During Thursday night’s BOE meeting, the final business meeting of the year and the last, ever, in the existing CMS auditorium, the board voted 5-3 in favor of directing the superintendent, Dr. Toni Jones, to update the regulation to require GHS to have cell phones off and away all day, “bell to bell,” beginning with the 2026-2027 school year.
The action item was Electronic Resources – Cell Phones and Personal Devices Regulation.
During public comment, Gabriel Elezaj, outgoing student body president, supported the bell-to-bell cell phone ban.
“If you walk into our cafeteria and look at the tables I can almost guarantee you will find a full table of students sitting together, but also completely alone on their phones. We are the most connected generation in history, but somehow the loneliest.”
“Force us to talk to the person across the table because that to me is worth far more than anything else.”
Lisa Sylvester, PTAC president, said the GHS PTA co-presidents wanted the board to be aware there was neither consensus in the community, nor broad support for a bell-to-bell ban at GHS.
She noted there was a cell phone policy study committee that met several times in the 24-25 school year to consider the question. It was made up of teachers, administrators, parents and students and made some recommendations that have been recommended and concluded the current approach to have phones “off and away” was working.
“A bell to bell ban on cellphones at GHS without first re-engaging with a broad group of administrator, educator, parents and student stakeholders is not appropriate at this time,” Ms Sylvester said.
She added that there was no consensus among the PTAC board.
GPS parent James Walsh said the policy was not ready for a vote, the language needed more work and impacts fully understood, and unintended consequences might be to place more stress on teachers, more stress on students and fail to prepare them for real life.
He noted the language in the new regulation defined “bell to bell” as when the student enters the building in the morning until when they leave the building in the afternoon.
“This not only in the GHS building, but also removes the ability for students to use cell phones during before and after school clubs, during sports and activities, and it also removes the ability of teachers to allow students to use students to use phones on occasion for instructional purposes.”
“This is also far more restrictive than state bans across the country, including New York where they define bell-to-bell as no unsanctioned use of smart phones or other personal devices during the school day, from the start of instruction until dismissal. This allows room for educators to approve classroom cell phone use when educationally appropriate.”
Catherine McKersie asked the board if thought had been given to who would police the policy during lunch, in hallways and in other areas. “Will you hire more staff? …What do GHS administration and teachers have to say?”
She said a new cell phone regulation committee should be formed.
During public comment several GHS students spoke against the ban.
Maddy Jones said, “We’re adults at this point in high school – or at least seniors are. I think it’s important to learn how to control your actions rather than be forced to take the the decision out of your hand.”
She said it was important for students to have access to call a parent or therapist during the school day.
She said she took the point of kids not talking during lunch because they’re on their phones and suggested maybe limiting the ban to lunchtime.
Another student, Caitlin Quinn described a total ban as counter productive.
“We use our phones during free time to share music, show each other videos, plan after school sports and clubs and coordinate group projects.”
She said teachers, who already manage heavy workloads, would be the ones to carry out the policy.
“Seniors are already legal adults, or about to turn 18 and trusted with significant responsibilities, including the privilege to leave campus during open periods. It’s contradictory to trust a student to drive a car off campus for lunch, yet deem them too irresponsible to manage their own smart phones during that same break,” she added. “At the very least, seniors should be exempt.”
Diana Davidson, a rising senior, said, “Like it or not technology and the distractions that come with it are part of our world. Students need to learn how to manage the temptations of technology within reason. Phone pockets this year allowed us to ensure that respect is paid to teachers, however in unstructured times, students need to learn how to manage it themselves.”
“Next year I will be able to vote, enlist in the US military and sign legally binding contracts,” Diana said. “If I’m entrusted with increased responsibilities as an adult I should be responsible for managing my cell phone use during unstructured time at school.”
Abraham Rosenschein, a junior, said “The draft notes that GHS students are very busy, and activities after school means students are often on campus or returning from activities after dark, which is entirely true. Yet, in explicitly recognizing that our afternoons are often packed with sports and clubs, the proposition contradicts its own logic, to omit our own study flexibility during the day. By restricting laptop use during lunch to a few select spaces, the draft forces heavy workloads onto many students way into the night. This late night cramming impacts our well-being, which will be detrimental to our very mental health the regulation wishes to protect.”
He said teachers were already losing patience, especially with increasing class sizes.
“I believe they won’t just take on the role of monitoring cell phone use, which will probably require hiring new proctors,” he said.
BOE chair Dr. Michael-Joseph Mercanti-Anthony said the draft reg that as circulated could be changed.
He noted the board would only vote to direct the superintendent to revise the current regulation to include a bell-to-bell ban in the high school.
Dr. Jones said “the management aspect” would have to be worked out.
Board member Wendy Vizzo Walsh spoke passionately against the ban, and talked about teaching students responsibility.
“I agree students should not be using their phones during instructional time. That is already our policy and I fully support it,” she said. “I’m a no tonight because we’re missing a critical opportunity to teach full responsibility to emerging adults.”
Also she said there was a lack of an operational plan.
“Every major system at GHS relies on students using their phones: digital ID to enter the building, lunch purchases, checking out books in the library, and verifying schedules. The proposal does not explain how any of these systems will be replaced.”
“We do not have enough information, and the community only heard about this two weeks ago…this feels rushed and we should not be voting without a clear operational plan, draft regulation, and cost analysis.”
Dr. Jones shared a presentation prepared by the district’s safety team with basic data, including “adjustment horizon” which starts with “implementation shock” in year 1.
Then, in Year 2 negative friction starts to fade away. Jones said anecdotally, based on colleagues in surrounding districts, students are happier and healthier after phone bans.
She said enforcement would result in “a strain we would have to figure out.”
“The districts that have had success in implementation is when they see a cell phone – it has to be confiscated. Their parents need to come pick them up. In the districts that started out enforcing that from day 1, it’s been okay,” Jones said.
The superintendent pointed out that cell phones are in bags or lockers up through 8th grade, so students are used to that when they arrive at GHS.
“I think it’s not going to be as difficult for us,” she said. “I think when we chat with the high school it will be interesting. There have been discussions whether it should look different for seniors than for freshmen and sophomores. We’re having a lot of discussions in general about off-campus behavior and how you treat upperclassmen a bit differently.”
She said phones can be dangerous in a true emergency, if for example 2700 students all make a call at the same time, it could halt the system.
Karen Krause spoke in favor of the ban and said it would reduce distraction and bullying.
“As a few parents have pointed out, phones are effectively secondhand smoke. You don’t have to have a phone without being negatively impacted by it,” she said. ” Most importantly, not having access to the phone teaches students to plan ahead, be more organized and being more independent.”
Karen Hirsh said she agreed with Ms Vizzo Walsh in opposing the ban.
“I’m confused at how in two weeks we went from ‘off and away,’ to a full ‘bell to bell ban’ and restrictions on computers at lunch. Our statement at the high school is freedom with responsibility. We’re aiming to prepare these students for the real world and no one is going to tell them they can’t use their cell phones appropriately when they’re in college or at a job.”
Hirsh said there was only one year of a policy to have students put phones in pouches during class.
Sophie Koven said she agreed with Ms Krause. She mentioned an email from a teacher who described walking around the media center where students are watching TV shows and movies.
“You’re sitting down and you’re putting your earbuds in and watching a movie. I don’t know why that is something we would be promoting,” Koven said, noting students can bring laptops from home and use their cell phone to get on the internet to streaming. “And by the way, I hope it is an appropriate one.”
“It’s so unfair to the students who are doing the work, or in downtime are trying to socialize and they walk into the student center and everyone has earbuds in and is watching a movie,” Koven added. “The language of the regulation needs to be really nuanced. I’m sure Dr. Jones will work with her team, administrators and some of the teachers, but this feels like a huge problem to me.”
Jones said she wished the district hadn’t implemented the digital ID, and it would be necessary to issue regular hard copy IDs under a bell-to-bell ban.
Also, she said it would be important for office direct phone numbers to be manned and not go to voicemail.
“If grandma is sick and went to the hospital and they want to come pick their student up, we want to make sure we’re answering phones,” she said, adding that 60 or 70% of teachers surveyed in the GEA had supported the state legislation proposed last year to ban cell phones in schools, though that was withdrawn.
Dr. Mercanti-Anthony, who supported the ban, said the national conversation was inspired by Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Anxiety Generation.
“Half of our high schoolers self-report spending 3 hours or more a day on their phones. 11% spend 5 hours a day. 46% point to reduced sleep. 71% feel more productive when they limit their smart phone use, and 75% of our teenagers say they have tried to reduce their cell phone use. This is as Jonathan Haidt said, this is the rewiring of childhood.”
“You can think of all of the lost hours, that all of us did have as teenagers, that this addictive device that has been designed by these tech companies to be addictive, has stolen. It’s time for us as a local community to say enough. No more Facebook. No more YouTube.”
He noted 28 states had already banned cell phones in schools.
“It’s not our kids fault. They’ve been manipulated by the technology industry,” he added.
The vote was 5-3.
Voting YES in favor of directing Dr. Jones to flesh out a regulation for the bell-to-bell ban were:
Dr. Michael-Joseph Mercanti-Anthony
Veronica Chiavaroli
Bob Chaney
Sophie Koven
Karen Krause
Voting NO were:
Karen Hirsh
Paul Cappiali
Wendy Vizzo-Walsh