This editorial is on the policy as proposed before implementation. I wholeheartedly think that there are more detriments to giving students access to personal technology during the school day than allowing them to do so, but the HHS community and myself have yet to actually see how the administration will execute the policy. 

In recent years, cell phones and other devices have become ubiquitous in teenage life. The administration recently implemented a new policy banning the use of cell phones and other personal technology devices as they “interfere with learning.” I wholeheartedly think that this is a good policy; personal technology use can make students less responsible, lower the mental health of the student body, and more. 

One of the main arguments against the phone ban is the concern that students won’t be able to communicate with their parents or friends. However, I believe that constant access to communication can actually weaken a student’s ability to retain information and manage responsibilities. Most things students need to discuss, like after-school plans or what’s for dinner, aren’t so urgent that they need to be addressed during instructional time. Relying on quick texts for reminders can reduce a student’s ability to remember and organize their day independently, an essential skill for growing up. The personal tech policy may be a little too stringent in terms of confiscating tech overnight, as some communication is still important. However, confiscation with a parent or guardian having to pick up a device is the last consequence in the tier of punishments.

 Attention spans are also heavily damaged by using a cell phone. Phones offer instant gratification and are a variable reward system. Variable reward systems are a concept in behavioral psychology, where one gets a reward intermittently after engaging in some behavior. Gambling is a classic example, where there is a possibility of reward, so one plays a slot machine constantly to try and get that reward. Social media uses the same sort of thing – one never knows if they’ll get a like or a follow, and thus they keep checking. This makes it harder for students to focus when they should. Another drawback to frequently checking one’s phone is called ‘attention residue’ in behavioral psychology. It is when one thinks about a previous task once they’ve started a new one. This paradigm fits wonderfully into the narrative surrounding personal technology; a quick glance at one’s phone has a lasting consequence on their focus. It overloads the brain and leads it to not be able to effectively retain and apply knowledge. In addition, listening to music or similar things which ‘enhance’ one’s focus, are just switching tasks which causes attention residue.

With a phone, everyone is connected to everyone. It may be superficially beneficial, as it can be used to share information, build connections, and and express one’s self  However, negative content is constantly accessible to people. Research indicates that victims of cyberbullying are more than twice as likely to harm themselves (Psychology Today). Another study found a positive correlation between increased social media usage and teenage depression (Frontiers in Psychiatry). How many fights have been planned on social media and personal technology devices ? How many small disputes have escalated into violent conflicts because of social media? 

The use of personal technology  can be compared to the consumption alcohol; the narrative of ‘a glass of wine to take the edge off of my day’ has transitioned to ‘15 minutes of scrolling to dissociate.’ The temporary numbing is an ineffective coping mechanism as it leads to avoidance. The more one engages in such a behavior, the more time one will need scrolling to feel gratified. Escapism is generally unhelpful as a coping mechanism, as it delays confronting problems and can lead students to be inept in regulating their emotions. Phones can also reinforce denial, which is a defense mechanism where students refuse to acknowledge the severity of their problems. For example, a student might ignore feelings of academic pressure or emotional distress by spending excessive time on social media. The phone serves as a convenient way to deny or push aside tough realities, making it harder to acknowledge issues such as declining grades or strained friendships. This can exacerbate the initial problem. Phones can also lead students to compartmentalize their emotional lives. For example, someone may feel overwhelmed by schoolwork, but instead of facing the anxiety, they retreat to their phone for comfort. In this way, they separate their emotions from the reality of their responsibilities, creating an artificial separation that prevents meaningful action. Compartmentalization can mask the impact of stress and emotional strain, leading students to ignore the cumulative effects of their unresolved issues. Over time, this lack of integration between emotional and practical responses can hinder personal growth and academic achievement.

Therein lies one of the ways that I think the phone policy could be improved. With the absence of personal technology during the school day, I think the administration should institute measures to teach students how to cope and use their time effectively without personal tech. Having classroom ideas, giving students art supplies or journals, and having card or board games could encourage students to build real connections and cope more effectively. This is an example of Freudian sublimation, where one channels a negative impulse into a more productive behavior. Administration should show students how to fill their time without using personal technology. 

While I think there are some reasons to have personal technology devices in general, like being able to communicate with parents and guardians, the detriments certainly outweigh them. However, the HHS community will have to see how the policy is executed.