Name: Period: Cellular Telephone Bans

• 
  Summary of Arguments
  
• 
  The Public Embraces Wireless Technology
  
• 
  Parents and Students Fight to Overturn Cell Phone Bans
  
• 
  Ban Is Necessary, Backers Say
  
• 
  Cell Phone Ban Criticized
  
• 
  The Future of Cell Phone Bans
  

GT students must read all sections of the article. On-grade level students must read the underlined sections and may read the additional sections.

• 
  Supporters of cell phone bans say: Mobile phones serve as a distraction when they are used in a classroom environment. Students may use their phones for a variety of unsavory activities, ranging from cheating on exams and picking fights to coordinating drug deals. In order to make schools safer and more conducive to learning, students should not be permitted to use cell phones on campus.
  
• 
  Critics of cell phone bans say: For the most part, students use wireless technology responsibly and without disrupting classes. Rather than institute a wholesale ban on cell phones, schools should punish cell phone abusers on a case-by-case basis. Also, parents need their children to have mobile phones to facilitate communication in the event of an emergency.
  

However, the nation's embrace of cell phone technology has not pleased everyone, especially not school administrators. Indeed, as cell phone use has become more prevalent among American youth, schools around the country have found themselves competing against wireless devices for students' attention. Many teachers and principals allege that ringing cell phones and text-messaging students interfere with classroom activities and disrupt the learning process. Reacting to such complaints, many school boards around the country have controversially cracked down on student cell phone use. [See 2006 One School's Cellular Telephone Policy (sidebar)]

School cell phone restrictions, the first of which were implemented in the late 1980s and early 1990s, have varied in severity over the years. Some school districts have implemented outright bans, threatening offending students with suspensions. School administrators in Louisiana even threatened student cell phone users with jail time for violating the bans during the 1990s, though that policy has since been overturned. Others, meanwhile, have tried a more lenient approach, allowing students to carry cell phones, but requiring that the devices be turned off while students are on school property.

The attempted crackdowns in states such as Texas, Virginia, Michigan and New York have been greeted with a mixture of enthusiasm and contempt. While school administrators and teachers traditionally support prohibitions on cell phone use, students and parents often protest the restrictions. Most students insist that they use their phones responsibly, and do not disrupt classroom activities. Parents, for their part, assert that their children should have cell phones to facilitate communication in the event of an emergency.

As school boards debate the merits and drawbacks of cell phone bans, a number of questions have surfaced regarding the relationship between young people and wireless technology. For example, can students be trusted to use their cell phones in a manner that does not interfere with a classroom's learning environment? Should teachers be concerned that students may be using text-messaging functions on their phones to cheat on exams? And are bans imposed by a local school board even enforceable?

Supporters of student cell phone bans say that wireless technology distracts students from learning. Young people use their phones to chat with friends, send text messages or listen to music when they should instead be concentrating on their education, backers of bans contend. By prohibiting cell phone use on school property, proponents say, school administrators can increase student participation in classroom activities and allow teachers to more easily command the attention of their students.

Cell phones on school campuses are also dangerous because they contribute to criminal activity and cheating, some ban advocates assert. Those supporters cite cell phone theft as a frequent problem on school grounds, and charge that students sometimes use their phones to coordinate drug deals. Furthermore, they warn, students can use technologically advanced cell phones to take photos of exams or send test answers to a classmate in order to facilitate cheating.

Opponents of school cell phone bans, on the other hand, assert that schools' attempts to regulate students' cell phone use are misguided. For the most part, critics say, students use wireless technology responsibly and refrain from making or receiving calls while in the classroom. Instead, students usually use their phones before or after classes in order to minimize the disruption, ban opponents assert.

While they acknowledge that some students use their phones inappropriately on school property, critics maintain that it is not fair to punish all students for the actions of a few. Ban opponents recommend that school authorities confiscate phones or punish students on a case-by-case basis, rather than implement a blanket ban on all cell phone use. By prohibiting student cell phone use altogether, they warn, schools also sever an important communication link between students and parents, hindering students' ability to contact their families in the event of an emergency.

The Public Embraces Wireless Technology

After the federal government first allowed telecommunications businesses to develop and run wireless telephone networks in the early 1980s, it was only a matter of time before portable communication devices were introduced to the general public. The first such device to enjoy widespread popularity was the pager, a small electronic apparatus that received phone messages transmitted by radio waves.

By the mid-1980s, the cell phone had joined the pager among the forms of wireless technology gaining public acceptance. But unlike pagers, early cell phone models were bulky, and not easy to carry around. For that reason, pagers remained the wireless communications device of choice for the remainder of that decade and into the early 1990s.

Students in schools across the country owned pagers, largely due to their novelty and affordability. The devices were relatively unobtrusive in an academic setting, until school administrators noticed an unsettling trend: Apparently many drug dealers used pagers to arrange meetings with clients.

After that use of pagers became widely known, school districts and state legislatures around the U.S. rushed to impose bans on pager use on school property. The crackdown sparked little opposition at the time, since many believed that outlawing pagers would help curb illicit drug sales in and around schools. In the rush to ban pagers, some school districts also instituted a prohibition on other forms of wireless technology, including cell phones.

During the 1990s, as cell phones became smaller and easier to transport, they enjoyed a surge in popularity among both adults and students. However, students caught using the devices on school property could be subject to harsh punishment. In Florida, a student found in possession of a cell phone could receive a 10-day suspension from school. In Louisiana, cell phone possession on school property could earn the offender a 30-day stint in jail.

Despite the severe penalties threatened in some areas, growing numbers of students began carrying cell phones as the 1990s progressed. Analysts linked the trend to technological developments in the wireless electronics industry that resulted in smaller, cheaper and more powerful phones.

As cell phones became more prevalent on school campuses during the late 1990s and early 2000s, some state legislatures reconsidered their existing bans on the devices. Maryland and Virginia, for example, struck down statewide prohibitions on cell phones in schools and instead gave local school districts the power to design their own cell phone policies. While some school districts in those two states elected to uphold the existing ban, others adopted a more relaxed attitude, and permitted students to carry cell phones on campus so long as the devices were not used.

Parents and Students Fight to Overturn Cell Phone Bans

In 1999 and 2001, two watershed events occurred in the U.S. that redefined how many people thought about cell phone use in schools. The first incident took place on April 20, 1999, when two students at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo., went on a shooting rampage, murdering 12 students and one teacher and wounding 24 other students before committing suicide. As the rampage unfolded, several students in the school contacted law-enforcement authorities and family members via cell phone to inform them of the situation. Many observers said that the students' use of cell phones that day helped the police respond more quickly to the shootings.

The second event took place on Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists hijacked airliners and crashed them in New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa. On that day, parents of students in the affected areas used cell phones to get in touch with their children and make sure they had not been harmed. In the aftermath of the attacks, parents throughout the country campaigned vigorously to have school cell phone bans overturned, arguing that the devices could act as lifelines in emergency situations.

An October 2001 statement released by the Yankee Group, a Boston, Mass.-based consulting and research firm, predicted that cell phones would continue to play an important role in emergency situations. "The widespread use of wireless phones and other devices on [Sept. 11] will lead many consumers and corporations to view wireless technologies as necessities rather than conveniences," the company asserted.

But despite the well-documented usefulness of cell phones in emergencies, the devices remained problematic in some school districts. As students' phones became more technologically advanced, with text messaging and photographic features, school administrators fretted over the implications. Gayle Fallon, head of the Houston (Texas) Federation of Teachers, alleged that cell phones had "brought new meaning to cheating," since students in her district were apparently using their phones to share answers on exams.

Consequently, while some schools caved in to parental pressure and repealed existing cell phone bans, others remained steadfast in their conviction that a classroom environment without cell phone interruptions was more conducive to learning. But ban or no ban, statistics released by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in 2005 showed that 45% of children between the ages of 12 and 17 possessed their own phone.

Some technology analysts construed those figures to mean that if schools were prohibiting cell phone use, they were not enforcing the bans very strictly. In fact, many schools have acknowledged that they have informal "don't ask, don't tell" cell phone policies, whereby students are allowed to carry phones on school property so long as they do not let faculty members see them.

As of mid-2006, school districts in New York and Texas, among other places, are debating whether to uphold or repeal cell phone bans at their schools. In many places, observers say, the debate over student cell phone use has essentially become an annual ritual. But despite years of struggling with the issue, they say, U.S. schools seem no closer to adopting a uniform policy than they were 15 years ago.

Ban Is Necessary, Backers Say

Many elected leaders and school administrators contend that school cell phone bans are necessary because students' cell phone use interrupts the learning process. By using their phones to listen to music, chat with friends, play games, take photos or send text messages, students become distracted and cannot focus on lessons being presented by their teacher in the classroom, supporters of a ban say. "The reality is that if cell phones are allowed in our schools, they will be used, and they will be used inappropriately," asserts New York City Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott.

Banning cell phone use in schools helps preserve the "sanctity of the classroom," according to Mary Beth King, a trustee on the Plano, Texas, school board. If cell phones were permitted on school grounds, King asserts, students would be unlikely to focus on educational activities, since they would be busy interacting with friends, playing video games or skipping class altogether. Paul Schlichtman, a member of the Arlington (Mass.) School Committee, elaborates:

Some cell phone ban proponents oppose wireless technology in school because, they say, cell phones and other devices can foster academic dishonesty. As evidence, those backers cite accounts of students using phones with advanced technological features to cheat on their tests. "It's becoming more and more of a problem," insists James McSwain, principal of Lamar High School in Houston, Texas. Cell phones, he says, "enable cheating academically. You can text-message quietly. You can take pictures."

Other supporters contend that cell phone bans will lead to a decrease in on-campus crime. Backers say that cell phones are appealing to thieves because they are sometimes valuable and are relatively easy to steal, due to their small size. Indeed, in New York City schools alone, nearly 700 phones were stolen during the 2005-06 academic year, according to Walcott.

Cell phones generate crime in other ways, backers of cell phone bans add. Sometimes, they claim, bullies use their phones to arrange fights with other students, specifying a time and place where the parties should meet to fight. In other cases, ban supporters say, students use their phones to coordinate drug deals on school property. If student cell phone use was eliminated, proponents argue, on-campus crime rates would likely drop as a result.

Supporters of cell phone bans also dispute critics' assertion that student cell phone use is important in the event of a emergency. While many parents claim that their children must have cell phones so that they can be reached at critical moments, backers insist that parents can easily reach their children by contacting the school. Consequently, the argument that cell phones enhance students' safety is not valid, they say. "Should an emergency arise and a student needs access to a phone, they can use a phone in the office of any of our schools," says Mike Keeney, a spokesman for the Aldine Independent School District in Texas.

Finally, some ban proponents criticize students' devotion to--and apparent reliance on--wireless technology. Those supporters point out that prior to the 1990s, people of all ages managed their daily lives without the aid of cell phones. The public's ability to live without the devices for most of the 20th century proves that mobile phones are not essential to human existence, supporters contend. "Students functioned well before cell phones," says Dave Szychlinski, former president of Wisconsin's Franklin School Board. "They're not necessary for students in their daily activities."

Cell Phone Ban Criticized

Critics of student cell phone bans argue that, despite what opponents say, wireless technology can help enhance student safety. In the event of an emergency, such as a kidnapping or a school shooting, opponents say, phones can act as a vital link between students and adults. Also, given that students often travel alone as they go to school in the morning or attend after-school activities later in the day, mobile phones allow parents to check in with their children periodically to ensure that nothing has happened to them, opponents of bans assert.

"There are valid reasons for kids to have cell phones," remarks Ned Waterhouse, deputy superintendent of schools for Virginia's Loudon County, where cell phone policy was changed in early 2001 to permit students to carry turned-off cell phones. "A lot of parents want them for safety's sake," he adds.

In general, many parents oppose student cell phone bans because they say that wireless technology helps give them peace of mind regarding their children's whereabouts, which they would not otherwise have. Since mobile phones strengthen communications between parent and child, they say, the devices should not be banned, but rather embraced. "I had many an anxious night when [my children] were late and I didn't know where they were," says Susan Carr, a parent of a student at Manhattan Hunter Science High School in New York City. "I no longer have to endure that. Why should I?"

The U.S. student population, which is almost uniformly opposed to cell phone bans, says the prohibitions are unnecessary because most students use their phones responsibly while on school property. If students are told to turn their phones off during class, most comply, opponents say. "We just follow the rules," says Erin Banks, a junior at Houston's Lamar High School. "I leave mine in my purse."

While critics acknowledge that some students use their phones inappropriately during school hours, they maintain that all students should not be punished for the actions of a few. Rather than institute a total ban on cell phone use on campus, school administrators should handle problems individually, opponents contend. "I would prefer to confiscate devices and charge in-school suspensions for in-school users or disrupters on a case-by-case basis, but not ban possession by students who use them responsibly," says Curt Johnston, a board member on Georgia's Cobb County School Board.

Some opponents assert that by banning cell phones, school boards and state legislatures are showing that they are resistant to technological innovations and cannot adapt to changes in society. Whereas ban supporters see only the problems posed by wireless technology, they say, ban opponents see cell phones as devices full of possibility. For example, they say, as technology advances, students might eventually use their phones as an academic tool. Indeed, according to some technology experts, mobile phones may eventually have uses as calculators, dictionaries and Internet browsers that can be used for research.

"I believe it is our job to teach people how to use technology effectively," says Dick Nepon, a former member of the Allentown (Pa.) School Board. "It's not our job to make administration's task easier at the expense of slowing technology's intrusion into public school life."

With cell phones no longer being the novelty that they were at the dawn of the 1990s, people are gradually becoming more aware of when it is appropriate--and when it is inappropriate--to use them in public. "We see that people are beginning to put up boundaries and evolve social norms about when and where they should use their cell phones," says Delly Tamer, chief executive officer (CEO) of LetsTalk.com. She adds, "Bathrooms, movies and theaters are out. Cars and supermarkets are in." But what about schools? [See 2006 Suggested Guidelines for Using a Cellular Telephone Responsibly (sidebar)]

Since school boards and state legislatures have been wrestling with the concept of school cell phone bans for more than a decade, observers say that it is unlikely that a definitive national policy will emerge in the coming years. Part of the problem, they say, is that both sides of the debate are strongly convinced that the other side is wrong.

While teachers and administrators largely view mobile phones as nuisances that must be restricted, parents and students view cell phones as convenient tools of modern life that come in handy during emergency situations. The only element of the ongoing debate that is not disputed by either side, it seems, is that cell phones are growing more and more prevalent in American society.