Duxbury High reports fewer phone referrals, students and staff report improved engagement in second year of cell-phone policy

Duxbury High School administrators and student leaders told the School Committee that the district's cell-phone policy, now in its second year, appears to be producing better classroom engagement and fewer office referrals.

Principal Cotton Herman said the policy, which rolled out in August 2024 and requires phones to be placed in classroom caddies during instruction, has settled into routine in many classrooms. "When I walk in, I look at the caddy, I count the phones, I look at the students, I count the students, and they're up there, and students are engaged," she said.

Herman said the policy intends to reduce distractions and help students' social interactions and mental-health outcomes, echoing the national debate about screen time. She said teachers and assistant principals Todd Warmington and Lou Alberti have reinforced the expectation at the start of the year and through regular class visits.

Student survey results and referrals

Student leaders Addie and Gerard presented survey results comparing responses from last year and this year. Gerard said the student survey responses increased from 181 respondents last year to 247 this year; the share of respondents disagreeing with the policy fell from about 76% to 57.5%, while the share agreeing rose from about 8.9% to 17.8%. Both student presenters said many respondents are now neutral and more students accept the policy than in its first year.

Herman gave disciplinary figures to show enforcement patterns: last school year the district recorded 86 office referrals related to phone policy violations; early in the current year the school has seen far fewer referrals, with seven referrals noted "as of last week," according to Herman and data pulled by assistant principal Warmington. She clarified that classroom-managed warnings and detentions are not centrally tracked, and the main-office referrals typically reflect a student's third documented classroom offense, which triggers progressive discipline.

Students and staff described where challenges remain: ASP (the after-school program) and passing time are cited as periods when consistent enforcement is harder because supervision is less structured. Herman and the student presenters said faculty and students both emphasized that consistent enforcement by all staff is key to the policy's success.

Why some students still oppose the policy

Student presenters summarized common themes from open responses. Those opposing the policy raised safety and security concerns, wanted phone access during ASP and passing time, sought Wi-Fi access and argued for more personal responsibility rather than enforced restrictions. Supporters and staff emphasized reduced cheating, increased attention in class and stronger peer interactions.

Grade-level differences and next steps

Committee members asked whether referrals are clustered by grade; Herman and the student presenters said freshmen and sophomores generally adjust more easily because the middle school expectation mirrors the high school rule, while some one-off violations tend to involve younger students. The school committee requested a mid-year update with disciplinary data broken down by grade and promised continued support for teachers who are enforcing the policy.

Speakers quoted in this article spoke during the regular agenda item titled "cell phone policy check-in," which included a presentation of faculty survey results, student survey data and school walk-through observations.

Ending

Herman and the student leaders recommended continued consistent enforcement and planned follow-up with the committee midyear to share grade-level disciplinary data and implementation challenges.