TRUTH MATTERS… Donate to support excellence in student journalism

Let’s be honest: many of us don’t use our Yondr pouches. 

In the age of social media and being chronically online, smartphones have become extensions of our bodies and LAUSD’s attempt to minimize classroom distractions through the Yondr phone ban has sparked considerable debate.

While the intention behind locking away devices is commendable, the execution has been less than effective, calling into question the practicality of such measures. 

We’ve all seen them, the gray and green pouches with magnetic locks. The Yondr pouches, designed to lock students’ phones during school hours, have faced significant challenges. Despite their widespread adoption, many students have found ways to bypass the system.

Students have hacked the pouches, purchased their own magnets, banged them against tables, used fake phones or have simply avoided using them altogether. Not only does this undermine the policy’s effectiveness, but it also highlights a glaring oversight in anticipating student ingenuity. 

LAUSD spent no small amount on this Yondr program, allocating around seven million dollars for equipment to enforce the policy, with about 80% of eligible middle and high school opting for Yondr pouches. 

Funds that could have gone to hiring new teachers, improving facilities or enhancing school meals were blown on pouches that many students don’t even use. 

Of course, restricting device usage can lead to improved student engagement and academic performance. Studies have shown that banning mobile phones enhanced student performance among low-achieving students without negatively impacting high-achievers. Schools have also reported a decrease in cyberbullying incidents and more frequent face-to-face interactions among students. 

The benefits of reducing distractions is clear, but the practicality of such bans remains questionable. 

The effectiveness of Yondr pouches relies heavily on constant administrative enforcement and student integrity. The student opposition to the phone ban, the inability of administrators to breathe down our necks and overpowering cell phone addictions have diminished compliance to the policy. 

The substantial financial investment in these pouches, especially when students have found ways to circumvent them, reveals that resources should have been allocated more wisely. Investing in education staff, infrastructure and student welfare programs would have yielded more tangible benefits than attempting to enforce a policy that students are adept at undermining. 

Banning phones is not inherently flawed. In fact, it aims to foster a more focused and interactive learning environment. However, the Yondr approach has been unrealistic and financially imprudent. 

A more practical strategy, such as creating phone-free zones in classrooms and study areas while allowing usage during lunch or passing periods, would be a more feasible solution. Though no system is perfect, a more flexible structure can reduce the temptation to sneak phones out during class. 

Technology is inescapable. Rather than waging an unwinnable war against phones, LAUSD should lead the way in creating a modern, more balanced approach, one that truly prepares students for success in the real world.