Dec 124 min read

Student Council rings in debate for phone policies

By Ariel Lee Dec. 11, 2024

Technology has become deeply integrated into students’ lives, reshaping how they learn and communicate and sparking significant debates about their place in the school. In California, Governor Gavin Newsom’s administration has brought renewed attention to this issue, with schools and districts exploring potential policies. A recent debate involving San Jose Unified School District (SJUSD) officials and representatives from the school highlighted the complexity of balancing the benefits and drawbacks of phone use in classrooms.

Principal Harveen Bal and Priya Garcia, English Department and head coach of the school’s Speech and Debate team selected 5 debaters—Juniors Heather Chang, Aria Das and Bhavya Kumar and Seniors Ameya Kiwalker and Allen Liu—for the phone ban conference with district officials. For the next 2 months, they practiced and researched, preparing for the conference alongside ASB president Jeffrey Tseng, and SJUSD student representative, Lara Harb.

“Planning for this event took a longfair amount of time as we had to meet several times a week to plan speeches what we wanted to say and prepare answers to questions from parents and teachers. But overall, it was a great experienceHowever, it was a great experience overall and I am super honored to have been able to speak on behalf of the students in the district,” Harb said.

This process also included online research and interviews with Bal and district official Jodie Lax. Additionally, they provided the student perspective, which consisted of data gathered from the Leland Student Council, run by the Associate Student Body Officers (ASBOs) and the Intradistrict Leadership Council (ILC), run by Harb. The ILC is a program where representatives from each SJUSD school come together to discuss policies and specific issues within schools. During ILC Student Council meetings, dedicated time was set aside to discuss Newsom’s phone policy and gather direct input from the students the new policy would impact.

On Nov. 14, the team traveled to Gunderson High School and presented in front of administrative officials. First was the debate—two speakers on each side: Kiwalkar and Chang defending a cellphone ban, Kumar and Liu opposing the cellphone ban, along with one moderator, Das. Following the debate was a Q&A session by the other two students, Harb and Tseng.

During the event, the groups of two debaters simulated a debate, arguing to affirm or oppose a total phone ban. However, unlike a real debate round, the simulation’s end goal was not to win but to come to a compromise that balanced students’ needs with administrators’ responsibilities. Their overall advocacy was for a soft ban, brainstorming and discussing how to manage cell phone usage in classrooms rather than a blanket ban. As specified by Liu, one core statistic the opposing side cited was a meta-analysis consisting of 22 studies that showed no correlation between a cell phone ban and improvements in academics—. This specific piece of evidence was one of many that helped the debate team advocacte for a soft ban. during the debate.

The previously discussed topics during Student Council and ILC were also touched upon during the Q&A session, and everything that Tseng and Harb prepared and planned to discuss such as key issues related to a ban including campus safety and bathroom sanitation, were mentioned during the meeting without many complications. The debate team especially hopes that people will be able to truly understand the student perspective and take the time to reevaluate any total bans.

“These debates are amazing opportunities for students to voice their opinions directly to the administrators who make policies that govern them. By representing the student voice on pressing issues both administrators and students can learn from each other and hear each other’s perspectives. They can summarize the major contentions on each side of a controversial issue in an orderly and systematic manner that helps everyone involved understand the issue better,” Kiwalkar said.

According to Tseng, ASB and the school admins aim to communicate with students to design a policy that works best for both parties, a difficult process that began with the Student Council. For the first meeting, attendees were chosen from different groups on campus such as sports teams, student organizations and academic departments. Each ASBO was assigned a group to contact, gathering people for the meetings and gauging interest. Department representatives are nominated by teachers and sports representatives by coaches. Student Council meetings are led by the ASB officers and Meg Walsh, Activities Director. Prior to each meeting, they send students Google Forms to gauge their opinions on hot topics such as bathroom sanitation and school infrastructure to focus on. Currently, ASB’s main focus through the district debate and Student Council is to formulate a soft ban on phones that does not include whole-day confiscations as they believe it is important to them that students still have the chance to grow with technology and learn how to use it responsibly.

“Right now, it is hard to enact a phone policy since phones and technology are so ingrained in high school culture. It is not entirely the presence of devices at school that degrades the learning experience because many of the issues are perpetuated by social media specifically,” Tseng said.

The hard work of the debaters and the student representatives, along with SJUSD’s initiatives, highlight the importance of including diverse perspectives in policy-making. Their approach—focusing on dialogue, data collection, and gradual implementation—emphasizes the necessity of creating policies that address safety and educational benefits without alienating students.

About the Contributors