As Mass. Legislators Work to Ban Phones in Schools, CPS Students Share Concerns About Restrictions

As a bill prohibiting the use of cell phones in public schools is making its way through the Massachusetts state legislature, students at Cambridge Public Schools — where a similar policy was adopted last fall — raised concerns about the phone restrictions.

The bill, which is supported by four members of the state congress and Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, would “require all public schools in the state to have formal policies regarding the use of cell phones, tablets, and other personal electronic devices on school grounds and at school-sponsored activities.”

Campbell also released a “toolkit” designed to advise and support districts in developing and implementing cell phone policies. The document highlighted the effectiveness of “bell to bell” restrictions that would require students to hand in their phone at the beginning of the school day, with no access until dismissal.

CPS’s current policy — implemented at the beginning of the 2024-2025 school year for all students grades six through twelve — requires that phones be confiscated at the beginning of each period and returned at the end of class. Students are allowed to use phones during passing periods and lunch.

After completing one semester with the restrictions, Cambridge Rindge and Latin School principal Allan G. Gehant remains supportive. In a statement to The Crimson, Gehant wrote that the school has “established a strong toehold” with their new cell phone policy, and that overall, “this policy has been successful.”

“The vast majority of CRLS students are keeping classrooms phone-free and, while many may not express joy about the policy, I also know that many students will or have admitted that this helps them focus, concentrate, and engage much more,” he wrote.

But some CRLS students say the restrictions have had unintended negative effects. Olive Berotta, a senior at CRLS, said that the policy became a source of “unnecessary tension between teachers and students.”

“Students just got really mad at the beginning,” she said, “Not mad at the system, but mad at the individual teachers, which was hard.”

According to Berotta, some initial backlash stemmed from teachers’ inconsistent enforcement of the policy.

“Teachers who do want to follow the rules are getting yelled at in class because some of the kids have teachers who aren’t enforcing it,” she said.

Berotta also said that the policy may not be as effective as intended due to the presence of other technology in classrooms.

“The issue is we’re using computers,” Berotta said. “Every student’s just playing 2048 on their computer — no one is just focusing on school when they do have a screen in front of them.”

CRLS senior Kate B. Wheatley noted a similar experience, but offered a different perspective, pointing out that “this school system does a pretty good job of blocking games.”

Wheately said that CRLS students have gradually come to accept the policy, as “it has become the expectation” across the school.

“A lot of students were vocally disappointed — obviously, they just wanted the freedom to use it,” she said, adding that some upperclassmen who “started to understand the downsides of having phones in classrooms” were “more vocally grateful for it.”

“Our student body has kind of gotten behind it,” Wheately added.

As a teaching assistant for a ninth grade class, Wheatley reflected on how the experience of younger students has shifted positively as a result of cell phone restrictions.

“People actually talked to each other, and I watched them connect much more than I recall my freshman classes doing,” she said.

“I think that people can see the value in that, for sure,” she added.

Victor M. Pereira Jr., a lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, said it’s important for this policy to consider “what teachers are doing to engage their students and what resources and supports are essentially helping teachers do their work in the classroom.”

“I think a strong policy considers the voice of all the stakeholders,” he said. “So you’re thinking about the school committee, educators, school leaders, parents, teachers, etc.”

Pereira spoke to the benefits of limiting technology use for students, saying “social media can be a really big distraction. It can also be a safety concern,” he said.

“There are definitely episodes in our recent history where cell phone communication had led to safety concerns, whether access to a building or students getting into arguments or physical altercations,” he added.

While CRLS students voiced concerns about districts implementing stricter cell phone restrictions, they acknowledged potential benefits.

While Wheatley said stricter restrictions, such as a “bell to bell” ban, would not make sense in an “era where we need phones to communicate details,” she added that limiting technology helps students return to a simpler time.

“I do sometimes wish it was the 1980s, or whatever, again and phones weren’t a thing,” Wheatley said, “because just something about that culture seems so special.”

— Staff writer Ayaan Ahmad can be reached at ayaan.ahmad@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @AyaanAhmad2024.

—Staff writer Megan L. Blonigen can be reached at megan.blonigen@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X at @MeganBlonigen.

— Staff writer Claire A. Michal can be reached at claire.michal@thecrimson.com.