Montgomery County Public Schools will update its regulation on the use of personal mobile devices (including cell phones) by the end of the school year, according to an update to the Board of Education on Feb. 20. 

At the same time, multiple bills introduced by lawmakers in the Maryland General Assembly seek to ban cell phone usage outright in schools statewide. The effects of both anti-phone crusades will soon ripple into the halls of WJ, where this issue has been observed and debated by students, teachers and administrators. 

According to research conducted by the Pew Research Center,  72% of high school teachers nationwide state that cell phone distraction is a major problem in their classrooms, but 60% stated that it is somewhat or very difficult to actually enforce cell phone policies. Additionally, while 68% of Americans support cell phone policies, only 36% support an all-day ban. 

This data is in reaction to a recent nationwide trend of cracking down on cell phones as public health experts, including the Surgeon General of the United States, release more research and guidance on the harmful effects that they have on students’ learning and mental health. 

According to data from KFF, a non-profit public health policy institution, as of December 2024, eight states have passed state-wide policies to ban or restrict school cell phone usage. Another 16 states, including Maryland, have introduced legislation or have issued recommendations and started pilot programs to address the issue. This data also does not include the myriad of individual counties and school districts making similar moves. 

For MCPS and the state of Maryland, the tide appears to be turning in a meaningful way toward harsher restrictions on cell phones in school in the near future. 

As MCPS moves towards what will likely be a stricter or more consistent phone policy, state lawmakers are calling for a statewide solution by introducing bills to the Maryland General Assembly. 

According to the news site Maryland Matters, there are at least six different bills in the state legislature across both the House of Delegates and Senate to ban phones statewide. Most bills have the same purpose but differ in implementation, including differentiation by grade level and whether students would be allowed to use their phones during transition times.

Montgomery County and District 15 delegate David Fraser-Hidalgo, who introduced his own cell phone ban bill, House Bill 57, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on January 29 about how he transferred his children out of MCPS after witnessing the number of fights in schools that he attributed to cell phone usage. 

District 44A Delegate Eric Ebersole mentioned during the testimony for House Bill 192 that, similar to MCPS’ conclusion, the policies would need strong implementation and execution. 

“Once you institute these policies and you add another layer on something else; we just talked about how kids don’t listen, just having a policy may not cure the problem,” Ebersole said. 

District 42A Delegate Nino Mangione, the sponsor of HB192, responded by mentioning the enforcement mechanisms built into his bill, including confiscation of phones until the end of the school day, but agreed with Ebersole’s concern. 

A seventh bill, House Bill 1179, introduced by the Montgomery County Delegation specifically targets MCPS, mandating that the district develop policy to “prohibit a student from using a cellular phone during instructional time.” 

None of the bills have currently made it out of their assigned committees — Ways and Means in the House and Education, Energy, and Environment in the Senate. 

The MCPS Board of Education has opposed these bills and has voted in meetings to formally oppose the measures. However, the reasoning is not that they oppose the motivations behind the bill, but rather in the interest of the Board’s legislative priority of “preserving local autonomy.”  

“At first, when I drafted this legislation, I thought, let the local jurisdictions make up their mind, how they want to deploy this,” Fraser-Hidalgo said. “I don’t want to have to put this legislation, I am not on the school board, but sometimes we’ve gotta do what we don’t want to do.”

As the Board is investigating new phone policies, students and teachers have mixed feelings regarding new and changing phone bans, stating that the current PMD systems at WJ, which vary based on teacher preference, work well.

“[Current PMD systems] like putting your phone in a caddy and teachers just collecting phones [are] way better than locking it in the phone cases,” junior Laioni McFadden said. 

A large part of student emphasis against widespread bans is safety. B-CC High School had two lockdowns in February due to concerns about student safety, and phones allowed communication between students and their parents. 

“I think it’s important that students have their phones at school because if there is an emergency and they need to call their parents, I don’t think it’s safe for them to not have any access to their phones,” junior Ian Perry said.

Students also take issue with creating widespread cell phone policies when a minority of students may disrespect the policy. Many think that students need some sort of autonomy to make their own decisions regarding their education and dedication. 

“The dismissive tone taken to student concerns about loneliness and security is heartbreaking to hear from a school district that claims to value student input,” Montgomery Blair High School senior Sam Ross said. “It is also upsetting to see the high school student population, many of whom like me take advanced courses, have jobs and family responsibilities, be treated and joked about like we are babies, who cannot be trusted to build our own habits, use our own discipline and use a dial pad phone.” 

Increased phone usage has been a huge issue for teachers, particularly regarding cheating and distractions, as many students ignore PMD policies, partly due to different preferences among teachers. 

“I think the uniformity of policy has to be there and I think it has to be enforceable…,” English teacher Alexia Remy. “I think the only way it will work is if you have a consistent and regular system that everyone knows and expects, like you walk into a classroom and you have to put your phone in a specific system and everyone does it and teachers are held accountable for implementing it. We all need to be held accountable.”

In addition to being a distraction, consistent use of phones by students during instruction time often creates a lack of mutual respect between teachers and students. 

“I think [cell phones] put such a strain on [student-teacher relationships],” health teacher Gabrielle Cohen said. “I feel like a nagging mom instead of a teacher and I just hate that. I don’t want to have that relationship between myself and my students.”

For Student Member of the Board of Education Praneel Suvarna, the issue is nuanced. However, he sees a need for consistent enforcement.

“A policy that’s enforced consistently across the county would make it easier for each school to utilize the resources they have to reinforce learning in schools and help students stay focused,” Suvarna said. “The solution to boredom or students disliking school cannot be cellphone usage. School is ultimately about learning.”

Suvarna has indicated he would vote against a measure that mandated phone pouches, saying he does not believe are “the right solution.”