We as student school board representatives want to provide an open discussion of the bell-to-bell cell phone ban passed in House Bill 2, signed into law by Gov. Kelly Ayotte last summer. As students, we’ve seen firsthand the impact that the ban has had on our schools, and want to provide direct input.
Back in March, the Concord Monitor published a survey of 36 high school sophomores and their views on the phone ban. According to the results, 61% said that banning cell phones improved their social experience at school and, as the Monitor writes, “[o]nly 8% said it had made it worse.”
The problem is that these polls are quite misleading of the students’ general views on the cell phone ban for two major reasons. First, the students polled were members of the Capital Area Student Leadership program. These are typically high-performing students, meaning that their views are more likely to be exclusively representative of higher-achieving students to the detriment of lower-achieving students.
But, more importantly, this survey was done as part of an educational program. This means that students answering the form were likely more inclined to say they had more favorable views of the cell phone ban than if they were surveyed in a different setting such as by a peer, even if the survey was anonymous.
Additionally, when it comes to the question of whether the bell-to-bell phone ban was the right decision, the survey results are inconclusive. It was the right decision according to 37% of respondents, while 31% said it was the wrong decision and 31% were undecided. However, in the same article, the Monitor continues to characterize this poll by saying, “[o]nly 31% of students said they disapproved of the state’s decision to institute it.” While this data is valuable in understanding student perspective on the ban, its methodology has the potential to misconstrue how the majority of students really feel.
Another issue is the restrictive nature of a bell-to-bell cell phone ban. Teachers who could previously ask their students to take photos for classroom purposes, like of engineering prototypes in engineering class or lab setups in science for documentation, were forced to come up with other ways for students to document. While the language of the bill allows for “local control,” a hallmark of New Hampshire state-level politics, it caused school boards and administrators statewide to scramble shortly before the start of the school year.
As student board representatives, we have in-person experience seeing our boards work to implement policy with minimal guidance and a short time frame. We applaud school boards and district administrators across the state for their care and effort to implement policies compliant with the language of HB 2.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of positive effects of the bell-to-bell ban. Students are more focused in classes. Teachers can spend less time disciplining students or restoring order to their classrooms and more time delivering the instruction that students are there to receive. In previous years, teachers’ phone use rules varied from classroom to classroom. This made it hard for students to know what was expected of them; meanwhile, teachers were forced to defend their own classroom rules. Now it’s clear: no matter the class, students shouldn’t have their phones out.
These benefits spread outside the classroom as well. Namely, cafeterias have been restored as a midday hub for face-to-face interaction. Instead of staring at their devices as they eat their lunches, tablemates are socializing. This is the kind of shift that improves school culture, builds friendships and relieves stress rather than fostering isolation.
We do not want to advocate for or against this law, but rather provide independent, unbiased feedback on the effects of cell phones on our schools from a student perspective.
Matthew Mampuzha and Ava Popielarz are school board student representatives for Bow. Lucy Beardmore and Kip Hedquist are school board student representatives for Hopkinton.