Fayette parents, teachers, principals differ on limiting phones, tablets in classrooms

At the June 24 FCBOE monthly business meeting, technology usage was on the agenda. Across Georgia “screen time” has been a growing issue in the school setting. You can see the complete presentation here.

The presentation starts with survey results broken down into three groups principals (23), teachers(717), and parents (ELEM 535, MID 334. HS 364).

The first question asked how concerned the person was about the amount of “screen time” our students were exposed to. While the definition of screen time was not apparent, and the time is not defined as it was limited to school overall screen time. Eighty two percent of principals were either “very” or “somewhat” concerned. To the same question nearly sixty percent of parents with teachers at fifty seven percent very or somewhat concerned.

Respondents were asked whether they supported efforts to further “regulate” technology in the classroom. Principals responded eight seven percent “yes” and seventy-seven percent of parents said “yes.”

It is interesting slightly over fifty percent of teachers agree. Given the remote perspective of parents and principals to the classroom environment, this disparity is concerning. Fayette County schools are great because of our wonderful and excellent teachers and we need to give weight to their opinion.

Respondents were asked about measures to reduce technology in our schools. The first option was no Chromebook use for the first forty-five days. The next limits classroom Chromebook use to two days a week per classroom. The third limits classroom Chromebook use to one day a week and the last option is none of the above.

The majority of principals (50%) chose the two days a week limit. Sixty three percent of teachers chose “none of the above.” Interestingly, nearly eighty five percent of parents split into two nearly identical sized groups with one supporting the two days supported by the principals, with the other agreeing with the teachers choosing “none of the above.” Again, shouldn’t our teachers’ judgement have higher weight?

We note that our FCBOE has spent millions of dollars on “the classroom of tomorrow” providing Chromebooks to each of our students above a certain grade. When we first introduced technology into our schools, FCBOE tried “bring your own technology” which allowed students to bring in tablets, phones, and other technology to participate. Later we gave the Chromebooks to our students.

A reasonable person can wonder if the Chromebooks are the issue or are the phones, tablets, watches, and gaming systems are a larger contributor to the “screentime issue”. The Chromebooks do not give unfettered access to apps such as Instagram, TikTok, SnapChat, and an endless slew of games.

The last slide of the presentation shows a policy where any device or smartwatch were “not recommended” in elementary schools, must be kept in lockers in middle school, and must be put in the cell pouch in high school. This is where “regulation” may be better served than in micromanaging the classroom.

As the husband of a veteran high school teacher, I have heard the stories from the frontlines of the technology evolution in our schools. My perception is that elimination of personal technology in the classroom would go a long way to reducing classroom distractions and yes, “screentime.”

In a recent example, my wife was giving a world history test, and all technology was supposed to be in the pouch. One student took their phone to their desk. She engaged the student who refused to put the phone in the proper spot. The altercation took ten minutes from the rest of the class. Two different emails from the parent ensued, as well as a conversation with her administrator. That is only one example.

End of the day, non-classroom technology is an unnecessary distraction. Some argue that parents like being able to contact their child or vice versa during the day and no adult wants to deal with child who is deprived of their technology.

However, the survey does not ask about gathering opinions but rather regulation. We need regulations to ban personal technology from the classroom. Leaving technology locked in lockers may be a compromise, but the penalties would need to be clear and enforceable.

Some argue that administrators would be hesitant to enforce such a policy as discipline scores would go down as enforcement actions accumulate. However, if we do not enforce the policies, we leave our students in charge of the classroom as rules go unenforced. A reasonable person can wonder how much this already happens.

End of the day, I went to school with Fred, Barney, Wilma, and Betty back in the rotary phone days. If my parents needed to pass a message along, they would call the school office who would contact me. If I wanted to contact my parents, I would go to the same office and the adults there would assist me.

While finding a better balance with Chromebooks in the classroom is a good idea, removing personal technology from the classroom is a necessity.

[Neil Sullivan is a finance/accounting executive and CPA. He has lived in Peachtree City over 20 years with his wife Jennifer, a Fayette County History teacher and son Jackson, a student at Erskine College. He has been active in public school related issues in Fayette County, leading three E-SPLOST initiatives as chairman of Fayette Citizens for Children. He has appeared previously on these pages in letters to the editor.]