“When are we going to do something about the phones?” I was repeatedly asked this question by colleagues who knew that I was interested in phones and their effect on attention, learning and our school community.
The problem is clear. From shattered and scattered attention and social media’s “always on” expectation to FOMO, FOBLO, and AI — the already long list of ways in which phones interfere with in-person learning (known as technoference) is getting longer. Phones are a ubiquitous part of modern society, and it can be tempting to give in or give up when faced with the challenge of addressing their presence in schools. Who has the energy to deal with the drama of upsetting students and families, the hassle of staff enforcement, or the heavy lift of taking on this massive problem?
For a long time, I knew something needed to be done about the phone problem, but I lacked he courage and the position in my school to do anything except create a classroom policy. I wanted something bigger for my school so that all students would have a better daily learning environment. The question was how to start? How can teachers and schools approach decisions about phone policies?
Decision education
During the 2021–22 school year, I had the opportunity to participate in the Teacher Fellowship program at the Alliance for Decision Education, a national nonprofit aiming to make Decision Education a part of every student’s learning experience. Believing that better decisions lead to better lives and a better society, the Alliance works to improve lives by empowering students with essential skills and dispositions to make better decisions. Decision Education encompasses four domains: Thinking Probabilistically, Recognizing and Resisting Cognitive Biases, Valuing and Applying Rationality and Structuring Decisions. These concepts offer useful approaches and tools for addressing the school cell phone problem and many others.
Structuring and framing decisions
My fellowship cohort focused on how to follow a structured process for complex decisions with high stakes and multiple stakeholders. Tasked with using this process in our classes, I chose to tackle the school phone policy in my senior elective behavioral economics class. The project gave students agency and empowered them to figure out a problem they cared about, and a structured decision felt perfect for this thorny problem.
A structured decision process begins with framing. When a decision is framed well, the process focuses on goals and values, keeping the reasons for the decision at the center. Without a solid frame and a focus on values, it’s easy to get overwhelmed, forget your big “why,” and lose the courage needed to make a big change. Instead, it quickly becomes easier to do too little or nothing at all.
Framing starts with the specific questions we ask. It’s tempting to begin with the obvious: what should our phone policy be? But this question doesn’t identify the values central to this decision. Without clear and explicit goals or values, we often default to a less nuanced question and answer it based on what’s merely convenient or comfortable.
I asked my students what was important to them, what their personal goals were, and what kind of campus culture they wanted. Their responses included performing at a high level and flourishing socially, emotionally and academically. They also wanted a campus that felt alive and welcoming. After studying the brain and attention, the business model of social media, rising trends in mental health issues and carefully reflecting on the impact of phones, the students agreed that, as much as they like and rely on them, phones are a big problem.
These values became the focus of our real decision: what phone policy is most likely to effectively support these goals? It also reminded us that we are not only aiming for a list of rules, but a policy with a clear and shared purpose.
From process to outcome
My students’ energy gave me the courage to take this project to my school administration. We knew that a policy is only as effective as the stakeholders’ willingness to honor and enforce it. Therefore, with a committed team of student and faculty leaders and supportive administration, we spent a year listening, experimenting, communicating and setting expectations. We landed on a policy that centered our goals and values. The administration made the final decision, but involving the students as stakeholders and following this process was critical; incorporating student perspectives not only led to a better policy, but it also increased student buy-in.
Four years later, challenges remain but our school’s “vibe” is decidedly better. School feels better. Students feel better. Phones now have a much smaller footprint during the day, and almost everyone can articulate why. Once new and uncomfortable, the policy is now normal. A graduating senior recently reflected on how lucky the school is to have a policy that emphasizes presence and creating stronger relationships. As another student put it, “I’m relieved to be relieved of my phone.”
Applying these lessons
More and more schools are creating phone policies, and several cities and states are passing laws to limit phones during the school day. The problem remains complicated, and there is no “one-size-fits-all” or magic solution. However, my experience shows that involving stakeholders, structuring the decision, and framing around shared goals can lead to a better process and outcome for this difficult problem. It also offers a framework for tackling the many other problems that schools, teachers, and students face.
Opinions expressed by SmartBrief contributors are their own.
Subscribe to SmartBrief’s FREE email newsletters to see the latest hot topics on educational leadership in ASCD and ASCDLeaders. They’re among SmartBrief’s more than 200 industry-focused newsletters.