In the ongoing debate over whether schools should confiscate electronic devices, a key question emerges–does the current practice compromise students’ autonomy and their right to personal property?
Under the current phone policy, MHS teachers can confiscate phones and have them sent to the office to be held for various durations depending on the number of offenses, ranging from the end of the school day to up to five school days until a parent or guardian picks up the device. It is vital to explore alternative approaches rather than resorting to outright confiscation.
The confiscation of personal devices, such as phones or Bluetooth devices, potentially disrupt students’ learning experiences. Given the widespread presence of digital education platforms like Google Classroom and virtual labs, a lack of phone access might impede students from being able to complete assignments. Additionally, phones contain a variety of essential classroom tools like cameras and calculators, along with a wealth of information on the internet.
Students often rely on their devices for personal purposes, such as contacting family members or monitoring their health. Phones serve as vital tools in emergencies, facilitating communication with family and emergency services when necessary. For students sensitive to auditory distractions, Bluetooth devices such as noise-canceling headphones can even offer a means to enhance focus. Ultimately, taking away electronic devices can negatively affect a student’s safety as well as their overall well-being.
Rather than confiscating a students’ phone for multiple days, schools can implement alternative consequences such as detentions, parental involvement, or even resorting to suspensions for repeated offenses. Furthermore, while confiscation may initially seem like the best way to prevent phone usage in classrooms, taking away electronic devices is an infringement on the student’s right to personal property.
A student’s right to personal property is a fundamental right. The confiscation of a phone raises serious privacy concerns. Relocating the phone to the school office lacks transparency and control, potentially exposing private information to unauthorized individuals.
MHS’s current practice needs reconsideration, given its potential disruption to student learning experiences. Extended phone confiscation raises privacy concerns, challenging the balance between order and students’ rights. Moving forward, the policy revisions should align with the evolving landscape of education and technology, emphasizing fairness, autonomy, and the preservation of students’ rights.