schoolers at lunch with their devices as eerily quiet, “their body position slumped over and their demeanor.” She said they would play games over the phone with a person sitting right beside them, but only interact if something happened digitally.
“It’s just sad,” she observed.
And that brings the policy back to its main point. Overuse of personal electronic devices has created unpredictable changes in how young people interact and live out their day. Users cannot escape the element of distraction unless they escape their devices.
Almost none of those changes in children since the onset of mass use have been seen as beneficial by anyone who studies them, which necessitates policy changes in schools and hopefully evolving approaches across the board.
