Central Valley School District prepares for new school year with sweeping cell phone prohibition in schools

Central Valley students are the latest subject to a burgeoning trend of cellphone bans in schools.

Starting this school year, the 15,000 students will be prohibited from using their phones during school hours, except high schoolers who retain use during lunchtime, per a policy the school board adopted in March.

Superintendent John Parker said in a recent interview that “it was time” for the restrictions, citing reduced engagement from pupils with their studies and each other emerging from the pandemic-era school closures that brought phone bans to the forefront in conversations around school policy. Regionally, Spokane Public Schools banned phones in classrooms starting last school year, and small district Reardan-Edwall instituted restrictions the year prior.

The policy is similar, but not identical, to the strategy of western neighbor Spokane Public Schools.

The policy applies to all cell phones, smartwatches, headphones and any nonmedical listening devices. Students across all middle and elementary schools will be prohibited from using their devices during the school day. At a high school level, they’ll be allowed to use phones during their lunch break, but not in between classes. In Spokane Public Schools, kids can use their phones during this passing period. Each policy allows for exceptions for emergencies and administrator approval.

Parker said each building can add nuances on enforcement, like specifics on when and how to confiscate phones.

To amend their policy, the district convened a work group of 22: six district parents, five teachers, two counselors, two classified staff and seven district administrators. The team convened to recommend to the school board what a policy could look like in their district, soliciting feedback directly from students and surveys that saw thousands of respondents.

Ultimately, the committee recommended a slightly different policy that allowed high schoolers to use their devices between classes, but the board went in a stricter direction, wanting to establish consistency in their students’ school days.

“Our kids might not be focusing in the classroom as they’re thinking about the next time their phone is in their hand in the hallways,” board member Anneice Barker said the first time the policy recommendation was before the board. “Then they have to go to their next class and basically go through detox, and then they get their fix, and then detox again.”

Matthew Lambert, an executive academic officer, shared the rationale from the committee that recommended allowances during passing periods.

Enforcement would be difficult, Lambert told the board. Teachers should be focusing on preparing for their next class and welcoming their students, not policing the halls, the committee unanimously said.

“Not that we wouldn’t be enforcing it, but it was felt it would be a losing battle when you’ve got 1,300 students coming out of classes and few people that are monitoring it,” Lambert said.

The committee also considered the age of the high schoolers, teenagers who may be employed or have other responsibilities with their families and use their phones for “productive reasons,” Lambert said.

In response to concerns about enforcement, the board approved the funding for a new position at three of the district’s high schools, a sort of hall monitor to patrol high school hallways for contraband phones.

“We didn’t want to shoulder having our teachers being the only individuals outside in the halls policing this,” Parker said.

The district will spend an estimated $50,000 next year for the positions, which may be filled by existing classified staff assuming extra hours, Parker said.

“When you have student voice, parent voice and the community coming together for something they feel so strongly about, it’s easier for our board to fund it,” Parker said.

Last school year, the district piloted a version of the policy at Ridgeline High School, though kids were permitted to use their phones during passing periods.

It went well, said Ridgeline’s Ethan Gingras, who is entering his senior year. Some teachers were stricter than others in enforcing the ban, but overall it resulted in fewer phones in class compared to the year prior.

Gingras said the updated policy that restricts use during passing period is overboard.

“That is like your free time in between classes, and so for them to even implement that you can’t have your phone out during these passing periods, I feel like that’s kind of taking away what passing period means,” he said.

Gingras said for him and his peers, the five minutes between classes is a reprieve from instruction in which many teens scroll TikTok or Instagram, message friends or pop headphones on to listen to music.

Fellow rising senior Dillan Brower agreed that phones “break up the monotony of the day,” saying the devices don’t pose an issue during passing period.

“It’s not like people are running into each other headfirst in the hallways because they’re on their phones,” Brower said.

Though the students were disgruntled to not use their phones between classes, both Ridgeline students said last year’s prohibition “makes sense.”

“Limiting phone use in class is definitely a good thing, because it can be disruptive at times, but there’s no reason for it to be restricted as heavily to the point where it can’t be out in the halls,” Brower said.

A student survey with over 2,400 respondents from all grade levels showed that 60% of students polled either disagreed or strongly disagreed with implementing a restrictive cell phone policy. Another 26% were neutral on the matter, while 14% either agreed or strongly agreed.

Parents and staff felt the opposite, according to two surveys from 714 staff and nearly 2,400 parents. Three-fourths of surveyed staff said they strongly agreed with a restriction, joined by another 20% who agreed. Just 2% of respondents said they disagreed with the proposition, while 3% were neutral on the idea.

Among the surveyed parents, 53% said they strongly agreed, and another 22% agreed. In the disagree or strongly disagree categories were 16% of respondents, while 9% of parents were neutral.

As they amended the cell phone policy last changed in 2011, the school board said they would re-evaluate the policy after its first year in effect, considering whether phones should be allowed during lunch and passing period and whether they’ll continue staffing someone to monitor hallways.

“It’s a bit of a battle, and we’re approaching it as such,” Parker said.