Advocates disappointed by the Education Committee’s decision to convert a proposed ban on classroom cellphone proposed by LD 1234 into a directive to school districts should think again. This is a good outcome.

In fact, it could not have happened any other way. Maine is a renowned “local control” state, and there are two sides to that coin.

One is the conviction that decisions should be made at the local level, but the other is the virtual abdication of policy-setting by the state Department of Education. This is not an activist department, to put it mildly.

At the pandemic’s outset, DoE offered no guidance on precautions to take, instead referring local school officials to often vague and shifting recommendations from the federal CDC. The result was long and often bitter arguments at school board meetings under highly adverse circumstances.

Similarly, implementation of Human Rights Act protections for transgender students went without notice by DoE. Protests, often vitriolic, are still going on at school board meetings. Then there’s the red-hot issue, driven by national politics, of high school transgender athletes with DoE again silent, deferring to the Maine Principals Association.

So a legislative directive to school districts to adopt a cellphone use policy is a major step forward, especially since at least one district has already done so with clear results.

RSU 1 in Bath was the first to adopt a “bell to bell” restriction on cellphones, with students putting phones in secure bags and retrieving them after school. Morse High School Principal Eric Varney said implementation was surprisingly smooth.

As a result, the district had 50% fewer suspensions, more student-to-student contact and improved teacher morale. Students don’t sit isolated at lunch tables, scrolling through their phones.

There have been no downsides. Reasons often given for phones in school, such as parents contacting their children, are flimsy: any real need can be handled through the school office.

Varney told the Education Committee that numerous school districts have sent visitors to observe. Next month, Portland, the state’s largest school district, will vote on a similar ban. Adoption may not be universal but it’s likely to be broad.

We shouldn’t find this surprising. Uncritical adoption of technology just because it’s available has a long and unedifying history. I was skeptical of what, as governor, Sen. Angus King called his legacy: supplying laptop computers to every middle-school student in Maine schools.

There’s no doubt powerful computers have spurred advances in technical fields – the STEM courses – culminating in reverence accorded “AI” that’s marketed on every virtual street corner. Application to school contexts, however, is problematic. For countless human endeavors that cannot be quantified in binary code, including reading, writing, historical study, philosophical
investigation – the list goes on – it’s hard to see computers contributing much.

The isolation brought about by solitary screen contemplation runs counter to the community of learning, and the critical thinking skills that are hallmarks of a good school. We help our students by insisting they focus elsewhere than screens.

Nonetheless, issues raised by cellphones aren’t confined to public schools. The “smartphone” has pervaded American life in increasingly unhealthy ways. Like any habit, it can be hard to break.

We shouldn’t be surprised that “doomscrolling” amid computer-generated “news feeds” that are “curated” by algorithms are a poor substitute for newspapers that used to be chock-full of local news. Nor that “social media” turns out to be a remarkably inauthentic means of genuine sharing.

If we want to encourage better choices by our kids, we should be modeling better behavior ourselves.

Years ago, I decided I didn’t want my cellphone to be “smart,” i.e. connected to the internet. While I endured some ridicule when I worked on a political campaign, I’m glad I stuck to my resolve.

When I’m “in the office,” I use my computer. When I’m not, I’m not pulled back into that realm by news alerts, demands for immediate response and all the noise and confusion generated by a medium that, by design, has no boundaries.

If we’re going to get through our present moment of national peril, marked by extreme expressions on all sides, we must get back to face-to-face non-digital encounters, however difficult and unpleasant those may be sometimes.

They can also be enormously rewarding. An encouraging word in the grocery store or outreach to a friend long absent can work wonders digital connections never will. Cellphones may be with us always, which is even more reason for us to use them with moderation, discretion and intelligence.