I think MS is a different thing- removing the phones from that environment will be easier.

HS will be much harder. I agree that leaving it up to the teacher to enforce- with weak consequences like “a warning” and a “PT conference”- will never work. Some teachers will prioritize “relationships” and make perfectly reasonable decisions about when they’re okay with phones (after tests, say). But all this muddies the waters and as with parenting, an inconsistently enforced rule is useless.

The high school I work at, for one, has an “away all day” policy but it works about as well as you can imagine because there are no enforced consequences.

Teachers are worried about being seen as difficult if they call security to deal with problem students (for any reason, not just phones- I can’t imagine a teacher calling security for a kid on their phone!). So they just give in.

Phones are really, really hard. There have to be immediate, clear, enforceable, consistent consequences for a good phone policy to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HS teacher here. Sorry if I have a fixed mindset but I’m afraid the damage has been done and cell phones are a lost cause. No way can one teacher manage 30+ students and their cell phones while teaching at the same time. A parent meeting is a consequence? What happens when parents refuse to come in, or can’t come in bc they’re working and demand to have their $1000 phone returned? If they are willing to come in, who has time to run these meetings? Are we hiring cell phone police to do all this? Teachers and Admin are already stretched too thin.

I agree with this. Cell phones in schools were being discussed on Elliot in the Morning a couple of weeks ago and the comments from many callers were basically it's easy to just take it in and use in class and there is no enforcement. One person (a teacher) said that only if there are IMMEDIATE consequences will there be full compliance. "Being warned" is certainly not a consequence. And "mom & dad refusing to come in" as far from a consequence. Like you said, a teacher can't manage 30 phones and teach at the same time. The schools need a second staff member present in each classroom to deal with the phones.

I think it's a lost cause.

In our middle school, if the phone is out, it gets confiscated and goes to the office for the rest of the day. Upon second offense, parent has to come pick it up.

It has been very effective.

I assume this is MCPS in one of the pilot programs? Or if elsewhere, is it a student population that tends to follow the rules?

Who confiscates the phone? The teacher? What if Teacher 1 begins as strict about enforcement and Teacher 2 just lets it slide? How much do the kids argue with Teacher 1 when Teacher 2 doesn't enforce the rules?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Watched the BOE meeting. It was interesting -- particularly the presentation from the Pyle MS and Rockville HS principals.

Rockville HS was the only HS included in the away all day pilot, but it was not actually away all day. It was away during class time but was allowed between classes and during lunch. Several other high schools, not participating in the pilot, have that policy. So it sounds like it's a step in the right direction, but not as strong as what the MS in the pilot are doing.

Right. Rockville was Bell-to-Bell, not Away All Day. So why is MCPS counting it under the Away All Day pilot?

I don't know, especially given that other schools have Bell-to-Bell policies that were not included in the pilot. Really don't make much sense.

From Julie Yang toward the end of the Away All Day Pilot convo:

"When I talked to the Rockville students, they honestly told me if they really say what the communication they do on their phone what's really for communication it's 5% of the time. The rest of the time are chatting or taunting each other."

How come Julie got this confession out of the Rockville HS kids while the principal at that same school is convinced her Bell-to-Bell policy is working and has transformed the school climate and learning environment?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Admin? Are they on their personal phones during school day? Does the ban or away program apply to them also?

You don’t see the difference between the administration and the kids not having access to phones? Come on.

My kids are at a school with this program and it works fine. Even my kids have said that there is so much less drama than last year. It took all of a week for them to get used to it and it’s a non issue now. I’m glad they are going to Rockville for high school. Kids don’t need access to phones in class. They just don’t.

Same at DC's middle school. It is so so much better. Kids griped for the first week or two and now it is a non-issue. I am seriously surprised at the parental opposition to this here.

Because getting into this dilutes the message that we need to be sending to MCPS - which is, please for the love of GOD, for the sake of ALL students, take away the phones!

Why are you sending a phone to school with your child? Monitor your own kid. With all the school violence phones are important.

Phones cause more violence than they solve. And if there is a shooting, and your kid texts you, what are you going to do? If you text back and the phone lights up and gets her killed, how will you feel? If she misses a direction from a staff member bc she was texting you, and she gets killed, how will you feel?

This “but school shootings!” makes no sense to me. That’s exactly when your kid needs to have situational awareness and not have a distracting, beeping device in their pocket!

The problem with your argument is that it assumes teachers and principals are well trained and capable of leading and commanding a group of terrified kids in the midst of a lockdown. As a parent at a school that recently had a lockdown, I can assure that's not the case. The teachers are just as confused and looking to their phones as the kids. MCPS has not trained teachers or principals to the level you're assuming to lead and control kids in these scenarios. It is far more often chaotic.

So in a chaotic, uncontrolled scenario, your kid might be better off having that phone and staying in contact with you.

They might be. But if they are following the no phones during class rule but kids can still have them on their person, this will not be an issue. Which sounds like it is the rule at Rockville. There is a big difference between what will be allowed during a school shooting and what is allowed during regular class time. If the happy medium is that kids are still allowed to carry their phones, just can't use them during class without consequence, I'm fine with that. But you have to start somewhere.

Sure. And I can agree with that.

But then you have to ensure your enforcement mechanisms so that the phone is only used in those scenarios is actually followed.

And what was said, verbatim from Julie Yang's mouth, is that even with those Bell-to-Bell policies, kids are not following the policies and are instead spending way more time doing the wrong things on their phones.

So again: MCPS needs to figure out how to draft and ENFORCE a cell phone policy that achieves the outcomes it's seeking. And right now, Bell-to-Bell won't cut it, unless enforcement is stepped up in a serious way. And what the Rockville HS principal articulated did not sound serious and Julie Yang undercut the principal's rosy take on the policy when she said she talked to Rockville HS students and they admitted they were using the phone when they weren't supposed to without consequence.

From the Board discussion, it sounds like Montoya has concerns about away all day. Other Board members sounded generally supportive of the program.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Admin? Are they on their personal phones during school day? Does the ban or away program apply to them also?

You don’t see the difference between the administration and the kids not having access to phones? Come on.

My kids are at a school with this program and it works fine. Even my kids have said that there is so much less drama than last year. It took all of a week for them to get used to it and it’s a non issue now. I’m glad they are going to Rockville for high school. Kids don’t need access to phones in class. They just don’t.

Same at DC's middle school. It is so so much better. Kids griped for the first week or two and now it is a non-issue. I am seriously surprised at the parental opposition to this here.

Because getting into this dilutes the message that we need to be sending to MCPS - which is, please for the love of GOD, for the sake of ALL students, take away the phones!

Why are you sending a phone to school with your child? Monitor your own kid. With all the school violence phones are important.

Phones cause more violence than they solve. And if there is a shooting, and your kid texts you, what are you going to do? If you text back and the phone lights up and gets her killed, how will you feel? If she misses a direction from a staff member bc she was texting you, and she gets killed, how will you feel?

This “but school shootings!” makes no sense to me. That’s exactly when your kid needs to have situational awareness and not have a distracting, beeping device in their pocket!

The problem with your argument is that it assumes teachers and principals are well trained and capable of leading and commanding a group of terrified kids in the midst of a lockdown. As a parent at a school that recently had a lockdown, I can assure that's not the case. The teachers are just as confused and looking to their phones as the kids. MCPS has not trained teachers or principals to the level you're assuming to lead and control kids in these scenarios. It is far more often chaotic.

So in a chaotic, uncontrolled scenario, your kid might be better off having that phone and staying in contact with you.

They might be. But if they are following the no phones during class rule but kids can still have them on their person, this will not be an issue. Which sounds like it is the rule at Rockville. There is a big difference between what will be allowed during a school shooting and what is allowed during regular class time. If the happy medium is that kids are still allowed to carry their phones, just can't use them during class without consequence, I'm fine with that. But you have to start somewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Admin? Are they on their personal phones during school day? Does the ban or away program apply to them also?

You don’t see the difference between the administration and the kids not having access to phones? Come on.

My kids are at a school with this program and it works fine. Even my kids have said that there is so much less drama than last year. It took all of a week for them to get used to it and it’s a non issue now. I’m glad they are going to Rockville for high school. Kids don’t need access to phones in class. They just don’t.

Same at DC's middle school. It is so so much better. Kids griped for the first week or two and now it is a non-issue. I am seriously surprised at the parental opposition to this here.

Because getting into this dilutes the message that we need to be sending to MCPS - which is, please for the love of GOD, for the sake of ALL students, take away the phones!

Why are you sending a phone to school with your child? Monitor your own kid. With all the school violence phones are important.

Phones cause more violence than they solve. And if there is a shooting, and your kid texts you, what are you going to do? If you text back and the phone lights up and gets her killed, how will you feel? If she misses a direction from a staff member bc she was texting you, and she gets killed, how will you feel?

This “but school shootings!” makes no sense to me. That’s exactly when your kid needs to have situational awareness and not have a distracting, beeping device in their pocket!

The problem with your argument is that it assumes teachers and principals are well trained and capable of leading and commanding a group of terrified kids in the midst of a lockdown. As a parent at a school that recently had a lockdown, I can assure that's not the case. The teachers are just as confused and looking to their phones as the kids. MCPS has not trained teachers or principals to the level you're assuming to lead and control kids in these scenarios. It is far more often chaotic.

So in a chaotic, uncontrolled scenario, your kid might be better off having that phone and staying in contact with you.

All our kids deserve a distraction free education and our teachers deserve a phone free teaching environment. If you really are concerned about what your kid does in an active shooter scenario, then drill them. Make sure they know and have practiced what to do. Being on their phone texting their mommy is not going to help them.

Are you for real? You think parents have the burden, expertise and responsibility to run their kids through safety drills and not the school system and the school building they would be in when said emergency happens, and where parents will not be?

I'm questioning your sanity at this point.

Anonymous wrote:Watched the BOE meeting. It was interesting -- particularly the presentation from the Pyle MS and Rockville HS principals.

Rockville HS was the only HS included in the away all day pilot, but it was not actually away all day. It was away during class time but was allowed between classes and during lunch. Several other high schools, not participating in the pilot, have that policy. So it sounds like it's a step in the right direction, but not as strong as what the MS in the pilot are doing.

Right. Rockville was Bell-to-Bell, not Away All Day. So why is MCPS counting it under the Away All Day pilot?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HS teacher here. Sorry if I have a fixed mindset but I’m afraid the damage has been done and cell phones are a lost cause. No way can one teacher manage 30+ students and their cell phones while teaching at the same time. A parent meeting is a consequence? What happens when parents refuse to come in, or can’t come in bc they’re working and demand to have their $1000 phone returned? If they are willing to come in, who has time to run these meetings? Are we hiring cell phone police to do all this? Teachers and Admin are already stretched too thin.

I agree with this. Cell phones in schools were being discussed on Elliot in the Morning a couple of weeks ago and the comments from many callers were basically it's easy to just take it in and use in class and there is no enforcement. One person (a teacher) said that only if there are IMMEDIATE consequences will there be full compliance. "Being warned" is certainly not a consequence. And "mom & dad refusing to come in" as far from a consequence. Like you said, a teacher can't manage 30 phones and teach at the same time. The schools need a second staff member present in each classroom to deal with the phones.

I think it's a lost cause.

In our middle school, if the phone is out, it gets confiscated and goes to the office for the rest of the day. Upon second offense, parent has to come pick it up.

It has been very effective.

Anonymous wrote:HS teacher here. Sorry if I have a fixed mindset but I’m afraid the damage has been done and cell phones are a lost cause. No way can one teacher manage 30+ students and their cell phones while teaching at the same time. A parent meeting is a consequence? What happens when parents refuse to come in, or can’t come in bc they’re working and demand to have their $1000 phone returned? If they are willing to come in, who has time to run these meetings? Are we hiring cell phone police to do all this? Teachers and Admin are already stretched too thin.

I agree with this. Cell phones in schools were being discussed on Elliot in the Morning a couple of weeks ago and the comments from many callers were basically it's easy to just take it in and use in class and there is no enforcement. One person (a teacher) said that only if there are IMMEDIATE consequences will there be full compliance. "Being warned" is certainly not a consequence. And "mom & dad refusing to come in" as far from a consequence. Like you said, a teacher can't manage 30 phones and teach at the same time. The schools need a second staff member present in each classroom to deal with the phones.

I think it's a lost cause.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Admin? Are they on their personal phones during school day? Does the ban or away program apply to them also?

You don’t see the difference between the administration and the kids not having access to phones? Come on.

My kids are at a school with this program and it works fine. Even my kids have said that there is so much less drama than last year. It took all of a week for them to get used to it and it’s a non issue now. I’m glad they are going to Rockville for high school. Kids don’t need access to phones in class. They just don’t.

Same at DC's middle school. It is so so much better. Kids griped for the first week or two and now it is a non-issue. I am seriously surprised at the parental opposition to this here.

Because getting into this dilutes the message that we need to be sending to MCPS - which is, please for the love of GOD, for the sake of ALL students, take away the phones!

Why are you sending a phone to school with your child? Monitor your own kid. With all the school violence phones are important.

Phones cause more violence than they solve. And if there is a shooting, and your kid texts you, what are you going to do? If you text back and the phone lights up and gets her killed, how will you feel? If she misses a direction from a staff member bc she was texting you, and she gets killed, how will you feel?

This “but school shootings!” makes no sense to me. That’s exactly when your kid needs to have situational awareness and not have a distracting, beeping device in their pocket!

The problem with your argument is that it assumes teachers and principals are well trained and capable of leading and commanding a group of terrified kids in the midst of a lockdown. As a parent at a school that recently had a lockdown, I can assure that's not the case. The teachers are just as confused and looking to their phones as the kids. MCPS has not trained teachers or principals to the level you're assuming to lead and control kids in these scenarios. It is far more often chaotic.

So in a chaotic, uncontrolled scenario, your kid might be better off having that phone and staying in contact with you.

Get real. Ridiculous to think in the extremely rare situation of a school shooter, you will be on the phone with your kid and lead them to safety. Weak and faulty logic

My daughter tells me Poolesville HS is cell phone free except during lunch. Those kids tend to be better at following rules.

Watched the BOE meeting. It was interesting -- particularly the presentation from the Pyle MS and Rockville HS principals.

Rockville HS was the only HS included in the away all day pilot, but it was not actually away all day. It was away during class time but was allowed between classes and during lunch. Several other high schools, not participating in the pilot, have that policy. So it sounds like it's a step in the right direction, but not as strong as what the MS in the pilot are doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How about Admin? Are they on their personal phones during school day? Does the ban or away program apply to them also?

You don’t see the difference between the administration and the kids not having access to phones? Come on.

My kids are at a school with this program and it works fine. Even my kids have said that there is so much less drama than last year. It took all of a week for them to get used to it and it’s a non issue now. I’m glad they are going to Rockville for high school. Kids don’t need access to phones in class. They just don’t.

Same at DC's middle school. It is so so much better. Kids griped for the first week or two and now it is a non-issue. I am seriously surprised at the parental opposition to this here.

Because getting into this dilutes the message that we need to be sending to MCPS - which is, please for the love of GOD, for the sake of ALL students, take away the phones!

Why are you sending a phone to school with your child? Monitor your own kid. With all the school violence phones are important.

Phones cause more violence than they solve. And if there is a shooting, and your kid texts you, what are you going to do? If you text back and the phone lights up and gets her killed, how will you feel? If she misses a direction from a staff member bc she was texting you, and she gets killed, how will you feel?

This “but school shootings!” makes no sense to me. That’s exactly when your kid needs to have situational awareness and not have a distracting, beeping device in their pocket!

The problem with your argument is that it assumes teachers and principals are well trained and capable of leading and commanding a group of terrified kids in the midst of a lockdown. As a parent at a school that recently had a lockdown, I can assure that's not the case. The teachers are just as confused and looking to their phones as the kids. MCPS has not trained teachers or principals to the level you're assuming to lead and control kids in these scenarios. It is far more often chaotic.

So in a chaotic, uncontrolled scenario, your kid might be better off having that phone and staying in contact with you.

All our kids deserve a distraction free education and our teachers deserve a phone free teaching environment. If you really are concerned about what your kid does in an active shooter scenario, then drill them. Make sure they know and have practiced what to do. Being on their phone texting their mommy is not going to help them.