Should CT adopt a cellphone ban in schools? Lawmakers to decide

James Tierinni has seen what happens when schools ban phones.

“About eight, nine years ago, I had to police people’s cellphones. And I’d have to talk to the same kid over and over again,” Tierinni said. Now, when he gives out a class exercise, “they turn their desks, they talk to each other … and it’s generally just so much more of a positive environment.”

Tierinni teaches math in Manchester. The district became an early adopter of a bell-to-bell cellphone ban across all schools a few years ago. Although the move caused a stir at the time, Tierinni said it didn’t take long for people to adjust to the new policy. He said he hasn’t seen a phone in a year and a half — and he’s glad of it.

“I can tell you the negatives (of phones) outweigh the positives. And in my opinion, it’s not even close,” Tierinni said.

Connecticut’s General Assembly is now considering making bell-to-bell cellphone bans official state policy. If successful, the state would be the latest of roughly 20 states to impose such a ban amid rising concerns about the adverse effects phones have on kids. The ban would not prevent students from using phones as part of designated special education plans.

Advocates argue phones, and particularly the social media apps they run, are designed to be addictive, with ruinous consequences for young people’s ability to focus and learn. Many draw inspiration from Jonathan Haidt’s bestselling book The Anxious Generation, which connects phone use and social media with a devastating rise in youth mental health disorders. Proponents of bell-to-bell bans say the schools that employ them have seen big improvements in student attentiveness and sociability.

But critics of bell-to-bell bans are just as vocal. They include administrators who feel the bans foreclose on teaching responsible technology use, parents worried about reaching their children in emergencies and students skeptical that the bans would actually solve much. Most agree that unrestricted phone use is a serious problem; they just think it can, and has been, solved without an all-day ban.

“School systems have plans in place, and every school system is different,” said Meriden Superintendent Mark Benigni. “Let our policy and plans work best for us.”

The disagreement extends to members of the legislature’s Education Committee, with many Republicans opposing a statewide ban and many Democrats supporting one.

“I believe it’s local control,” said Education Committee Ranking Member Rep. Lezlye Zupkus, R-Prospect, addressing a school superintendent who favors the statewide ban during a public hearing Feb. 20. “If it’s a problem in your school, I think it should be up to the school to take care of those problems.”

Co-Chair Rep. Jennifer Leeper, D-Fairfield, disagreed. “The fundamental responsibility of government is to keep people safe. And when we know a better way of keeping people safe, it’s incumbent on us to act,” she said.

Defending the cellphone status quo

This isn’t the first time Connecticut legislators have moved to limit cellphones in schools. Just a few years ago, the state passed a law requiring districts to adopt cellphone policies in line with recommendations from the State Board of Education. At the Feb. 20 hearing, Zupkus said almost all districts in the state now have something on the books.

One of those districts is Meriden.

“We’re really looking for that more balanced approach,” said the district’s director of instructional technology and curriculum, Susan Moore. “So, is there a time and a place that phones and any technology should be used in the classroom? Yes. Is there a time when phones should be put away and not used in the classroom? Yes.”

Meriden’s policy is “off and away” — a phrase that has percolated into the vocabulary of everyone from the district superintendent to school staff to students. Generally speaking, students can use their phones in the hallways and at lunch, but they’re expected to put them away in class unless the teacher allows them for instructional purposes — for example, scanning QR codes to view instructional videos for specific math problems or recording science experiments to review later.

What exactly “away” means varies from class to class, students at Meriden said. One teacher might have a box to collect phones at the start of the period, while others may be fine with students leaving devices face-down on their desks. If a student doesn’t comply when a teacher says “off and away,” they’re breaking the rules, and administrators will move quickly to support teachers if discipline is required.

Benigni said by now, he feels “off and away” has many benefits over a bell-to-bell ban. It leaves room for teachers to experiment with integrating technology into the classroom. And he thinks permitting some access actually improves behavior.

“We feel like we get a more engaged and attentive student because we allow them to check that phone when they’re in the hallway or when they’re going to lunch,” Benigni said.

Moore said she’s also seen phones play a critical role in helping both multi-language learners and students with special needs access materials.

“The translation features and the text-to-speech features are really helping with that accessibility piece,” Moore said.

Benigni and Moore said they also want Meriden to prepare students for life in the real world, where the temptation of using a phone will likely be a part of daily life. That’s an aim that resonates with Deedee Highsmith, a senior at Maloney High School in Meriden.

“I work at a nursing home, and some of the people there, as soon as they’re done with their work, they go in the corner and they go on their phones for the rest of the time … But that’s not a responsible way to use your phone,” Highsmith said.

She said she thinks high school is the place where kids should learn how best to use their phones. Otherwise, “you’re not going to learn how to be responsible with it,” she said.

Benigni said he doesn’t think banning cellphones in schools will solve the mental health issues associated with the devices, given that kids will still have full access for the other 18 hours of the day. He’s worried the issue is a scapegoat for something bigger: the acute lack of support staff like psychologists and social workers in many districts grappling with stagnated state funding.

“My thoughts are, we have a policy in place. We do not need the state to tell us what to do. We need the state to be focused on providing adequate funding, addressing rising poverty in urban communities,” Benigni said.

Meriden students who spoke with the Connecticut Mirror said they often use their phones in school to access apps like StudentSquare, Google Classroom and PowerSchool. They described using phones to do research when the school firewall blocks certain websites on their Chromebooks. In some cases, phones have become a normal part of classroom instruction.

“In my art class, we have to take pictures of our projects when we’re done to submit them,” said senior Addison Markoja.

Markoja said her phone was also an important tool to communicate with her swim coach, who doesn’t work on site at the school, and the other members of her team, some of whom attend Meriden’s other public high school.

Highsmith, who is class president, said she manages several social media accounts for the school. “So I post things throughout the day, like game posters or messages for the seniors and things like that,” she said.

None of the Meriden students who spoke with CT Mirror said they struggle much with distraction or anxiety related to their phones.

Gabi Bourdon, a senior at Meriden’s Platt High School, acknowledged the apps can do “a lot of harm” but said she doesn’t think it’s a cause as much as a symptom of other anxieties for kids in her generation.

“I think that really, what it comes down to is our generation kind of being more in tune,” Bourdon said.

Putnam has a similar cellphone policy to Meriden, even though its superintendent has expressed support for a statewide bell-to-bell ban. Students there shared similar sentiments to their peers farther west.

“Personally, when I’m locked in on work, I just forget my phone exists,” said Putnam senior Kaydence Morris. She said she’s walked out of class without her phone because she forgot all about it.

The caveat

But many students acknowledged the situation is not the same for all their peers.

“I think that there are a lot of kids that definitely have that difficulty kind of staying off their phone,” Bourdon said.

She said it seems to be a bigger issue for students in less advanced classes — Bourdon takes mostly college-level courses — and for those who aren’t as interested in what’s being taught.

“If you’re in a class where maybe you’re not the biggest fan of it, that’s where I feel like I see a lot of people struggling,” Bourdon said.

Putnam senior Kasyn Robillard made a similar observation.

“What I see on a daily basis is, it’s moreso the kids who are less intrigued and interactive with the curriculum,” Robillard said. “It’s just, they’re so bored in class ’cause they don’t want to be learning.”

Tierinni, the Manchester teacher in favor of a statewide bell-to-bell ban, said he’s observed a pattern in how students talk about cellphone use.

“They see their peers as having a problem, but it’s very tough for them to be reflective and think they have a problem,” Tierinni said.

If a student is glued to a phone, teachers say it falls to them to deal with it. Connecticut Education Association President Kate Dias said that might help explain why the state’s teachers’ unions are strongly in favor of a statewide bell-to-bell ban, while administrators and boards of education are mixed, if not against.

“It’s definitely the difference between those who make the policy and those who have to live the policy,” Dias said.

Plainville High School senior Julian Steward told the Education Committee he’s seen the difficulty teachers face firsthand and said he supports a statewide bell-to-bell ban.

“Having cellphone regulation (be) a part of the job as a teacher, I feel like is asking them too much with how much they already have to manage,” Steward said.

Torrington English teacher Erin Sullivan said before her district implemented a bell-to-bell ban, it was not uncommon to see a “power struggle” between teachers and students over cellphone use. She sees that much less now that Torrington has such a ban in place.

“It’s very clear to students — the cellphones are confiscated immediately if they are seen, and there’s no questions about it,” Sullivan said.

It’s that clarity of expectation teachers in other districts say they now lack. Meriden Federation of Teachers President Matt Banas said under the “off and away” policy, phone enforcement varies from class to class. Because expectations aren’t always consistent, “That opens up a dialogue between the teacher and the student … that doesn’t always end well,” Banas said.

Opponents of a statewide ban often say districts should craft their own policies to meet their schools’ needs, as they have until now. That argument has not swayed Banas. He said he would still prefer a statewide bell-to-bell ban over Meriden’s current policy.

“I haven’t seen the educational benefit to a smartphone in a classroom, particularly if you’re in a district that has one-to-one technology,” Banas said. “One-to-one” means the district gives every student a device, typically a Chromebook; Meriden is such a district.

Regina von Gootkin, a mother of three from Essex and founder of the advocacy group Screen Smart Initiative, told legislators she’s tried to get her district to implement a bell-to-bell ban.

“It quickly became apparent that districts are not equipped to do this on their own. They need a state mandate,” von Gootkin testified.

Putnam Superintendent Steven Rioux told legislators his school board is considering a bell-to-bell ban but hasn’t implemented one yet. He said under Putnam’s current policy, kids take their phones out right in front of him while he’s visiting their classes.

“‘Please put your phone away, please put your phone away, please put your phone away.’ I mean, it’s just a constant struggle right now,” Rioux said.

Rioux said some teachers decide to just ignore cellphone use to keep the flow of the lesson going.

“I’m at a place now where, when I’m visiting, do I reprimand the teacher for not enforcing the policy?” Rioux told legislators at the Feb. 20 hearing.

Rep. Zupkus pushed back. “Bell-to-bell … if the kids are in their class with the cellphone, it’s still gonna fall on the teachers,” she pointed out.

That hasn’t been an issue for Tierinni. Under Manchester’s policy, he said, all he has to do is fill out a Google form if someone breaks the rules and the administration handles it. He doesn’t have to spar with students at the start of class and can focus on his lesson.

While Rioux acknowledged that phones can be useful, either for innovative instruction or to help students like multi-language learners, he feels Chromebooks can accomplish the same things. Like Meriden, Putnam is a one-to-one district.

“May it be inconvenient at times (to ban phones)? Is that worth the tradeoff? What we’re seeing in student depression, student anxiety, suicide rates climbing — I mean, to me, it’s not even close,” Rioux said.

Markoja, the Meriden senior, said she thinks banning phones would indeed be inconvenient.

“Something that could take me two seconds on my phone, like submitting work, may take five minutes in the Chromebook and wastes more class time than needed,” she said.

She agreed there’s overlap — but she drew the opposite conclusion as Rioux.

“As easy as I can go on my phone and scroll on Instagram or go and online shop, I can do the same thing on my Chromebook,” Markoja said. “So what’s to say I’m not going to go on my Chromebook and do the exact same things?”

Meriden junior Tony Gonzalez said he saw that firsthand one day in math class. Normally, he said, students work with pen and paper, but that day, they used their Chromebooks.

“I’m not even kidding, probably like 70% of the class is doing everything but work,” Gonzalez said. “They’re either on a game, they’re even looking at some clothes, they’re even watching YouTube, just doing whatever they want.”

Safety concerns animate opponents — and supporters

Meriden parent Brendaliz Concepcion does not think cellphones have any place in the classroom. She doesn’t think they help with learning, she doesn’t like how distracting they are, and she worries they facilitate cyberbullying of both students and teachers.

But she still doesn’t support a bell-to-bell ban. The reason: security.

“With everything that’s going on in the world, is it OK … for my child to carry their cellphone in case they have to make an emergency call? Yes,” Concepcion said.

She’s hardly alone.

“September 19, 2024, 12:54 p.m. My son texted me: ‘Hey mom. We’re in a lockdown, and it hasn’t stopped for a while, and I’m starting to worry,’” recalled parent Erika Haynes at the Feb. 20 hearing. “My family was terrified that day. Terrified.”

Her son was not hurt physically that day, but Haynes said the 40-minute lockdown was nonetheless traumatizing. She told legislators that banning phones in schools would take away a “lifeline” between parents and their children at a time when the state cannot guarantee student safety.

“It comes down to a student being able to text a parent when they think they are going to die, to say they love them, to hear they are loved. If you haven’t received these texts, you cannot fathom the fear, and I hope you never have to,” Haynes said.

But not all parents agree — including Tierinni, who has an 11-year-old child enrolled in a public school. He and his partner made a conscious decision not to give their daughter a phone yet. And he said as a teacher, he’d prefer the kids in his class not take out their phones during something like an active shooting.

“In an emergency situation, I need to be at my game 100%. I need all the students there. The cell phones in that case are a distraction,” Tierinni said. “My No. 1 goal isn’t for that kid to be able to text you. It’s for them to be able to hug you when they go home.”

Concepcion was not convinced.

“How can you follow a teacher if you’re in the middle of switching classes, you know? How many kids are in the hallway?” she said.

She suggested outfitting classrooms with containers that can hold phones during instruction— while allowing students to access them during passing time — would be a reasonable compromise. That way, she said, students won’t be tempted to use their phones, but parents will still know they can reach their kids in an emergency.

“That’s going to work in everybody’s benefit,” she reasoned.

But proponents of the statewide ban favor the policy in part because it gets phones out of the hallway and the cafeteria, as well. Anecdotally, schools with bell-to-bell bans report livelier lunchtime conversations, and some research suggests that time and distance are critical for counteracting phones’ addictive tendencies.

“Repeatedly engaging and disengaging from devices impairs students’ ability to learn and reduces their performance,” said Jackie Britt-Friedman, a psychologist with the Yale Child Study Center, at the Feb. 20 hearing.

Ironically, bell-to-bell ban proponents like Britt-Friedman are also worried about children’s safety — but the danger that animates them is the phone itself.

“Research shows that those with ADHD and other learning challenges are particularly vulnerable,” Britt-Friedman said. “Even the visible presence of a smartphone is distracting, and expecting children and adolescents to regulate their use of this enticing technology in a learning environment ignores their developmental limits.”

At the hearing, Rep. Irene Haines, R-East Haddam, asked proponents whether it’s wise to impose new statutory restrictions so soon after Connecticut already updated its school cellphone laws. She wondered if it’s too soon to know whether the limits schools have adopted in line with the State Board of Education are sufficient.

Connecticut Education Association Vice President Joslyn DeLancey replied that it’s an issue where the state cannot afford to wait.

“What we see is irreparable harm every year, every day, every month that these cellphones are being utilized,” she told Haines.

Von Gootkin, the Screen SmartInitiative founder who tried to get her local school board to enact its own bell-to-bell ban, told legislators she understands why parents are scared to lose the link they have to their kids during the school day.

“Parents’ safety concerns are real and understandable, but not supported by experts or data. In an emergency, students are safest when focused on trained adults and first responders, not texting their parents,” von Gootkin said. “Fear cannot override what is actually safer for our kids.”

Rep. Leeper concurred. “We’ve become accustomed to this type of access to our children,” she said. “So it is a major behavioral and lifestyle change.”

___

This story was originally published by The Connecticut Mirror and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.