“…the requirement of governments to have Education turn policy into action so quickly has placed a significant burden on school leadership. The weight for actualizing [these policies] falls upon the school districts/divisions and then the schools themselves with the final landing spot being the classroom
teacher.” Center for Trauma Informed Practices
This September will mark a unique moment in Canadian educational policy. Although the start up to the school year is often defined by changes in policy across individual educational jurisdictions, the 2024-25 school year will henceforth be known as the year Canadian schools decided to ban cell phones.
There is a bit of hyperbole in that statement. Policy makers in Newfoundland and Labrador, have determined that a ban is unnecessary, preferring to rely rather on teaching “responsible use”. Quebec has had a cell phone ban in place since the beginning of 2024. Ontario implemented a ban of sorts back in 2019, but lack of follow through, unclear guidelines and the pandemic rendered that effort all but useless.
As a result, the Ford government has created a brand new set of cell phone guidelines for the fall, joining Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, BC, PEI, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba in attempts to stem the tide of distracted learning due to cell phone use in class.
It should come as no surprise that those of us on the leading edge of this one may be experiencing a bit of trepidation about what this will all mean come September. School staff, parents, and most particularly, the kids themselves, will be looking to quickly understand the new rules.
One possible source of guidance that is currently being circulated among educators comes from The Center for Trauma Informed Practices. The CTIP, which has offices in both Canada and the US, promotes itself as existing “to develop comprehensive trauma-informed strategies” for organizations to help “…better mitigate the psychological and systemic response to trauma.” The organization has created a free guide for Canadian schools to suggest how trauma informed practices can help with the transition to phoneless schools.
Entitled “The use of personal mobile devices in Canadian schools: Trauma informed and systems oriented guidelines and resources for implementation“, the guide starts with the somewhat obvious premise that the cell phone ban has a likely probability of causing conflict within the education system. It is also very quick to recognize that any effort to mitigate that conflict will come down to communication. If the policy’s rationale is not properly explained, there is a risk that it will “ignite a symbolic ’cause’ that some students, parents and caregivers may organize around.”
The CTIP divides those impacted by the new policies into three broad groups: students, educational staff, and parents/caregivers, and provides some interesting insights into both the challenges inherent in the policy, and some suggestions as to how to make the policy work.
For students, the new rules will mark a significant shift in their daily reality, and not just in regards to their social connectivity. For example, many young people listen to music while working in class, which, according to students interviewed by the CTIP, reduces their anxiety and helps them focus on their lessons. One can understand why a senior high student who has used this as a strategy since elementary school might be anxious about this year’s upcoming calculus class.
Educators are primarily concerned about implementing the policy and monitoring phone use. For example, if student “A” needs to listen to music to focus, should not everyone in the class be afforded the same opportunity? What of students who require their phones for translation, a reality which is becoming much more common in today’s classroom? The new policies, although well intentioned, will do little to help teachers with, as the CTIP puts it, “leveraging the benefits of technology to enhance education while managing the potential downside.”
The guide also acknowledges that in this day and age, personal mobile devices (PMDs) have become part of parenting. PMDs are awarded for good behaviour, taken away for bad, and provide an emotional connection between parents and children. As a father, I am not ashamed to admit that more than one “I love you! You’ve got this!” text appeared on my own child’s phone at what the teacher in me might not have considered an appropriate time.
To help mitigate the risks of a rocky start, the CTIP suggests that schools begin by reducing focus on the punitive nature of the policies. Emphasis should instead be placed on corrective measures that do not heighten anxiety in either students or their parents. Replacing directives like “Students are not allowed to use cell phones during school hours” with “To maintain a focused and engaging learning environment, we ask that students keep their cell phones put away during class” would allow schools to adopt a softer tone without reducing enforceability.
When it comes to the students themselves, reducing anxiety will come through having frank and meaningful discussions at the classroom level. Giving students authentic opportunities to have their voices heard is key, as is education on why the use of personal devices is being limited in the first place.
The responsibility for having these conversations will ultimately fall to staff, who will need to be consistent and clear in their expectations. They, themselves, however, will need to understand the rationale behind the new policy, and, more importantly, have their classroom expectations supported by school administration, who will, in turn, need support from the district.
Finally, parents will need to be a major part of the conversation. The CTIP suggests that parents set clear expectations at home around the new policies, and speak with their children about the responsible use of digital devices. They also suggest that parents educate both themselves and their children on the benefits of the new policies, which are ultimately designed to help children succeed at school.
The curmudgeon in me recognizes that many of these suggestions are very much “pie-in-the-sky”. Teenagers are not generally known to want to halt a behaviour simply because teachers say it’s bad for them. The time and training offered to teachers to prepare for and then have these conversations is scarce, even non-existent in some contexts. Finally, the capacity of parents to engage meaningfully with their child’s education varies wildly across a myriad of societal factors.
Still, the CTIP report is a starting point. Regardless of any reservations I may have, September is upon us, as are the new cell phone policies. Considering the mounting evidence of the negative correlation between digital devices and student success, this particular policy seems well worth the effort.
frostededucation 