Report on New Mobile Device Policy in Memphis-Shelby County Schools

Policy Mandate and Scope

The Memphis-Shelby County school board has unanimously approved a more stringent mobile device policy, set to take effect for the upcoming school year. This action aligns with a new Tennessee state law requiring all school systems to adopt a formal ban on “wireless communication devices” by the 2025-26 school year. The updated district policy replaces a version from 2010 and expands the ban to include smartwatches, which must be “powered off and out of sight” during school hours.

The policy grants schools explicit authority to enforce the ban through disciplinary measures, including device confiscation and student suspensions. While the state law mandates exceptions for students with documented medical conditions or disabilities, it delegates the specifics of enforcement and implementation to local school boards.

Alignment with Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality Education

The primary objective of the new policy is to enhance the learning environment, directly supporting SDG 4: Quality Education. By minimizing distractions from personal electronic devices, the district aims to foster a more focused and effective educational setting.

• Target 4.1 (Quality Primary and Secondary Education): The policy seeks to improve the quality of classroom instruction and student engagement by removing a significant source of interruption.
• Target 4.a (Effective Learning Environments): The ban is a strategic effort to build and maintain a safe, non-violent, and inclusive learning environment conducive to academic achievement.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being

The policy has significant implications for SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being, addressing both potential benefits and challenges related to student mental health.

The initiative is partly a response to growing research on the negative learning and health impacts of extensive cellphone use among young people. However, mental health experts have raised concerns regarding the implementation of the ban.

1. Potential for Increased Stress: A clinical services manager from Youth Villages noted that students, who are highly reliant on daily device use, may experience stress, anxiety, and a feeling of being overwhelmed without access to their phones. This highlights a potential conflict with Target 3.4 (Promote mental health and well-being).
2. Call for Phased Implementation: To mitigate negative psychological impacts, experts recommend a “pilot phase” to help students adjust, particularly since previous policies were not consistently enforced.
3. Emergency Communication: A robust communication plan is deemed essential to manage student and parent anxiety, especially concerning emergencies. The interim superintendent has confirmed that such a plan is in development.

Implementation and Governance

The policy outlines specific requirements for device storage during the school day, with the final determination left to the superintendent or individual school leaders. Students will be required to place powered-off devices in designated locations, which may include:

• Individual secured pouches
• Student lockers
• Backpacks or purses
• Students’ personal vehicles

The district has yet to release detailed guidance on how the new policy will be enforced across its schools. The development of a comprehensive communication and implementation strategy will be critical to achieving the policy’s educational goals while safeguarding student well-being, reflecting the principles of effective governance central to SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article on the Memphis-Shelby County Schools’ cellphone ban connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by focusing on the quality of education, the health and well-being of students, and the role of institutional policy-making.

   • SDG 4: Quality Education

     The primary motivation for the cellphone ban is to improve the educational environment. The article states the policy follows “a wave of state legislation… as research grows on the learning and health impacts for young students,” directly linking the ban to enhancing the quality of learning in schools.

   • SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

     The article explicitly mentions the “health impacts” of cellphone use on students. Furthermore, a mental health expert, Stephanie Cole-Farris, warns that not having access to devices could create “stress, anxiety, and overall, just a feeling of hopelessness and being overwhelmed,” highlighting the policy’s direct connection to student mental well-being.

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

     The article details a formal institutional process: a new state law requires school systems to act, and the local school board responds by voting on and implementing a specific policy. This demonstrates the functioning of institutions at state and local levels to create and enforce regulations, as seen in the “fast-tracked school board vote” and the mandate for all school systems to “adopt a ban.”

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

   • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are child, disability and gender sensitive and provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.

     The policy aims to create a more “effective learning environment” by removing the distraction of cellphones. The article also notes that the “state law mandates exceptions for students with medical conditions or disabilities,” which aligns with the target’s emphasis on creating inclusive and disability-sensitive environments.

   • Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.

     This target is relevant through its focus on promoting mental health and well-being. The concerns raised by the clinical services manager about the potential for the ban to cause “stress, anxiety” in students directly relate to this target. The policy’s justification based on the “health impacts” of cellphones also connects to the prevention aspect of this target.

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.

     The article describes the actions of the Memphis school board, a local institution, in response to a state law. The process of voting, amending the policy to include smartwatches, and the superintendent’s work on a “robust communication plan” are all actions related to developing effective and accountable institutional procedures.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article implies several indicators that could be used to measure progress:

   • Indicator for Target 4.a:

     An implied indicator is the existence and enforcement of a formal school policy designed to create a better learning environment. The article states the school board “voted unanimously to approve the ban” and that it permits “disciplinary measures, including suspensions.” The number of disciplinary actions or the successful implementation of the policy (e.g., students placing devices in “designated locations”) could serve as metrics.

   • Indicator for Target 3.4:

     The article implies the need to monitor student mental health. The expert’s warning about “stress, anxiety, and overall, just a feeling of hopelessness” suggests that an indicator could be the reported incidence of mental health challenges among students following the policy’s implementation. The development of a “pilot phase” as suggested by the expert could be a measure of the district’s proactive approach to managing student well-being.

   • Indicator for Target 16.6:

     An indicator for institutional effectiveness is the successful development and communication of the new policy. The article mentions that the interim superintendent is “working on such a plan” for communication. The existence and clarity of this communication plan, along with the consistent enforcement of the policy across the district, would serve as indicators of the institution’s effectiveness and accountability.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators (Mentioned or Implied)
   SDG 4: Quality Education	Target 4.a: Provide safe, non-violent, inclusive and effective learning environments for all.	Existence of a formal school policy on cellphone use to improve the learning environment. Inclusion of exceptions for students with disabilities. Number of disciplinary actions (e.g., suspensions, confiscations) for policy violations.
   SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	Target 3.4: Promote mental health and well-being.	Monitoring the incidence of student “stress, anxiety” related to the policy. Implementation of a “pilot phase” to help students adjust.
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.	The formal adoption of the policy via a “school board vote.” The development and implementation of a “robust communication plan” for students and parents.

Source: chalkbeat.org