The path to achieving that is complicated, and in some ways self-contradictory — especially given the wide range of opinions on the matter.
On one hand, they'll need time to thoroughly gather input from members of the community, and use that feedback to make their decision, said Scott Newman-Bale, chairperson of the board of education. That would suggest a slow and deliberate approach.
On the other hand, district principals also have warned trustees that, if a new policy is approved, they'll need enough time before the school year to adequately introduce it — and introducing the policy mid-year would be an uphill battle. That suggests time is of the essence.
Those are some of the factors trustees will have to weigh when they discuss a possible "away for the day" policy during a special meeting at 5 p.m. today at the Tompkins Boardman Administration Building.
While some specifics of the policy have yet to be hammered out, it would generally mean students' cell phones would have to be turned off and out of sight for the entirety of the school day.
Exemptions would be granted for extenuating circumstances, such as medical conditions.
As it stands now, public opinion on the issue seems fairly split, Newman-Bale said.
"It's not going to be universally accepted," he said. "It's going to be hard for students to adjust."
One method the district has used to gauge public support so far is a survey that went out to parents, students and teachers. The responses, which were collected up until a week ago, back up Newman-Bale's assessment.
Among high schoolers, in particular, the idea seems roundly panned. Between Traverse City, Central, and West High School, an estimated 428 students responded. Not a single one reported a favorable, or even neutral, response to an "away for the day" policy.
Middle schoolers were more evenly split, at 39 percent favorable or neutral.
So were adults. Teachers across all grade levels were favorable or neutral toward to policy at a rate of 42 percent. Parents or guardians across all grade levels — 47 percent.
There is a margin of error of five across the survey, according to the district.
It was parents and community members who brought the issue forward to the board in the first place.
In late May, parents started to push for a change to the district's cellphone policy by bringing their concerns to that month's board of education office hours.
About a dozen community members — parents, teachers, and one fifth grade student — appeared at the following month's board meeting to speak on the issue.
The tide of support seemed to largely stem from an advisory from U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy's office, which came out in May — mere days before the TCAPS office hours session.
The advisory stated that it can't be concluded that social media is safe for children and adolescents.
Proponents of a policy change have cited the growing reports of isolation and loneliness in the past decade, coinciding with the rise in cellphone use.
In June, some community members cited statistics similar to those published by Pew research, which shows that about 45 percent of teenagers report being online "on a near constant basis," if no restrictions are put in place.
Also according to Pew, nearly 54 percent of teens say they spend too much time on their phone.
"Nobody has said, 'Hey, we want cellphones in the school, because we think it's good for kids' mental health, and we think it's good for learning,'" said Jay Berger, co-founder of local task force Safer Kids, Safer Schools. "Nobody says that. They say 'It's hard to enforce' and 'I think our kids should be able to listen to music.'
"Well, my answer is, guess what? They can do that when they're not in school."
Aside from enforcement, other arguments against the policy change include concerns about student safety, and being able to communicate with students for reminders, planning and reassurance, according to the district's survey responses.
Some of those concerns can easily be addressed within the policy, said Newman-Bale.
Berger said there's "nothing magical about September," in regards to having the policy settled by the start of the school year.
"I just want the change to happen, because I feel strongly that it's hurting our kids," he said.
Brian Lettinga, the parent of a Traverse City Central High student, has been critical of the proposed policy change, as well as the survey, which he said was "very weak" and "didn't really get to the crux of the situation."
Lettinga, who has worked previously as an international educator and currently works for an international teacher placement firm, suggested the district "pump the brakes" on the discussion, potentially to facilitate more student engagement.
"As an educational leader, it's important to bring kids with you on that journey," he said. "Especially when it deals with technology — something that's super important to them."
He said a more restrictive policy makes sense for elementary and middle school students, but seems "counterproductive" for high school students, whose development includes learning to balance more responsibilities and independence.
Cellphones can be a distraction, but they also can be a positive tool, he said.
"I haven't seen any evidence from the school that said what we're doing now isn't working," he said. "So why are we rushing to do something in the summer when you can't get full support?"
Rather than placing unilateral restrictions, he suggested the district should incorporate lessons into its curriculum on healthy technology usage.
In February, the National Education Association reported that roughly 77 percent of school districts had some form of cellphone ban in place in 2020. In the prior decade, that percentage had fallen from 90 percent in 2009 to 67 percent in 2015, before creeping back up again.
One compelling basis for supporting a more restrictive policy is that studies have shown a correlation between cellphone bans and positive test results, Newman-Bale said.
It's the board of education's job to maximize the "responsible use of taxpayer funds to educate our constituents," he said.
"I can say that we're definitely not looking to pass a policy just to ... showboat," he said. "We want it to be for good reasoning and be practical and enforceable as well."
Still, he said the board still has time to work out the best path forward. If trustees don't come to a decision at the special meeting this week, they still have a regular board meeting scheduled Aug. 14.
"I don't think this is a contentious issue," said Berger. "Not that it's an easy issue, or that it's a black-and-white issue. I think there's a lot of shades of gray in it.
"But I think the beauty of it is people are trying to advocate for kids, and we want kids to know that they're important, and that they're valued."
©2023 The Record-Eagle (Traverse City, Mich.). Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
