Cheat ’n chat: Tabooing cellphones in schools

"Ooohh…Nice phone."

That’s my daughter’s reaction whenever she sees the latest cellphone model in one of those giant billboards along SLEX (yes, they are still very much around, even after the numerous denunciation of billboards in the wake of storm "Milenyo"). Fortunately, that is just wishful thinking because she is already contented with her older Nokia model.

My daughter is one among millions of Filipino students who own a cellular phone. Much to her dismay, her school does not allow it on campus, except during school events where the dismissal time is uncertain. On such occasions, she even has to present a written parent’s permission.

Why are most schools averse to the bringing of cellphones to the campus?

While much has been said and written about the benefits and disadvantages of allowing children to bring and use cellular phones in school, the best argument so far in favor of liberalism is security. Some parents, especially the wealthier ones, want to maintain contact with their children for fear of abduction when they leave the shelter of their school.

The cellphone gives them the freedom to communicate anytime, anywhere. This security blanket covers places beyond the school premises when the child has a designated fetcher and/or driver, whose possession of their own cellphones, of course, negates any necessity of equipping the child with a personal phone.

Without sounding parochial or old-fashioned – I myself will be incapacitated without my mobile phone – I believe the actual drawbacks of allowing children to bring and use cellular phones in school far outweigh the perceived advantages.

Children nowadays are much preoccupied with computers and electronic gadgets. Teenagers, in particular, love to make conversation among themselves using any media, with cellphones being the gadget of choice for most for being handy as well as trendy.

A cellphone in the hands of a young student is more than just an effective communication tool. Schools began to ban cellphones when it was discovered that they were being used by students to cheat during examinations, through surreptitious texting. Using a codigo nowadays would seem quite quaint. On the other hand, when utilized for benign fun, it sometimes distracts other students, not only in the classroom but also in the library and other quiet places. In this sense, school authorities are perfectly within their rights to regulate the use of this technology within the school premises.

Yet, there are other serious issues to consider. For one, there is a growing opinion among experts in child development that the use of cellphones in school, especially for "texting," obstructs or limits healthy interpersonal relationships among young people. The cellphone, just like any other gadget, is inanimate, unfeeling, and unrespon-sive. It is a tool in aid of communication and should never be a substitute for more effective means of human interaction.

It is easy to see why this is so considering that the school is an extension of the home. With so many children already withdrawing into the relative safety of their homes while surrounded by all creature comforts that keep them in touch with friends – the Internet chat rooms, in particular, and of course the landline and the cellphone – the school may be the only place where they can nurture their innate need to relate to strangers, cultivate camaraderie, and deal with social intimacy.

Social skills are thereby promoted and developed through face-to-face conversation, active play and touch – elements of emotional growth that could be stunted by impersonal texting. Banning the use of cellphones in school, in fact, encourages traditional modes of socialization which, in turn, contributes to the enhancement of the character of every student.

A ban on cellphone use is also a great social equalizer. Allowing it in schools could be quite divisive because not everyone could afford even the cheapest phone on the market. It must be remembered that some parents tend to question the wisdom of obligating children to have the same school accessories. To them, uniformity should be limited to clothing, and they should be allowed to procure or produce all other school items, including textbooks. Schools defend this "clone" policy in the name of social equality. If students used the same things, it would be one less opportunity for richer kids to flaunt their wealth and gain social stature at the expense of their less-privileged peers. The same is true with cellphones.

By the same token, curbing a child’s desire to own or use a cellphone will impart values that are fast becoming obsolete or obscured in this fast-paced individualistic world. Kids should learn that they don’t have to own a cellphone just "because all the other kids have one." If done in a clear, straightforward and mature manner, they can be made to understand that abstaining from purchasing a cellphone will generate savings for the family, more so if the regular payments for calls made and text messages sent, whether postpaid or prepaid, were considered.

While cellphones in school may tempt students to cheat or chat, they also represent a very enticing object of theft for some school employees, or even fellow students. Poverty or envy may impel some individuals to pocket a cellphone negligently placed on a desk or chair. The absence of cellphones in school effectively deters would-be thieves from literally capitalizing on the high resale value of cellular phones and the ease in which they could be fenced.

Finally, there have been many documented and undocumented instances of phone snatching or robbery. Criminals tend to prey on the careless and the weak, a category in which students perfectly fit. Our children will be safer, even on the streets, if they lack any badge of wealth. And in today’s fast-paced and technology-dependent society, cellular phones are the shiniest badges of wealth and privilege.