In March 2024, a book called the “The Anxious Generation” – a #1 New York Times bestseller linking the youth mental health crisis to devices – was published. In December 2024, Kansas educational leadership published new recommendations to limit device use in school districts. And as many of us know, at the beginning of the 2025-2026 school year, USD 383 implemented a new policy on personal electronic devices.
The policy, which aims to improve student achievement, student engagement and student well-being, prohibits personal devices during class time, placing violators on a disciplinary “continuum.” However, devices are still allowed outside of class during specified times.
The Mentor Editorial Board believes that overall, this policy has had a positive impact on our community. Students have become more attentive – and productive – in class. When they’re disconnected from devices, they spend more time connecting to peers.
However, the policy can also be rigid and inflexible, punishing students for technicalities or minor errors and overlooking certain cases where devices actually enhance the learning experience.
In some cases, students have made honest mistakes and forgotten to put their device away when class began. Or they were using an object that looked like a prohibited device but wasn’t — such as a calculator — but were put on the continuum anyway. The policy was – rightly – intended to keep students from deliberately using their devices for non-educational purposes in class, an act which disrespects their teachers and detrimentally affects their own learning.
However, it should not be so rigid that it indiscriminately punishes minor errors or technicalities along with genuine infractions.
The policy also overlooks how certain devices can enrich the learning experience. For example, many students enjoy listening to music during allocated work time for assignments or projects. Music relaxes students, helps them process information, and blocks out outside noise and distractions. Now, headphones and phones are prohibited. School iPads, the only device allowed during instructional time, also lack ports for corded earbuds, which are far easier for teachers to spot if students are using them outside of approved times.
Music isn’t the only example. Many debate students rely on programs on their laptops to organize their arguments and notes — something that just isn’t possible with a school iPad’s smaller screen and limited features. P.E. students and student athletes use smartwatches to set timers, track their heart rate and count calories. Journalism students use their phones to efficiently record interview transcripts. Yet the policy makes no distinction between beneficial and detrimental usage cases, because it can’t account for every scenario. Instead, the final say should be left with the people implementing this policy in their classrooms — teachers. Refusing to let their students disengage, they’ve meticulously enforced the policy. Given more discretion, they’ll be able to account for circumstances unique to their classrooms.
In a world where almost no one can put down their phones, the district’s sincere efforts to improve the student experience are nothing short of praiseworthy. Still, the policy could benefit from some fine-tuning. Decentralized, targeted enforcement is vital; but to increase fairness and flexibility, teachers should have more individual discretion over what uses of devices are productive and which are prohibited.
