THE RECENTLY UPDATED CELL PHONE POLICY AT this school outlines how students who show “inappropriate cell phone use” will be punished. The first offense calls for a detention, the second is a Saturday detention, the third is a parent/student conference with the dean and the fourth is Saturday school in Noblesville. This policy has changed from last year where the punishment was that the administrators would withhold a student’s cell phone if he/she used it inappropriately in class and a parent would have to pick it up. One of the reasons for the change, according to principal John Williams, is that the prior policy tended to punish the parents rather than the students because the parents had to be the ones picking up the cell phone. Students with parents who did not work had an advantage since their parents could pick up the phone in shorter time. In addition, if phones were withheld from students, parents would not be able to contact their children if there was an emergency. While we understand and acknowledge the reasons for the policy change, there have been and continue to be several problems with the policy that should be addressed.

First, many students were not informed of the change before its implementation. There was no administrative announcement about it prior to its passage and many teachers did not discuss it. In addition, the policy was not updated in the Pathways. The students who said they were aware of this change found out from a single teacher or through word-of-mouth. Because this is a policy that directly affects many students and concerns a topic that students deeply care about, it should have been more important to communicate the change to students.

Second, there continues to be disparity in how teachers and administrators define “inappropriate cell phone usage.” Cell phones are also more applicable in some classes than others. In fact, this school has made several strides over the years to promote cell phone use, including teaching methods that involve bringing your own device (BYOD). For example, a journalism class, where cell phones are often used as recording devices or to keep track of assignments, may have a different definition of “inappropriate cell phone use” than say, a business class, where cell phones may be less necessary. Having teachers discuss what their own individual policy is would lead to less confusion about the expectations of students and to what extent they can use their cell phone.

Finally, the current policy, which calls for a detention for the first offense, is too severe. It would be better if the first punishment was a warning and then the second offense be a detention. If the first punishment were instead a warning, this would allow students to understand the limits of using cell phones and know what to do in the future.

This new cell phone policy, though well-intentioned, was not communicated well to the students. Hence, there exists much disparity in the interpretation of the “inappropriate cell phone use” and the policy itself is too severe. It is essential for students to understand any changes in school policies, whether from the administration or from teachers. While we can do nothing about communication of a rule that has already been implemented, we still ask for teachers to define “inappropriate cell phone use” in their own classrooms and for administrators to reconsider the harsh penalty of a detention for a first offense of breaking a rule that already suffers from misinterpretation. Should this happen, the new cell phone policy will be more successful in meeting its intended goals.