When parents become aware of the troublesome performance of Beverly Hills High School relative to other local high schools on standardized state proficiency exams and other metrics, they often ask how it got this way and what can be done about it.

The academic decline of what was once a world class high school and district did not happen overnight. Significant improvement will likely take time and require honest acknowledgement, thorough analysis and a willingness to implement constructive change.

This column, however, is about a step that the District has taken in the right direction.

Some background.

The ubiquitous presence of smart phones at our schools (“smart phones” includes all types of smart phones, smart watches, earbuds and the like) has become increasingly problematic.

After speaking with a number of present and former BHUSD teachers, I learned that in recent years such devices have been a substantial impediment to academic progress. At best, they can be distractions from the serious business of learning. At worst they can be disruptive and cause difficult discipline problems including facilitating cheating and bullying. One BHHS teacher told me that smart phones have been “an incredible disruption”, another said that they are “very distracting” and one recently retired teacher went so far as to say that “cellphones are destroying our schools.”

Under current California state law, school boards are permitted, with some exceptions, to limit or prohibit use of smartphones by students while at a school site or under the supervision of school personnel. So, at present regulation of smart phones is left up to the school districts under a law enacted in 2019.

Now, Governor Gavin Newsom believes that meaningful statewide restrictions should be required. In a letter to all California schools districts, he stated: “The evidence is clear: reducing phone use in class leads to improved concentration, better academic outcomes, and enhanced social interactions. Schools and districts… have seen positive impacts of limiting smartphones on campus, with some reporting higher test scores, grades, and student engagement, and less bullying and damage to school facilities.”

He supported his position with data that was astonishing to me:

“A recent Pew Research Center survey found that 72% of high school and 33% of middle school teachers report cellphone distractions as a major problem. Common Sense Media found that 97% of students use their phones during the school day for a median of 43 minutes.” [My emphasis]

Think about that.

The Los Angeles Unified School District board recently made a highly publicized announcement that it would “ban” smart phones on its school campuses. The specific parameters of the implementation of the LAUSD “ban” are being developed but the announcement has served to draw attention to this issue. It is expected that this will be a full-fledged ban on smart phones during the school day.

LAUSD board member Nick Melvoin, a proponent of the ban pointed out that a few schools have already implemented phone bans and said “School principals in LAUSD who have implemented phone-free school day policies report that fighting is down, student engagement is up and the overall campus environment is more positive.”

This led me to inquire about the situation at the Beverly Hills schools.

It turns out that BHUSD has gotten ahead of this issue and has taken action that, if fully implemented, may effectively minimize the problem.

BHUSD recently adopted and published a new smart phone policy referred to as “off and away.”

It provides:

TK through Grade 8 – Smart phones must be off and out of sight while the student is on the school campus.

Grades 9-12 – Smart phones must be off and out of sight during instructional periods and may be used at other times.

There are progressive escalating penalties for violations. Details are on the District’s and Schools’ websites.

Numerous other southern California school districts have enacted similar policies.

These are sound policies provided that there is consistent compliance and enforcement with meaningful sanctions for non-compliance.

As we enter the 2024-25 academic year, there are indications that these policies are working at BHUSD. Where teachers are reminding the students of these rules and settling expectations clearly, early and often, so far there has been remarkable compliance. Administration is helping also with regular announcements and reminders about the policy and other support.

Now the question is whether allowing smart phones on campus at all, with these restrictions, is consistent with efforts to create an optimum academic environment. It is early days. The answer will depend on consistent compliance with and enforcement of the current reasonable restrictions. This will require a team effort involving parents, students, teachers and administration.

If this doesn’t work, the next step is obvious.

Don’t allow smart phones on campus.

I understand that this would be a controversial step but it would only be implemented if less restrictive measures are not successful and the devices remain a significant impediment to learning.

Nonetheless, there will be those who argue that it is somehow wrong to take children’s phones away.

There are a number of arguments offered in support of a more lenient approach:

Argument: In the case of an emergency, parents may need to get in touch with their child.

Response: True emergencies are very, very rare. (Reminding Johnny of his orthodontist appointment is not a true emergency and can be handled at the breakfast table.) Calling the school office will get a quick response.

Argument: Pupils may need their smart phones to look up information.

Response: Not so. They have school issued laptops. Or they can ask the teacher. Or they can use the computers in the library during non-instructional times.

Argument: Parents insist that they be able to reach their children at all times.

Response: It is the responsibility of school administration to regulate academic conditions for the children while they are on campus. The choir does not conduct the concert.

Argument: The children must have their smart phones going to and from school and if they are walking or biking, there is no place for them to store them safely if they can’t take them into school.

Response: Parents and children can put their heads together and figure out another way.

Argument: The high school students are mature enough to make sensible decisions about smart phones for themselves.

Response: The prohibition would occur only if the lack of compliance and enforcement challenges demonstrate that this is not the case.

Argument: An outright ban would be difficult to enforce.

Response: We have seen that restrictions on usage of smart phones once they are on campus can very difficult to enforce. A violation of the rule that smart phones cannot come on to the campus in the first place would be much easier to detect and then enforce. And sanctions for unpermitted possession of a smart phone should be meaningful.

Argument: The children are addicted to their smart phones and it is simply too difficult to take them away.

Response: This one floors me. We should not pander to the addiction. Instead we should try to moderate it. This propensity to addiction, to me, is a strong argument in favor of keeping phones out of schools.

Life is full of trade offs. For any decision we must weigh costs and benefits. The costs of allowing unbridled use of smart phones on campus – distraction, disruption, challenges of enforcement of rules partially restricting on campus usage and facilitation of cheating and bullying – far outweigh any benefits.

If academic excellence and creation of the best possible educational environment is paramount, as it should be, if reasonable restrictions recently put in place are not effective, a ban on smart phones on campus should be implemented.

Peter Ostroff is a retired attorney and former Beverly Hills Planning Commissioner.