Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Wellbeing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Student-led survey: district phone ban showed no overall mental-health gain, presenter says
Summary
A student presenter told the Amanda-Clearcreek Local board that an anonymous, 16-question survey on the district's cell-phone ban found no statistically significant overall mental-health improvement, though subgroup differences suggest targeted supports may be needed for some students.
A student presenter summarized results of a district-supported, student-led study evaluating the mental-health effects of the school's cell-phone ban, telling the Amanda-Clearcreek Local School District Board that overall mental-health scores did not improve in a statistically significant way over the 2024'025 school year.
The presentation described a 16-question anonymous Google Form distributed to students in grades 7'012 that combined basic demographic questions, a brief mental-health screening instrument from the school psychologist and a 1— Likert-style series of questions about phone use in class. The presenter said the hypothesis was that "limiting cell phone use in school will improve mental health," but the district's aggregate scores did not show that effect. "Mental health scores did not increase or improve over time," the presenter said, while noting that a higher score represented worse mental-health screening results.
The presenter pointed to subgroup patterns: data by grade and gender showed statistically significant differences in some cohorts, and the gender analysis produced a p-value reported as less than 0.0001. The presenter said certain groups ——for example, some seventh- and eighth-grade students by gender——showed clearer trends, with some subgroups demonstrating improvement while the total population did not. The presenter repeatedly cautioned that the study had limitations, including anonymous responses that prevented tracking individual students over time and a relatively small sample in some subgroups.
Board members and administrators praised the research effort and asked follow-up questions about methods and next steps. One board member said she was "impressed" with the student's research approach and the use of outside data support; others recommended continuing to partner with counselors and the school psychologist to monitor students and provide targeted support. The superintendent and presenters flagged that the study does not prove causation and suggested additional, longer-term tracking and follow-up research to assess academic and social effects.
The presentation also referenced statewide context: Ohio's House Bill 250 was cited in discussion as a legislative change that mandated or supported limits on student phone use in public schools; the presenter said that the local ban had been implemented in that context. No formal change to district policy was proposed during the meeting, and no vote on phone rules was taken. Board members indicated they would consider targeted supports in response to the subgroup findings and encouraged continued data collection.
What it means: The student study gives the district baseline data about mental-health measures and phone use but does not provide conclusive evidence that the phone ban alone materially improves student mental health. Administrators and the board characterized the work as a useful starting point for targeting counseling and support resources to identified groups.
Next steps: Board members asked staff to continue analysis and to coordinate with counselors to translate the study's subgroup findings into targeted support plans. No formal policy action or vote on the phone ban took place at this meeting.
