Cell phones in classroom under scrutiny

Sooner or later, it was bound to happen. Cell phones on the verge of becoming the next public target for banning in certain environments.

Much the way second-hand cigarette smoke has become public-health enemy No. 1, so, too has the ringing, jingling and singing associated with cell phones. Fewer items seem to draw the ire of those who must listen to other people's cell phone conversation, whether they're in the local coffee shop, inside a restaurant or at the supermarket.

Cell phones are everywhere, and they're not likely going to go away anytime soon.

Except, of course, if the superintendent of the Forrest County Schools has anything to say about the matter.

Kay Clay, responding to a parent's complaint over the confiscation of his daughter's cell phone, said the district's confiscation policy is necessary in order to deter repeat offenders.

"Students know what the consequences are, and parents need to be familiar with the handbook," she said.

That's not stopping Robert Wilson of Glendale from trying to see the handbook rule changed. His 17-year-old daughter Leslie had her cell phone - which is in Wilson's name - taken away from her. He doesn't believe the school's policy of taking the phone on the first offense and keep it for a month is fair.

"That's not right," he said. "You turn it back over to the parent."

Anyone who's ever taught in a high school - and most people have not - understand that discipline and order are necessary in order to achieve a worthwhile educational experience. Having a cell phone go off in the middle of a play by Shakespeare or making sense of a difficult trigonometry problem is not the best way to learn the play or the problem.

Wilson's point - that a school should not be able to hold personal property after school hours - raises a valid concern about what a public school is able to do regarding a student's personal possessions. Conversely, Clay's rigid enforcement of the handbook leaves no doubt that ambiguity is not part of the discussion. Cell phones in classrooms will be confiscated.

Purists - those who go back to the days of phone booths and other public telephones - will argue that a student doesn't need to have a cell phone during school hours, especially since the purpose of going to school is to learn and listen, not to engage in cell phone chatter.

The purists also have a valid point.

Those who side with Wilson and his daughter might argue the district should not be in the business of confiscating cell phones. The retort to that is that it isn't. It is, however, in the business of educating students, including enforcement of its handbook rules.

The district could give Wilson back the phone with the clear understanding it is not to be brought into classrooms. For his part, Wilson - as should all parents - can go over the handbook with his daughter and determine then and there whether the phones are allowed.

Chances are they're not. If that's the case, then give the teachers a break and leave the phone in the locker and turned off.