Kansas House Bill No. 2299, known as the cell phone bill, prevents students from using their personal electronic devices from the time the bell rings in the morning until dismissal. Schools will not be given any money from the state to help with this new regulation, and they are not legally liable if any damage happens to the devices.
This new ban is beyond unfair for high school students; it is unfair to our administrators, teachers and parents.
Beginning at the district level, the phone ban poses a big budget question. Money provided by the state would be necessary to even make this bill possible, from buying phone caddies or providing raises for administrators and teachers to compensate for the extra work they will take on. Especially during a time when Blue Valley is going through budget cuts, this bill forced on us with no financial help could not come at a worse time.
Blue Valley already has a phone policy that prevents students from using their phones while in class, which works well; a state government ban is unnecessary. A ban that affects all the Kansas schools in the area seems to be overriding each school district’s power, a point superintendents from our area pointed out to Kansas lawmakers in January.
Beyond our educators and before we even talk about how the bill will affect students, parents will also face implications. While school disasters and emergencies are unpleasant and unimaginable topics, our school had a lockdown that was thankfully a false alarm on April 28; we are not immune to these situations. How will parents contact their child in the event of an emergency or sickness? An email from the school administration after the incident will simply not work.
To focus on how the bill will affect students, it is hard to pick a place to start. Yes, we realize this perspective is from high school students, but before judging us as obsessed, dependent “screenagers,” listen to our concerns before passing a bill that will affect our lives and our futures.
To start, the bill says that students with medical needs or an individualized education plan will be able to have their device. This poses two problems for students. The first is that those who need their device to assist them will be easily identified by their peers, singling them out and violating the students’ privacy. The other problem is that parents and students will undoubtedly lie about any disabilities so that the student can use their device without actually needing it.
Speaking of lying, this ban will cause more disobedience among students. Burner phones will be purchased, and administrators and teachers will have to work double time to ensure they are following the rules of the statewide ban.
For classes that utilize technology to help learning, especially Career and Technical Education classes like publications and Dawg House, students’ work will become overly complicated without a phone to help communicate. For students interested in careers, such as the growing social media field, they will be prevented from using the tool that will help them learn the most. Whether we like it or not, phones are becoming useful tools for our future careers.
Even for students outside of these classes, having an adult come and take our phones away every morning for the entire day will only deplete the ability for self-control around phones and make teenagers want them more. If high school is supposed to prepare impressionable teenagers for college and careers, how will having our phones taken away result in responsible, productive adults in society?
Kansas lawmakers passed this bill, saying that it “puts Kansas kids first.” Their goal in passing the bill is to reduce distractions in classrooms, improve academic performance and mental health. While we agree teenagers and children should not be on their phones constantly and especially not during class, this bill from the state is an overreaction – especially since school districts themselves have the authority to implement their own policies.
If Kansas lawmakers really wanted to put Kansas kids first, maybe they should have spent more time listening to the educators who know us, the parents who raised us or considering our concerns. There are other ways to help kids in school and with mental health that our government has the power to change. While the good intentions are apparent, the unintended, yet predictable, consequences outweigh the possible benefits.
Frankly, there would not be enough pages in this paper to fully dive into each point of this new bill. Next time, listen to the worries of educators, parents and students seriously before making a decision that will negatively impact us all.
