Tag: Bans

  • Teachers, Parents Increasingly Back Cell Phone Bans in Michigan Schools – The 74

    Teachers, Parents Increasingly Back Cell Phone Bans in Michigan Schools – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    In his 30 years as teacher and administrator, Jason Purcell felt the weight of responsibility that often fell on his shoulders in enforcing the prohibition of cell phones in the classroom.

    When Purcell was convinced to come out of retirement this past fall to teach at Mackinaw City High School, he saw a remarkable difference teaching students in a district that had long banned cell phone use during the school day.

    “It makes a world of difference when there is a school wide policy that is enforced by all the teachers consistently and supported by the administration,” said Purcell, who has taught math, been an academic counselor and served as an assistant principal throughout his career. “Students have and always will find ways to be distracted from the learning, but not having cell phones may take away the biggest distraction that students face.”

    Mackinaw City Public Schools’ cell phone ban was instituted around 2010, coinciding with the rise of teen cell phone ownership, longtime Superintendent Jeffrey Curth said.

    Teachers have all taken on the responsibility of enforcing that students’ cell phones are left in their locker with the ringer off from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m, Curth said, removing a major source of distractions and potential source of cyber bullying.

    “Because we’ve just had it in place so long, it’s just what’s expected,” Curth said. “I think when you see the amount of cyber bullying and things that it’s raised to the level that it has in society today, I think it’s just further strengthened our stance that we feel that we’ve done the right thing.”

    As the state considers a school cell phone ban that received overwhelming bipartisan support in the Michigan House last week, an increasing number of Michigan school districts have followed Mackinaw City’s lead by enacting bans and passing cell phone policies limiting use in the classroom in recent years.

    Nationwide, 26 states have passed full bans on cell phone use, while six others have required districts to establish their own policies or limited cell phone use in class, according to Newsweek. A 2024 American Association of Educators survey of 1,517 teachers from across the country, on the other hand, found that 70% want cellphones to be banned during the school day.

    From passive presence to active participation

    Anchor Bay High School student success teacher Jamie Pietron said she was initially apprehensive about how students would adjust to the districtwide ban that started this fall, wondering how the policy would be enforced by administration.

    There have been consequences for students who violate the district’s “away for the day” cell phone policy, Pietron said, helping contribute to a more connected learning atmosphere.

    “In the past, when kids were done with their work, they went on their phones,” Pietron said. “Teachers are making lessons and activities more engaging to cover any ‘down time’ and students are focused on what they need to do.

    “… It is amazing to walk through the cafeteria and see kids actually talking, playing cards and having conversations with each other instead of staring at their screens.”

    Northville Middle School teacher Richard Tabor said he also has seen a shift from “passive presence” to active participation in his classroom since the district enacted its cell phone ban in 2024-25 for students in grades K-8 during class time, requiring them to be collected by teachers at the start of the day.

    Prior to the ban being in place, Tabor said it was teachers’ responsibility to enforce their own policies on student cell phone use, leading to inconsistency in where students were allowed to use cell phones and where they weren’t.

    Without the option to scroll during downtime, students are able to engage with the classroom environment,” Tabor said. “Students are more likely to ask questions, take physical notes and participate in discussions because they have no alternative ‘escape’ during moments of boredom or difficulty.”

    Mackinaw City special education teacher Elizabeth McNeil said her transition from teaching in a district without a cell phone policy to one where a ban has long been in place has been a “breath of fresh air” in removing “distraction and drama.”

    “At my previous district, there were daily arguments about giving up phones and discipline problems, even when just asking a student to put their phone away,” she said.

    “In a society where adults are addicted to their phones, it is encouraging to see that we are encouraging students here at MCPS to realize that their phones are not part of their lifeline,” McNeil said”

    Parental approval

    Beyond support from teachers, bans have largely been met with approval from parents, who acknowledge that devices that continually cause them distractions throughout the day shouldn’t be in the hands of their children during school.

    Heather Gatny’s opinion has evolved on the issue, from trying to hold off on getting her son a cell phone until he is in high school to recently getting him one as an eighth grader for Christmas.

    She likes the idea of him having one in his possession, even if it is kept off while he is in class at Plymouth-Canton Community Schools, but stressed that in the classroom it can only cause distractions.

    “If the kids were allowed to have their phones in the classrooms, they’d be looking at them the whole time,” she said. “I think that’s for the best for them to not have access to it, because they’re just on apps. They’re goofing around. They’re not paying attention to what the teacher is saying. They’re paying attention to what their friends are texting them.”

    With two young children in second and fourth grades at Plymouth-Canton Community Schools, Sarah Krzyzanski said she is for cell phones being stored in a central location in the classroom for those who are concerned about students being able to respond to an emergency.

    In the classroom, however, she said schools should be aiming to keep the focus on learning and not conditioning students to be dependent on having a cell phone by their side.

    “These kids are at the point where they’re kind of addicted to that ‘ding,’ and they get to where they crave it, and it becomes an impulse,” she said. “I don’t believe that a child with a phone on their person has the ability to pay attention to the teacher and actually follow lessons and do it with enough of their brain engaged to be taking that educational content out the way that they should be.”

    Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jon King for questions: [email protected].


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Poll shows most teens oppose classroom cellphone bans

    Poll shows most teens oppose classroom cellphone bans

    Dive Brief:

    • Only 41% of teens support cellphone bans in middle and high school classrooms, according to polling by Pew Research Center released Tuesday. That contrasts with most surveyed adults — 74% — who are supportive of similar prohibitions, earlier Pew research found.
    • Fewer teens (17%) are supportive of all-day cellphone bans, compared to 44% of adults. White students were more receptive to classroom and all-day cellphone bans compared to their Black and Hispanic peers, and students from families with higher household incomes favored school cellphone restrictions at a higher rate.
    • Separate research by Rand Corp. last year found school principals touted several benefits to cellphone restrictions in schools, including improved school climate, less inappropriate cellphone use and reduced cyberbullying.

    Dive Insight:

    Other research released last year by Phones in Focus, a nonpartisan research project supported by the National Governors Association, found that stricter cellphone policies, such as prohibiting students from carrying their cellphones during the school day, were associated with higher teacher satisfaction. 

    According to Ballotpedia, 38 states have enacted laws or policies on K-12 classroom or school cellphone usage as of Jan. 13. About 29 states have policies banning or limiting cellphones in classrooms.

    The exact policies differ state-by-state and even district-by-district.

    New Jersey, one of the most recent states to approve a school cellphone law, is requiring districts to adopt policies restricting the use of cellphones and other internet-enabled devices in K-12 schools.

    “With today’s bill signing, we are ensuring New Jersey schools are a place for learning and engagement, not distracting screens that detract from academic performance,” said Gov. Phil Murphy in a Jan. 8 statement. The state’s initiative includes $3 million in grants to schools that implement bell-to-bell cellphone bans. The funding will go toward purchasing equipment like cellphone storage pouches, training and engagement sessions.

    Andrew Matteo, superintendent of New Jersey’s Ramsey School District, said the district’s phone-free policy has “fundamentally transformed the daily experience for our students,” in the statement released by the governor’s office.

    “By removing the distraction of the cell phone, we have reclaimed the classroom as a space for deep academic focus and critical thinking,” said Matteo, adding that teachers have reported a significant increase in student engagement during instructional time. 

    But while cellphone restrictions in schools have garnered support from school administrators, policymakers and other adults, some in the disability rights community have raised concerns that these practices could conflict with education civil rights laws for students with disabilities who rely on assistive technology to access learning.

    Several state and local policies have incorporated language that provides exceptions for certain student groups, such as students with disabilities, English learners and parents of young children who may require access to their personal cellphones during the school day. 

    Additionally, Rand Corp. research published in October shows principals reported concerns from parents about cellphone bans due to having less access to their children during an emergency.

    A bill in Congress to create a national school cellphone ban also makes exceptions for students with disabilities, English learners and others who require the devices for learning or for medical reasons.

    The most recent Pew findings are based on an online survey of 1,458 U.S. teens ages 13 to 17, conducted from Sept. 25 to Oct. 9, 2025, through Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel.

    Source link

  • 5 years after transcript withholding bans began, college students face fewer obstacles but advocates worry about enforcement

    5 years after transcript withholding bans began, college students face fewer obstacles but advocates worry about enforcement

    by Felicia Mello, The Hechinger Report
    December 23, 2025

    OAKLAND — In 2020, California led the nation in outlawing transcript-withholding, a debt collection practice that sometimes kept low-income college students from getting jobs or advanced degrees. Five years later, 24 of the state’s 115 community colleges still said on their websites that students with unpaid balances could lose access to their transcripts, according to a recent UC Merced survey. 

    The communications failure has been misleading, student advocates said, although overall, the state’s students have benefited from the law.  

    It “raises questions about what actual institutional practices are at colleges and the extent to which colleges know the law and are fully compliant with the law,” said Charlie Eaton, a UC Merced sociology professor who led the research team that conducted the survey in October. 

    California community colleges say they are following the law, which prohibits them from refusing to release the grades of a student who owes money to the school — anywhere from a $25 library fine to unpaid tuition. The misinformation on some college websites is a clerical problem that campuses have been asked to update,  the California Community Colleges chancellor’s office said in an emailed statement.   

    Without an official transcript, students can’t prove they’ve earned college credits to admissions offices elsewhere or to potential employers. Millions of students nationwide have lost access to their transcripts because of unpaid fees, according to estimates from the higher education consulting firm Ithaka S+R.  

    Student advocates argued that the practice made little money for colleges, while costing graduates opportunities that could help them pay back their debts. 

    California lawmakers agreed; in 2019, they passed legislation that took effect on Jan. 1 2020, barring colleges from using transcript holds to collect debts. 

    At least 12 other states have followed California’s lead, passing laws limiting or banning colleges from withholding transcripts. 

    A similar but less stringent federal rule approved during the Biden administration took effect last year. 

    The new rules have raised awareness about colleges’ debt collection practices and inspired some to find ways to help their students avoid falling behind on their payments in the first place or to pay off what they owe — including by forgiving their debts.

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    Transcript withholding was never an especially effective collection tool, researchers have found. One 2018 study estimated that Ohio’s public colleges only netted only $127 for each transcript they withheld.

    Colleges and universities, however, argued that withholding transcripts was one of the few ways they had to prevent students from bouncing among institutions and leaving unpaid bills in their wake. Some use another tactic, blocking them from registering for new courses until bills are paid. 

    When colleges choose to withhold transcripts, the burden falls more heavily on low-income students and students of color, according to the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Often those students accrue debts when they withdraw partway through a course, leading the college to return part of their financial aid to the federal government and charge the bill to the student. 

    In states with laws limiting transcript withholding, many colleges have begun communicating earlier and more often with students about their debts and offering flexible payment plans, said Elizabeth Looker, a senior program manager at Ithaka S+R. Some have added financial literacy training or required students with unpaid bills to meet with counselors. 

    Eight public colleges and universities in Ohio went further, offering a deal to former students with unpaid balances: Reenroll at any of the eight, and get up to $5,000 of the outstanding debt forgiven. Called the Ohio College Comeback Compact, the program, which began in 2002 and concludes this fall, was open to former students who had at least a 2.0 GPA and had been out of school a year or more.

    The program was designed to give a second chance to students whose educations stalled because of events outside their control, such as losing a job in the middle of the semester, said Steve McKellips, vice president for enrollment management at the University of Akron.

    Since the Ohio College Compact’s inception, 79 students have returned to the university under the program, at a cost to the state of $54,174 in debt forgiven. The university netted five times that, or $271,924, in additional tuition, McKellips said. More than 700 students have used the compact to reenroll, according to Ithaka S+R, which helped coordinate the program and is studying the results.

    “I think sometimes people have this image of somebody walking away from a tuition bill because they just don’t care,” McKellips said. “But sometimes there’s just a boulder in the way and somebody needs to move it. Once the boulder was moved and they could move forward, we’re finding them continuing happily along the way they always intended to.”

    Related: City University of New York reverses its policy on withholding transcripts over unpaid bills 

    Another California bill, introduced this year, would have given students a one-time pass to register for courses, even if they owed a debt. It failed after the University of California, Cal State and many private colleges and universities opposed it. 

    The University of California cited expected cuts to federal and state funding as one reason it opposed the bill. “UC believes that maintaining the ability to hold registration is essential for its ability to reasonably secure unpaid student debt,” UC legislative director Jessica Duong wrote to lawmakers.

    Cal State spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith said that Cal State wanted a flexible approach to debt collection and that campuses had started eliminating registration holds for minor debts such as parking tickets and lost library books. 

    “Students are able to move forward with their enrollment even with institutional debts in the low hundreds to the low thousands of dollars, depending upon the university,” she said.

    Supporters of the failed bill — which also would have barred colleges from reporting a student’s institutional debt to credit agencies — said curbing aggressive debt collection doesn’t just help low-income students; it speeds up the training of workers in industries crucial to the state’s economy.

    “Schools think about these institutional debts in a way that is very penny-wise and pound-foolish, and it’s preventing people from participating in the economy,” said Mike Pierce, executive director of Protect Borrowers.

    Related: Colleges fight attempts to stop them from withholding transcripts over unpaid bills

    Annette Ayala of Simi Valley, hoping to become a registered nurse,  took her for-profit college to court to force it to comply with California’s debt collection law.  

    She had earned her vocational nursing license from the school, the Professional Medical Careers Institute, and wanted to continue her studies to become a registered nurse. But the college refused to release her transcript —  citing a $7,500 debt that Ayala argued in court records she did not owe — and without the transcript she could not apply to other colleges. 

    In her case, California’s Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, which regulates for-profit colleges under the state’s Department of Consumer Affairs, cited her former school for violating the state’s transcript-withholding law.

    The college was fined $1,000 and ordered to update its enrollment agreement. The school forgave the debt it said Ayala owed. It’s the only case in which a school has been cited for withholding a transcript since the bureau started monitoring compliance with the law more closely two years ago, said Monica Vargas, a spokesperson for consumer affairs. 

    School officials had been unaware of the California law at the time Ayala sued, the school’s controller, Joshua Taylor, said, and have since updated their catalog to comply with it.

    With her vocational nursing license, Ayala has been working in home health care. Now that she has her transcript, she’s applying for RN programs, and said her salary would roughly double once she has the new degree, allowing her to save for the future and help her son pay for college.

    “You’ve got to give people the chance to get through their program and pay their debts as they’re working,” she said. “You can’t hold them back from being able to make top dollar with their abilities to pay back these loans.”

    Contact editor Lawrie Mifflin at 212-678-4078 or [email protected]

    This story about student debt and transcript withholding was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to ourhigher education podcast.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/5-years-after-california-banned-holding-college-students-transcripts-hostage-for-unpaid-debt-some-colleges-neglect-the-law/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114067&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/5-years-after-california-banned-holding-college-students-transcripts-hostage-for-unpaid-debt-some-colleges-neglect-the-law/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Trump expands travel bans and restrictions to 39 countries

    Trump expands travel bans and restrictions to 39 countries

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • President Donald Trump on Tuesday fully banned individuals from an additional seven countries from traveling to the U.S., as well as those with travel documentation from Palestinian authorities, effective Jan. 1.
    • In a presidential proclamation, he also placed partial entry limitations on 15 additional countries, including Nigeria, one of the top 10 sources for international students in the U.S.
    • Higher education officials pushed back on the travel ban expansion — which will include 39 countries — arguing it will further constrict the U.S.’s international student pipeline and stymie the country’s global competitiveness.

    Dive Insight:

    Both partial and full federal travel restrictions block F and J visas, the types mostly frequently used by international students. F visas are more commonly known as international student visas. And certain foreign students can obtain J visas, which also cover short-term college instructors and researchers.

    In June, Trump issued a presidential proclamation that banned or restricted entry into the U.S. from 19 countries, a move which sparked several lawsuits. Tuesday’s proclamation more than doubled the number of affected countries.

    NAFSA: Association of International Educators called the expansion “anticipated” but “disappointing and misguided” in a Tuesday statement.

    “At a time when countries including China, Canada, Germany, and Japan are actively courting talented students, scholars, and researchers from around the world, this travel ban sends the message that the United States is better off without their contributions,” the group said. “The administration’s latest actions will undoubtedly prevent some of the world’s best and brightest students from contributing to U.S. predominance in research, science, and innovation.”

    Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, called the travel ban “a self-inflicted wound that directly undermines our economic competitiveness and our ability to welcome and retain global talent.” 

    “It signals to the world that the U.S. is no longer a welcoming destination for talent from around the world,” she said in a Wednesday statement.

    The proclamation exempts lawful permanent residents, current visa holders, and “individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests” from the restrictions. It also exempts certain visa categories for athletes and diplomats.

    It did not list exceptions for international students, arguing that individuals overstaying their F and J visas, among other types, necessitate travel bans against some countries.

    High visa-overstay rates among individuals from these countries “demonstrate disregard for U.S. immigration laws and burden American enforcement resources,” the proclamation said.

    For example, Trump cited visa overstays in part when placing partial travel restrictions on Nigeria.

    In his proclamation, Trump alleged that more than 1 in 10 Nigerian citizens in the U.S. on a F, J or M visa overstay their visa, citing an annual report from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. An M visa allows foreign students to study at a vocational or approved nonacademic institution.

    But NAFSA said that data is “known to be deeply flawed.” Feldblum similarly called it “highly flawed and selective.” Both cited a June report from the National Foundation for American Policy, which conducts public policy research.

    Researchers at the nonprofit found that Trump’s June travel ban “significantly overstates the number of overstays from individual countries” in part by counting people who already left the country and people who changed status inside the U.S.

    “The overstay report allowed for a veneer of data to justify predetermined policy decisions,” the foundation report said. It added that the U.S. Department of State could address overstays by denying individual applications from people they suspect will overstay — “a less draconian approach than banning everyone in that country from entering the United States.”

    Nigeria first became a top 10 country for international students in 2020-21 and has held that status since. In 2024-25, almost 22,000 Nigerian students studied in the U.S.

    The number of foreign students from Nigeria studying in the U.S. has risen steadily for at least a decade and a half, except for a small dip during the height of the pandemic, according to Open Doors data.

    Countries facing travel restrictions as of Jan. 1 2026

    *extended from June travel ban.
    **changed from partial restrictions under June travel ban.
    ***applies only to immigrant visas.

    The new proclamation moves two countries — Laos and Sierra Leone — from partial to full travel restrictions. It is lowering restrictions on only one country: Turkmenistan. 

    Trump will allow nonimmigrant visas, like student visas, to be processed for Turkmenistani citizens “because Turkmenistan has engaged productively with the United States and demonstrated significant progress since the previous Proclamation,” Trump’s proclamation said. 

    Turkmenistan’s embassy on Wednesday said the country had shown “substantial progress in improving identity-management and information-sharing procedures.”

    Immigrants from Turkmenistan will continue to be denied entry.

    Source link

  • Trinity College bans political activism over chalkboard messages

    Trinity College bans political activism over chalkboard messages

    Imagine wearing an “I Voted” sticker to class and having the school investigate you for it. Or handing out pocket editions of the Constitution on campus for Constitution Day, only for your school to deem this disruptive.

    Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Juneteenth. Labor Day. Columbus Day. Connecticut’s Trinity College seemingly prohibits on-campus celebrations of all these federal holidays. (Don’t even get us started on t-shirts that read “Reagan-Bush 1984” or “Nevertheless, She Persisted.”)

    On November 7, individuals identifying with Students and Faculty for Justice in Palestine left chalkboard messages around campus while classes were out of session. These messages read, “Trinity is suppressing freedom of assembly,” “Disclose Divest Protest,” “Trinity Invests in Genocide,” “You are on stolen land,” and “Free Palestine.” 

    Message left by Students and Faculty for Justice in Palestine on a chalkboard in Seabury Hall. (@sfjp_trin / Instagram.com)

    That evening, Trinity President Daniel Lugo emailed the campus community, announcing an investigation of the messages for disruption, intimidation, and harassment. Then came the anti-speech money quote: “Our Student Handbook and employment policies clearly prohibit political activism within academic settings.”

    No nuance. No qualifiers. Just a blanket ban on political activism anywhere “academic.”

    There’s only one problem. FIRE couldn’t find any such rule. In fact, Trinity’s official policies affirm the importance of free expression and academic freedom, and — to its credit — the school’s time, place, and manner rules largely track First Amendment standards. Although Trinity is a private college and not legally required to protect students’ First Amendment rights, it laudably promises to uphold students’ expressive freedom in its policies. So last week, FIRE wrote to Lugo, urging him to make good on these commitments.

    FIRE calls on Trinity to end its investigation into the matter and remove any existing policy prohibiting “political activism within academic settings.”

    Lugo’s letter said that the college community “deserves to teach, learn, and work in spaces free from intimidation, harassment, or disruption.” We certainly agree, but this letter errs in suggesting that the chalkboard messages should merit punishment. On the contrary, the after-hours commentary doesn’t come close to a material and substantial disruption. Even if they did, it still wouldn’t justify outlawing all political speech on campus.

    The chalkboard messages weren’t harassment either. Harassment requires content so objectively offensive, pervasive, and severe that it effectively denies students equal access to education. There is no evidence these messages rise to this level of unprotected speech.

    Nor are they intimidation. Unprotected intimidation (i.e. a true threat) requires a serious expression of intent to commit unlawful violence, and a conscious disregard of the potential for that expression to put its recipient in fear of serious physical harm. Again, nothing of the sort here.

    Viral video appears to show Trinity College singling out one student’s political dorm display for removal

    Without the freedom to express even inoffensive political convictions, the promise of free speech is meaningless. America’s colleges and universities cannot conceivably function as insulated vacuums for discussion on topics of national and international importance, especially in service of such a broad and spontaneous edict. 

    Political activism has always been part of campus life in the United States. Without it, groups from Students for a Democratic Society to Turning Point USA wouldn’t exist, and George Carlin’s most legendary, politically charged bits (including his landmark UCLA set) might never have happened.

    Trinity’s overbroad language puts America’s long and proud tradition of fostering political engagement in jeopardy, and that is cause for alarm. Accordingly, FIRE calls on Trinity to end its investigation into the matter and remove any existing policy prohibiting “political activism within academic settings.”



    Source link

  • UI Bans Considering Race, Sex in Hiring, Tenure, Student Aid

    UI Bans Considering Race, Sex in Hiring, Tenure, Student Aid

    Just_Super/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    The University of Illinois system is telling its institutions they can’t consider race, color, national origin or sex in hiring, tenure, promotion and student financial aid decisions—a move that’s drawn opposition from a faculty union at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

    Aaron Krall, president of UIC United Faculty, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers and the American Association of University Professors, said the UI system circumvented shared governance.

    “This was a directive that came down and surprised everyone,” Krall said.

    The system implemented a policy saying it and its universities don’t consider race or the other factors in determining eligibility for need- or merit-based financial aid. In a statement, the system further said it “issued guidance to its universities to ensure that hiring, promotion, and tenure processes follow the same standards.”

    The statement said, “There may be some variation in how and when changes are fully operationalized” across its three universities: UIC, Springfield and Urbana-Champaign. The system didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed an interview Tuesday about why it’s making this change now.

    Krall shared communications that he said UIC officials sent out last week. One, from Chancellor Marie Lynn Miranda and others, suggested the student aid change would apply to “donor-funded, college-determined and institutionally funded scholarships” and said “UIC will replace its Affirmative Action Plan with a Nondiscrimination and Merit-Based Hiring Plan.”

    In another message Krall provided, a UIC official wrote that “faculty may no longer submit a Statement on Efforts to Promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the dossier, nor may faculty members be evaluated on norms related to” DEI. The official wrote that the system “made this decision after carefully considering the increased risk to our faculty and to the University that these criteria present in the current climate.”

    Krall said. “The most shocking thing to me, really, is they want to change the policy and make it retroactive—so we have [affected] faculty members going up for promotion right now who have already submitted their promotion materials.” He said the union has demanded the right to bargain over these changes.

    Source link

  • Cellphone bans can help kids learn — but Black students are suspended more as schools make the shift

    Cellphone bans can help kids learn — but Black students are suspended more as schools make the shift

    Thirty states now limit or ban cellphone use in classrooms, and teachers are noticing children paying attention to their lessons again. But it’s not clear whether this policy — unpopular with students and a headache for teachers to enforce — makes an academic difference. 

    If student achievement goes up after a cellphone ban, it’s tough to know if the ban was the reason. Some other change in math or reading instruction might have caused the improvement. Or maybe the state assessment became easier to pass. Imagine if politicians required all students to wear striped shirts and test scores rose. Few would really think that stripes made kids smarter.

    Two researchers from the University of Rochester and RAND, a nonprofit research organization, figured out a clever way to tackle this question by taking advantage of cellphone activity data in one large school district in Florida, which in 2023 became the first state to institute school cellphone restrictions. The researchers compared schools that had high cellphone activity before the ban with those that had low cellphone usage to see if the ban made a bigger difference for schools that had high usage. 

    Indeed, it did. 

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    Student test scores rose a bit more in high cellphone usage schools two years after the ban compared with schools that had lower cellphone usage to start. Students were also attending school more regularly. 

    The policy also came with a troubling side effect. The cellphone bans led to a significant increase in student suspensions in the first year, especially among Black students. But disciplinary actions declined during the second year. 

    “Cellphone bans are not a silver bullet,” said David Figlio, an economist at the University of Rochester and one of the study’s co-authors. “But they seem to be helping kids. They’re attending school more, and they’re performing a bit better on tests.”

    Figlio said he was “worried” about the short-term 16 percent increase in suspensions for Black students. What’s unclear from this data analysis is whether Black students were more likely to violate the new cellphone rules, or whether teachers were more likely to single out Black students for punishment. It’s also unclear from these administrative behavior records if students were first given warnings or lighter punishments before they were suspended. 

    The data suggest that students adjusted to the new rules. A year later, student suspensions, including those of Black students, fell back to what they had been before the cellphone ban.

    “What we observe is a rocky start,” Figlio added. “There was a lot of discipline.”

    The study, “The Impact of Cellphone Bans in Schools on Student Outcomes: Evidence from Florida,” is a draft working paper and has not been peer-reviewed. It was slated to be circulated by the National Bureau of Economic Research on Oct. 20 and the authors shared a draft with me in advance. Figlio and his co-author Umut Özek at RAND believe it is the first study to show a causal connection between cellphone bans and learning rather than just a correlation.

    The academic gains from the cellphone ban were small, less than a percentile point, on average. That’s the equivalent of moving from the 50th percentile on math and reading tests (in the middle) to the 51st percentile (still close to the middle), and this small gain did not emerge until the second year for most students. The academic benefits were strongest for middle schoolers, white students, Hispanic students and male students. The academic gains for Black students and female students were not statistically significant.  

    Related: Suspended for…what? 

    I was surprised to learn that there is data on student cellphone use in school. The authors of this study used information from Advan Research Corp., which collects and analyzes data from mobile phones around the world for business purposes, such as figuring out how many people visit a particular retail store. The researchers were able to obtain this data for schools in one Florida school district and estimate how many students were on their cellphones before and after the ban went into effect between the hours of 9 a.m. and 1 p.m.

    The data showed that more than 60 percent of middle schoolers, on average, were on their phones at least once during the school day before the 2023 ban in this particular Florida district, which was not named but described as one of the 10 largest districts in the country. (Five of the nation’s 10 largest school districts are in Florida.) After the ban, that fell in half to 30 percent of middle schoolers in the first year and down to 25 percent in the second year.

    Elementary school students were less likely to be on cellphones to start with and their in-school usage fell from about 25 percent of students before the ban to 15 percent after the ban. More than 45 percent of high schoolers were on their phones before the ban and that fell to about 10 percent afterwards.

    Average daily smartphone visits in schools, by year and grade level

    Average daily smartphone visits during regular school days (relative to teacher workdays without students) between 9am and 1pm (per 100 enrolled students) in the two months before and then after the 2023 ban took effect in one large urban Florida school district. Source: Figlio and Özek, October 2025 draft paper, figure 2C, p. 23.

    Florida did not enact a complete cellphone ban in 2023, but imposed severe restrictions. Those restrictions were tightened in 2025 and that additional tightening was not studied in this paper.

    Anti-cellphone policies have become increasingly popular since the pandemic, largely based on our collective adult gut hunches that kids are not learning well when they are consumed by TikTok and SnapChat. 

    This is perhaps a rare case in public policy, Figlio said, where the “data back up the hunches.” 

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

    This story about cellphone bans was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Book bans becoming the new norm for districts, report says

    Book bans becoming the new norm for districts, report says

    Dive Brief:

    • In the fourth school year since book bans proliferated on local school board levels, districts are now also facing federal and state pressures to ban books, according to a report released Oct. 1 by PEN America, a nonprofit that advocates for free speech. 
    • The organization noted that federal efforts to influence education issues are repeating state and local book banning rhetoric, which it calls a “a new vector of book banning pressure.” For example, the parental rights movement behind book banning is being repeated at the federal level in executive orders leading to the reversal of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and LGBTQ+ inclusion. 
    • The escalating book censorship campaigns usurp educators’ time that would otherwise be used for instruction, can subject them to harassment, and also leads to them spending long hours cataloging books and dedicating more administrative time to comply with bans, the report said. Districts are also incurring “significant” legal costs navigating lawsuits. 

    Dive Insight:

    There were 6,870 instances of book bans across 23 states and 87 public school districts in the 2024-25 school year, according to PEN America. That totals 22,810 cases of book bans across 45 states and 451 public school districts since the organization began tracking the issue in July 2021.

    PEN America’s definition of “bans” includes books that have been taken off the shelf pending investigation, and any other steps taken against books as a result of parent, community or government pushback leading to limited student access.

    “From a birds’ eye view, school districts today are surrounded by multiple and persistent local, state, and now federal pressures to ban books, with diminishing reasons not to,” the report said. 

    At the federal level, the Trump administration’s U.S. Department of Education in January rescinded Biden-era guidance. That guidance had warned school districts that they could violate civil rights law by implementing book bans, and it said that removing “age-inappropriate” books from schools is a parent and community decision that the federal government “has no role in.” 

    At the same time, the department dismissed 11 civil rights complaints related to book bans.

    It also eliminated the position of a book ban coordinator, created by the Biden administration in 2023 to develop training for schools on navigating book bans. 

    Four years after the initial wave of book bans swept localities, communities and educators “have been conditioned to expect book challenges and bans as part of the U.S. education system,” PEN America said in a statement. 

    “A disturbing ‘everyday banning’ and normalization of censorship has worsened and spread over the last four years,” said Kasey Meehan, director of PEN America’s Freedom to Read program, in an Oct. 1 statement. “The result is unprecedented.” 

    Districts are responding by removing books to comply out of fear of losing funding, staff being fired or harassed, and sometimes having police involvement, the organization said. 

    In an August 2024 report, the Knight Foundation found in a survey of over 4,500 adults that two-thirds of Americans oppose book restrictions in schools and even more are confident in public schools’ book selection. More Americans said in that survey that it was more concerning to restrict students’ access to books with educational value than it was to provide them with access to books that have inappropriate content.

    However, a majority (6 in 10) also said that age appropriateness — as opposed to parents’ political views, religious beliefs or moral values — was a legitimate reason to restrict students’ book access. The survey included responses from over 1,100 pre-K-12 parents.

    Source link

  • LAWSUIT: Texas bans the First Amendment at public universities after dark

    LAWSUIT: Texas bans the First Amendment at public universities after dark

    AUSTIN, Texas, Sept. 3, 2025 — The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed a lawsuit today to stop enforcement of a new, unconstitutional law that turns every public university in Texas into a speech-free zone starting at 10 p.m. every day. FIRE is suing the University of Texas System on behalf of student musicians, journalists, political organizers, and religious students who span the ideological spectrum, all of whom the new Texas law threatens to silence.

    “The First Amendment doesn’t set when the sun goes down,” said FIRE senior supervising attorney JT Morris. “University students have expressive freedom whether it’s midnight or midday, and Texas can’t just legislate those constitutional protections out of existence.”

    In 2019, Texas was a national leader in protecting student speech, passing a robust law enshrining free speech on public university campuses. But after a series of high-profile protests over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2024, the Texas legislature reversed course and passed Senate Bill 2972, transforming the speech-protective 2019 law into one mandating that the state’s public universities and colleges impose a host of sweeping censorship measures.

    FIRE’s lawsuit is challenging two major provisions of the law, which went into effect on Sept. 1. The first requires public universities in Texas to ban all “expressive activities” on campus between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., which the law defines as “any speech or expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.”

    That is a shocking prohibition of protected speech at public universities. Under the new law, universities now have the power to discipline students at nighttime for wearing a hat with a political message, playing music, writing an op-ed, attending candlelight vigils — even just chatting with friends.

    “This law gives campus administrators a blank check to punish speech, and that authority will inevitably be used to target unpopular speech,” said FIRE attorney Adam Steinbaugh. “Administrators have plenty of ways to prevent disruptive conduct that do not involve such a broad censorship mandate.”

    FIRE is also challenging the law’s mandate that universities ban student groups from a host of protected expression during the last two weeks of any semester or term, including inviting guest speakers, using amplified sound, or playing a drum. The Fellowship of Christian University Students at UT-Dallas, for example, would be unable to invite an off-campus minister to lead a prayer during finals.

    “Our organization gives students on campus a place to worship with one another and hear from Christian leaders,” said FOCUS committee chair Juke Matthews. “For many of them, this is their church away from home. This law would yank away part of their support system right at the most stressful time of the term.”

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF STUDENT CLIENTS FOR MEDIA USE

    If state officials and campus administrators want to regulate disruptive speech, the First Amendment demands that they narrowly tailor any such regulation. But Texas’ blanket ban makes no distinctions about the noise level or location of the expression. The Texas law would permit a tuba concert during finals weeks, but not one with drums. And the law exempts “commercial speech” from its sweeping bans on speech. So Texas students are free to advertise t-shirts featuring the First Amendment after hours… but could face discipline for wearing them.

    FIRE is suing on behalf of a diverse group of students and student organizations whose speech the new Texas law will harm. Along with the UT-Dallas chapter of FOCUS, other plaintiffs include:

    • Young Americans for Liberty is an Austin-based national grassroots organization for students who want to advance the cause of liberty. Many of their student members at Texas universities engage in protests, petitions, and “Free Speech Balls” that traditionally take place during evening hours. FIRE is also representing an individual YAL member who attends UT-Austin and would personally face punishment for inviting YAL speakers in the final weeks of term or for sharing his political opinions at the wrong hour.
    • The Society of Unconventional Drummers is a registered student organization at UT-Austin that puts on performances throughout the term, including at the end of each semester. Texas’s arbitrary rule banning percussion the last two weeks of any semester would force the students to cancel one of their most popular shows.
    • Strings Attached is a student music group that holds public performances on UT-Dallas’s campus, including in the final two weeks of term. Some of their concerts take place after hours or during the day with sound amplification, both of which could fall afoul of the Texas law’s sweeping bans.
    • The Retrograde is a new, independent student newspaper that serves the UT-Dallas community. Whether it’s writing a story, emailing sources, editing a column, much of its staff’s newsgathering and reporting necessarily happens after Texas’ 10 p.m. free speech cutoff.

    “Under these new rules, we’re at risk of being shut down simply for posting breaking news as it happens,” said Retrograde Editor-in-Chief Gregorio Olivares. “With that threat hanging over our heads, many student journalists across the UT system face the impossible decision between self-censorship and running a story that criticizes the powers on campus.”

    FIRE’s clients will ask the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent UT’s new speech bans from taking effect. The defendants in the lawsuit include the members of the UT System Board of Regents, UT System Chancellor John M. Zerwas, UT-Austin President Jim Davis, and UT-Dallas President Prabhas V. Moghe.


    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]



    Source link