Note: This opinion was intended to be paired with an opposing opinion from a student leader, but we have not received that submission.
With the new phone policy trial period set to begin this Monday, the legitimacy of the policy has sparked debate at Uni. However, the level of conflict it has been causing seems disproportionate to the policy itself.
Reactions are normal, but forming opinions should be a flexible process with added facts and experience. I believe that we as Uni students have the capability to meet change with an open mind and to respectfully collaborate with our faculty to work things out. The policy isn’t there to interfere with student rights, but to enhance student learning by ensuring that all students do not misuse their phones during class. The policy has already been revised and edited several times since it was shared with students on Jan. 13 through UniWeek and will continue to change with the trial period. If we as Uni students are willing to meet the policy with an open mind, I believe Uni faculty will be just as willing to listen to our feedback and make changes accordingly.
Argument 1: “Uni culture”
The idea of “Uni culture” looks different for different people, but an argument has been made against the phone policy mentioning its misalignment with “Uni culture” that revolves around the trust that faculty have in Uni students — something often perceived as more prominent here compared to other public schools. However, Uni’s uniqueness isn’t rooted in faculty trust, but rather in the maturity and open-mindedness that Uni students demonstrate that allows for this trust to thrive.
As a lab school, Uni is designed to evolve, and this requires students to approach change with an open mind.
The phone policy beginning Jan. 27 is only a trial period. Students will have opportunities to provide feedback through promised feedback forms during this time. Instead of rejecting the policy outright, students should use this opportunity to communicate and work respectfully with faculty, so we can shape the policy into something that works for everyone, while maintaining the trust connecting students and faculty that Uni is known for.
Argument 2: Brain breaks
The requirement of phones being kept in the caddy during brain breaks has been motivated by the observation that phones tend to disturb students from using the time to stretch, move their body, and socialize with other students. It is important to remember that brain breaks are still part of class time, and that faculty are not required to provide them. They do so to help students refocus. Finding new ways to spend those 5-ish minutes might lead to even more productive breaks than what phones could offer.
Argument 3: Caddies
“Why in the caddy?” has also been a common complaint about the new policy. Students have expressed frustration with the delay that occurs when retrieving their phones at the end of class.
In my own experience with the phone policy already enforced in my class before P.E., I have found that getting my phone from the caddy causes maybe a 30-second delay, which isn’t an issue for me; but I understand for some students, especially with the recent weather and icy pavement conditions, it could feel more significant. Since the caddies are newly introduced, though, students should communicate any issues that arise with teachers.
Students have also expressed questions about alternate storage areas like backpacks. Although the policy does not directly address the use of backpacks for alternate storage, it is implied that phones should be stored in class caddies or lockers during class time. The use of caddies over backpacks prevents teachers from having to constantly check if students are misusing their phones after initially leaving them in their backpacks.
Argument 4: Family emergencies and urgent situations
Under the new phone policy, in the case of a family emergency, parents and guardians are asked to contact the school office to reach the teacher in order to let the student know. Written out, these additional steps can seem like a time-consuming hassle. However, when compared to the current situation, where direct messages may not be received until a student checks their phone during class or brain break, unless a student is periodically checking their phone during class, this method can actually be faster.
It is also important to note that the use of phones for an urgent situation (i.e. family emergency or medical necessity) are permitted under the phone policy.
Argument 5: Blanket policy
The term “blanket policy” has been used frequently by those opposing it, with the idea that the policy punishes the entire student body for actions of only a few. The argument is that the whole school being affected by the actions of a small number of students is unfair.
But what kind of non-academic use of phones during class time is justified? Some students may feel that their phone use is responsible and doesn’t interfere with their learning, and the policy isn’t aimed to punish students who are following the rules. For students who use their phones appropriately, the new policy should not cause much of a change, other than keeping their phones in a different location and taking some additional time to store and retrieve them. The policy is not intended to punish but to ensure that all students are held to the same standard.
Other common arguments
Other subjects related to phone use (i.e. using smart watches and using phones for music) have been acknowledged by faculty and have either been added under the policy or included in individual class rules.
