Widespread discussions among high school students led two seniors to tell the School Board to be careful as it adopted a new cell phone policy Monday night.
The new policy won’t change any existing regulations at local schools, but the high school administration is looking at different options to toughen up the consequences for those who violate those rules and use those cell phones during class.
That’s why Eric Holmes and Chris Thompson were at the meeting.
Among the options, said Principal Pat Stineff, her staff is considering confiscating cell phones and holding them until the following Monday when phones are confiscated during class time. Other options are variants of this idea.
“We had discussed this before school started,” Stineff said. “And it was out the next day.”
Right now, teachers may confiscate a phone and send it to the office or simply hang onto it. In either case, the phone is normally returned to a student at the end of the day.
The students continue using them during class, she said, so she and her staff started looking at something to catch their attention a lot better.
“That’s the bottom line,” Stineff said. “The weekend is when it’ll make them sit up and take notice.
“If they don’t use it during class time, it’s not going to be taken away. If kids just do what they’re supposed to do, this wouldn’t be an issue.
“The teachers are extremely frustrated with the cell phones. The kids feel it’s their God-given right to use the cell phones whenever they want to.”
Among the problems are texting during class, she said. Cheating has happened but catching it is not common. Students have even been excused from class to use the restroom and ordered pizza, which has been delivered. They’ll order lunch ahead of time or plan out times to get out of class and meet.
While losing their phones over the weekend could be tough on the students, she said, she is sure that their groups of friends have plenty of phones among themselves.
“Use it appropriately, and you don’t have a worry,” Stineff said.
Chris Thompson’s mother has medical issues, said his father Philip Thompson. If she needs to call Chris while Philip is at work, she isn’t going to contact the school first. She is going to contact Chris first.
“I don’t see why she (Stineff) wouldn’t give it back to you on an individual basis,” said board member Chanz Keeney. In situations like that, the school could make an exception.
High school staff has done some thinking about that, Stineff said, and families can discuss when phones need to be on. If the privilege is abused, the parents would get a call explaining that the school tried.
Board members and staff likened the confiscation to the consequences for traffic offenses.
The plan the high school staff has now is like suspending a license for changing lanes without a signal, Holmes said.
“There’s honestly not a huge problem. I haven’t been in a class where it’s disrupted anyone but (the cell phone user).”
Most of the time, students leave their phones on vibrate with the ringer left on for something important, Holmes said. He doesn’t know of anyone who uses a phone constantly, perhaps once or twice at the beginning of class or during independent study.
Holmes, Chris Thompson and Philip Thompson thought that taking a phone away for a week was too much for a first-time offense. Each said that he would support a system of increasing consequences for multiple offenses. Philip Thompson added that parents should be included before the potential weeklong confiscation.
Stineff said staff members have talked about different levels of response.
Some teachers yell too quickly, Chris Thompson said. A student may be digging around in his backpack for something unrelated, and some teachers will assume he’s using his cell phone.
Students are planning to resist the changes, although he doesn’t know whether they will follow through, Chris Thompson said. To have one student lose his phone will be much more disruptive than his text message.
If he’s sitting in a math class, and it turns into a big disruption, he said, “I don’t want to lose a whole day of learning because the School Board went too far. If you guys are going to say this is how it’s going to be, and the kids are saying this is how it’s going to be, you’re setting yourself up for a clash.”
To clarify, the School Board’s proposed policy does not outline the consequences of violating the policy. That is decided by staff at each school.
The policy could read, “no cell phones,” said board member Jason Redick. The high school is going out of its way to allow students to have cell phones during their breaks, lunch and before and after school.
“It definitely has to be addressed,” Redick said. “There needs to be responsibility on the part of students.”
Teachers confiscate at least one phone on a daily basis, Stineff said. More often it’s three or four phones a day. Rarely is there a day a phone is not confiscated.
The new procedure for dealing with cell phones at the high school will probably be implemented in a couple of weeks, Stineff said. The school will send a letter home to parents, and students will be required to sign a form that says they understand, not necessarily agree with, the procedure.
The policy under consideration by the board during its first reading Monday night would prohibit the use of cell phones during the school day throughout the district with an exception for the high school. It also would prohibit the use of phone cameras at school events. Board members asked Supt. Larry Horton to return with language to allow phone cameras to be used at sporting events and at other appropriate times.
The policy follows current practices at Sweet Home schools, although different schools handle confiscating the phones in slightly different ways.
The board began considering a cell phone policy after Chanz Keeney raised concerns at last month’s board meeting. The administrators met and used the Greater Albany Public Schools policy as a model.
The policy may be passed on its second reading next month if the board votes unanimously. Otherwise the policy returns to the board in two months for a third reading and approval.