On December 22nd, the State Senate passed bill S3695, sending it to the desk of Governor Phil Murphy, who as of this writing has 12 days left in office before fellow Democrat Mikie Sherrill takes over. Section 2.b.2 of the bill mandates that local school districts implement guidelines developed by the state education commissioner that would impose a “bell-to-bell” ban on student use of cell phones on school grounds. This mandate goes far beyond the previous position of banning phones in classrooms taken by the governor, the state teachers’ union, and the legislators who proposed the bill. In doing so, it takes away local school leaders’ ability to create solutions that work for their students and situations and replaces their judgment with that of Trenton politicians and bureaucrats. In his last weeks as governor, Mr. Murphy should do the right thing and veto the bill.
In Mr. Murphy’s State of the State address last January, he rightfully called for action to address the problems cell phones pose to students’ learning and well-being in school. He correctly pointed out that they are a “distraction in the classroom” and can lead to cyber bullying. To deal with the issue, he pledged his support for a proposal “that will direct school districts across New Jersey to adopt policies that ban cell phones from our K-12 classrooms and help establish phone-free schools.” The specific policy Mr. Murphy called for here — banning phones from classrooms — was far more measured than the bill’s mandate banning them all day on school grounds. But even this brought a warning from the New Jersey Education Association, the union representing teachers and school staff across the state. The N.J.E.A.’s statement on the governor’s address pointed out that “shared input and community buy-in will help ensure the success of those policies better than any one-size-fits-all ban imposed from above.”
The earlier versions of the bill and the stances of its supporters echoed Mr. Murphy’s more limited position. The bill’s text when it was introduced contained only one specific prohibition: “non-academic use of a cell phone or social media during classroom instruction.” Optional guidance issued by the state Department of Education in September gave school districts three potential options to consider, ranging from a “bell-to-bell” ban to allowing limited use outside of the classroom. Even after the report of a state commission called that same month for a “bell-to-bell” ban, bill sponsor Cody Miller, a Democratic assemblyman from Gloucester County, said to WHYY that his bill would give “school districts the flexibility to determine which policies work best for them to limit cell phone use within the classroom.” Unfortunately, after revisions as the bill made its way through the legislature, this is no longer the case.
The bill now awaiting the governor’s signature takes a “one-size-fits-all ban imposed from above” that the N.J.E.A. warned about last January to the extreme. It extends beyond the classroom to all “non-academic” use “on school grounds during the school day” and directs the Education Department to develop policy “guidelines” that are not guidelines at all, but mandates for local boards of education to implement. Not only does it insult the judgment of local communities and administrators to make decisions about their districts, it would be nonsensical in practice given the varying circumstances of schools across New Jersey. At my school, Haddonfield Memorial High School, juniors and seniors in good standing are allowed the privilege of “open campus,” meaning that they can leave school grounds during free periods and lunch. (Obviously, this practice would not work at every public school in the state, but throughout the years it has been in place at Haddonfield, students have proved responsible enough to enjoy it.) Why should an 18-year-old with open campus privileges who could get in their car and leave school grounds be prohibited from using their cell phone in the library during a free period? What if they or another student are trying to upload a photo of their homework, or receive a two-factor authentication code for College Board systems to work on AP homework or view their SAT scores? Under the new regime, they would have to be explicitly authorized by a “principal, chief school administrator, or their designee, for a necessary specified purpose… only when no reasonable alternative exists to achieve the same objective.” This high bar, with the force not of a student handbook but of a state statute, would in effect prohibit many necessary uses of a cell phone (unless principals and superintendents are willing to supervise libraries and study halls for every time a student wants to use their phone calculator, certifying it meets the requirements of the laws of the State of New Jersey and perhaps personally granting access to the “locked pouches” the bill envisions).
Unfortunately, the N.J.E.A. has not released any additional public statements pointing out that provisions of the bill now awaiting the governor’s signature are entirely inconsistent with the organization’s advocacy last year for local engagement and decision-making. Nor have the bill’s original sponsors, like Mr. Miller, who voted for it despite its contradiction of the principle of flexibility for school districts that he espoused just four months ago. Major news outlets predict that a signing by Mr. Murphy is imminent. But it’s not too late for him to reconsider.
I do not doubt for a second the good intentions of the members of the General Assembly and Senate who voted for the bill, or think that no further action to address cell phones in schools is needed, especially for younger students. Nor do I believe the state government should never intervene in local educational matters—the New Jersey Constitution, confirmed by the State Supreme Court in legendary cases like Robinson v. Cahill, ultimately gives it the responsibility for ensuring a “thorough and efficient” education for students like me. But the bill as it stands right now is not necessary, workable, or just.
If the governor takes no action before the end of the legislative session (a “pocket veto”) or vetoes it outright, the bill will not become law. Mr. Murphy, trust our teachers, administrators, and local elected officials to do right by their students. Let the new legislature and governor come up with a more practical framework. Do not sign this bill.
