|
|
|
A much stricter cell phone policy greeted Taft Union High School Students when they stepped onto the campus Monday for the start of a new term.
Not surprisingly, most of those interviewed don’t like it at all.
“I think it’s a little overdone,” said junior Andrew Jackson.
He believes the school needs a policy because of the number of violations last year (822 to be exact), especially students using cell phones to arrange campus fights.
“I think there were 11 fights in February alone, so there needs to be some kind of restriction. It’s still kind of harsh. They should at least have a warning phase.”
But Jackson did agree that students should be suspended for using cell-phones to arrange fights.
Austin Smith agreed the new policy is too drastic, especially compared to the old one, which called for the phone to be confiscated. The student had to claim it at the end of the day, and that was it – no additional consequences for repeat offenders.
“We should be able to use them, but not during class,” Smith said.
The new policy calls for confiscation, but now a parent has to come to the campus to reclaim the phone. There also is a detention attached to that first offense.
A second offense calls for confiscation with parent pick-up plus a one-day suspension.
Subsequent violations mean longer suspensions and, ultimately, expulsion.
Besides the disruption cell-phone use causes in the classroom, the district cited cheating as another byproduct of the cell phone addiction.
But Jackson doesn’t think using the electronic devices to cheat is very effective.
“The people who would do something like that aren’t the type you would want to copy off of anyhow,” he said.
Jackson had no violations last year, but Smith admitted to two – once when his mom text-messaged him while he was having breakfast in the cafeteria and a second when he tried to see what time it was.
“I just took it out of my pocket for a second to check the time,” he said.
Not surprisingly, parents tend to support the new policy.
“I agree with it,” said Shawna Hill. “They are here to learn, not to talk.”
Her son, Donovan, said he has no problem with the new policy.
“I don’t think it’s too harsh,” he said.
Erica Johnson, whose son Tyler is a junior, supports the policy.
“I think it (cell phone use) is a distraction,” she said. “They’re here to learn. The good thing is it’s waking them up.”
Jackson and Smith believe electronic devices should be prohibited in the classroom, but think they should be allowed to use their phones when they are not in class.
Adam Roth agrees phones should be kept silent during class sessions, “but not during lunch in the cafeteria.”
Jack Haroutunian agreed.
“I think they’re being too harsh on it,” he said. “I think since we’re kids they do things like that.”
He admitted violating the policy last year.
“I usually just use it during lunch,” he said. “I think we should be allowed to use them during lunch and nutrition break.”
A much stricter cell phone policy greeted Taft Union High School Students when they stepped onto the campus Monday for the start of a new term.
Not surprisingly, most of those interviewed don’t like it at all.
“I think it’s a little overdone,” said junior Andrew Jackson.
He believes the school needs a policy because of the number of violations last year (822 to be exact), especially students using cell phones to arrange campus fights.
“I think there were 11 fights in February alone, so there needs to be some kind of restriction. It’s still kind of harsh. They should at least have a warning phase.”
But Jackson did agree that students should be suspended for using cell-phones to arrange fights.
Austin Smith agreed the new policy is too drastic, especially compared to the old one, which called for the phone to be confiscated. The student had to claim it at the end of the day, and that was it – no additional consequences for repeat offenders.
“We should be able to use them, but not during class,” Smith said.
The new policy calls for confiscation, but now a parent has to come to the campus to reclaim the phone. There also is a detention attached to that first offense.
A second offense calls for confiscation with parent pick-up plus a one-day suspension.
Subsequent violations mean longer suspensions and, ultimately, expulsion.
Besides the disruption cell-phone use causes in the classroom, the district cited cheating as another byproduct of the cell phone addiction.
But Jackson doesn’t think using the electronic devices to cheat is very effective.
“The people who would do something like that aren’t the type you would want to copy off of anyhow,” he said.
Jackson had no violations last year, but Smith admitted to two – once when his mom text-messaged him while he was having breakfast in the cafeteria and a second when he tried to see what time it was.
“I just took it out of my pocket for a second to check the time,” he said.
Not surprisingly, parents tend to support the new policy.
“I agree with it,” said Shawna Hill. “They are here to learn, not to talk.”
Her son, Donovan, said he has no problem with the new policy.
“I don’t think it’s too harsh,” he said.
Erica Johnson, whose son Tyler is a junior, supports the policy.
“I think it (cell phone use) is a distraction,” she said. “They’re here to learn. The good thing is it’s waking them up.”
Jackson and Smith believe electronic devices should be prohibited in the classroom, but think they should be allowed to use their phones when they are not in class.
Adam Roth agrees phones should be kept silent during class sessions, “but not during lunch in the cafeteria.”
Jack Haroutunian agreed.
“I think they’re being too harsh on it,” he said. “I think since we’re kids they do things like that.”
He admitted violating the policy last year.
“I usually just use it during lunch,” he said. “I think we should be allowed to use them during lunch and nutrition break.”
