Cell phones in classrooms have become a nationwide issue that hinders students’ ability to learn. In fact, a study by Common Sense Media found that 97% of teens admit to using their phones during the school day; the same poll found 35% of teens admit to using a cell phone at least once to cheat in school. This needs to change.
Many districts across the country have attempted to implement various rules and regulations restricting cell phone usage, but do these regulations work? While schools can make rules and teachers can try to enforce them, real change depends on students themselves choosing honesty and self-control. No policy can replace personal integrity, and students have to recognize that using phones to cheat doesn’t just hurt the system, it cheapens their own accomplishments.
At Mayo High School, students attempt many different methods of hiding phones during class time, including a popular method of hiding a phone behind a book.
Rochester Public Schools (RPS) has implemented several different policies over the years; last year RPS attempted a system with “red zones” and “green zones” where phones can or can’t be used. This year RPS uses the “bell-to-bell” policy, which states that students must “store phones in backpacks or classroom designated locations from bell to bell.” However, many argue that these policies are not effective. Still, it’s not fair to expect teachers to police every phone when students should also hold themselves accountable. Each student has a responsibility to respect the learning and testing environment and understand that cheating -even if everyone does it- ultimately devalues their education.
According to Mrs. Ekert from the Mayo High School’s administration, the rationale behind cell phone policy is based on legislation from Minnesota state legislators who are “concerned about the amount of phone usage by students in schools.” They believe device usage in classrooms creates a significant enough disruption to learning where it needs to be restricted to keep students “engaged in learning.”
When asked about the effectiveness of the current policy Mrs. Ekert was extremely positive saying students are interacting more with each other, actually doing their work, and they even noticed a decrease in behavioral issues. Although Ekert says they would not be completely opposed to more restrictions “if the current policy wasn’t working,” they truly do believe that at Mayo enough students are following the current rules to the point where they are satisfied with the bell to bell policy.
During class time, students will often play games on their phones instead of doing school work.
The bell to bell policy may be more effective than previous policies, but it is far from perfect. One student, Brendan Keegan, says cell phone usage is still a big problem, claiming “sometimes people will use their phones for the entire class.” Another student, Connor West, agrees that some people openly reject the cell phone policy, but he doesn’t think it’d be worth it for teachers to constantly take phones away from disobedient students using them. West says, “it would take too much valuable time away from teaching for the students that follow the rules and wouldn’t even be very effective.”
For the most part, many students agree that the administration is doing a fine job with cell phone policy for day-to-day use. However, one area where the district, administration, and teachers continue to struggle is enforcing the prohibition of phones during testing.
Taking out one’s phone and taking a picture of a test is so quick and easy to do. Many don’t even think twice; it only takes a few moments, and then they could send the test to anybody, completely compromising the assessment. For some reason teachers and administration have done very little to prevent phones during testing. Something must be done, and quite frankly there is a simple fix: simply collect every student’s phone on test day. Regardless of what a teacher’s typical enforcement of cell phone usage is, at the very least a rigid “no exception” collection of phones during testing should be mandatory. Cheating would still happen of course, but it would be extremely limited; in fact, this is already done for standardized testing like the ACT and AP tests, and very few people successfully cheat on those.
Ultimately, while current policies like the “bell-to-bell” rule have made some progress in limiting everyday distractions, they don’t go far enough, especially when it comes to protecting the integrity of tests. Phones make it easier than ever to cheat and ignoring that reality only weakens the learning environment for everyone. Stronger policies can limit temptation, but integrity ultimately comes from within. Students must be willing to take ownership for their actions and to value honesty over convenience, because even the best rules mean nothing if individuals don’t choose to do what’s right.
If the district truly wants to create classrooms where students can focus and succeed, they must enforce stronger, more consistent measures, starting with collecting phones during testing. A clear, firm policy isn’t just about discipline; it’s about ensuring fairness, giving every student the chance to earn their achievements honestly. However, only so much of the blame can be put on the policy of the district; students themselves must rise to meet the standard of honesty that education and true learning is built on.
