CanadianJournalofEducationalAdministrationandPolicy,195,49-64

Qn 1 Imagine you have been appointed as the Minister of Education and Sports of the
Republic of Uganda, there is a debate in the Parliament about permitting the use of Smart
phones in the teaching and learning process of the Lower Secondary Level to facilitate in
the implementation of the Competence Based Curriculum. You are given an opportunity
to debate at the floor of the House.

As a student of History of Education, present your case (25 Marks)

The history of education is in many aspects the history of reform movements and
ideas. Since Plato's Politeia at least, ‘education’ could be regarded as the cause or
ground for the change of society, culture, and individuals. In the late Roman empire
and early Christian times, education was viewed as a voice of God and thus as the
voice of mission; in the Middle Ages it also became the special force for movements
of heresy. After the Reformation, education was regarded as the cause for ‘inner’
belief and personal salvation. The reform movements of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries mixed all these motives and made them powerful as reactions
against the model of schooling and education that was developed by statal power in
the nineteenth century. Modern reform movements have at least three different
tendencies. There are movements of reform of educational institutions, of forms of
life, and of society. Most movements have charismatic founders and supporting
groups for their special doctrines. Many experiments with ‘new education’ failed,
with only a few, such as the Rudolf Steiner schools, surviving. The school system, on
the other hand, adopted some aspects of new education but did not change
radically. The critique of ‘bureaucratic’ schools returned with the neoliberal
economy which renewed the individualistic alternatives to compulsory education,
i.e., the backbone of the state system of schooling. New media are new supports for
the basic idea of ‘active learning.’

CellPhones,StudentRights,andSchoolSafety:
FindingtheRightBalance

WilliamT.Smale¹,RyanHutcheson²,&CharlesJ.Russo³
¹TrentUniversity,²McMasterUniversity,³UniversityofDayton

Abstract
Despite the potential instructional benefits of integrating devices such as cell phones into schools and
classrooms,researchrevealsthattheirimproperusecannegativelyimpactstudentbehaviour,learn- ing, and
well-being. This paper reviews the literature and litigation on cell phone use in schools due to
controversies over cheating, cyberbullying, sexting, and searches of student cell phones. Recent studies
suggested that the presence of cell phones and related technologies in classrooms could detract from
students’ academic performances while contributing to higher rates of academic dishonesty and cyber-
1
Smale,Hutcheson, &Russo
bullying.Thegrowingprevalenceofcyberbullyingisespeciallyconcerningbecauseitcanhaveseverely
negative, even tragic, effects on student mental health and safety. However, given the relatively discreet
natureofcellphoneuse,regulationsabouttheirusecanbedifficulttoenforce.Afterreviewingliterature and
litigation on the potential risks associated with inappropriate cell phone use in schools, this paper offers
suggestions for educators to consider when devising or revising policies balancing students’ indi- vidual
rights with their safety and well-being before ending with a brief conclusion.

Keywords:socialmedia,cellphones,schools,sexting,cyberbullying,searchandseizure

Introduction
The role of cell phones and other screen technologies in classrooms continues to generate much
discussion and heated debate in the Uganda and beyond. More specifically, how to best manage the
increasing ubiquity of cell phones in schools continues to challenge teachers, pedagogical leaders,
administrators, and policymakers alike. While there appears to be some support for integrating cell
phones and related technologies into academic instruction (Derounian, 2017), the cumulative risks and
detrimental effects of their use may outweigh these potential educational benefits (Beland & Murphy,
2016 ; Hosokawa & Katsura, 2018).

This paper explores the impact of cell phone use on student behaviour, learning, and well-being in
educational contexts (implementation of the lower secondary curriculum). Against this background, this
paper examines the benefits and detriments of cell phone use in schools and the associated legal
implications of e-cheating, cyber bullying, sexting, plus search and seizure for students and educators.
We then suggest that in order to address these issues, school boards, ministry of education and sports
must develop more nuanced and consistent up-to-date policies regulating the presence and use of cell
phones and other communication e-devices. The paper rounds out with a brief conclusion.

2
 CanadianJournalofEducationalAdministrationandPolicy,195,49-64
PotentialBenefitsofUsingCellPhonesintheClassroom
In the ongoing struggle to regulate cell phone use in schools, some educators have taken a decidedly “if
you can’t beat them, join them” approach. These educators maintain that cell phones can be leveragedto
enhance student collaboration, engagement, and idea-sharing across grade levels and subject areas.
Regarding the potential benefits of using cell phones as part of teaching and learning, Marcoux (2009)
suggested that they can help to enhance student research, to connect students with school activities and
events, and to facilitate teaching digital responsibility. Other suggested benefits of using cell phones
include enabling modern learning, expanding learning outside of classrooms, using cell phones as al-
ternatives to textbooks (Wainwright, 2012), and providing students with virtual tours to many places
previously unavailable (Bain, 2015).
Studies reveal that cell phone use in classrooms have an array of other beneficial effects for young
people, including improving motivation, being relevant for future work, supporting pedagogical innova-
tion (Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF), 2018, p. 7), and greater interactivity in
theclassroom(e.g.,Scomavaccaetal.,2009).Mifsud(2003)statedthatcellphoneusehashighpotential
forstudentsinvolvedindistancelearning.Further,inastudyof92preserviceteachercandidates,Thom-
asandO’Bannon(2013)reportedthat61%ofrespondentsreportedthatcellphonesprovidedanytimeor
anywhere purposeful learning opportunities.
Research literature has identified further benefits of cell phone use such as content creation and
assessment (e.g., Hartnell-Young & Vetere, 2008), differentiation of instruction (e.g., Kukulska-Hulme,
2007), as well as reflection (e.g., Engel & Green, 2011; Markett et al., 2006). Digital cameras, video re-
corders, access to the Internet, social networking, and text messaging capabilities on cell phones have
also been shown to have an array of important classroom applications.
For example, students can use digital cameras and video recorders to collect data for science ex-
periments and to create podcasts, respectively, and teachers can use social media to post homework
assignments (Thomas & O’Bannon, 2013). Moreover, a 2018 survey by the Ontario Institute for Studies
inEducation(citedbyOSSTF,2018),drawingondatafromarepresentativesampleofOntarioresidents,
foundthat“80%ofrespondentsthoughtthatschoolsshouldprovideopportunitiesforstudentstobecome
“technologically savvy” through the use of tablets, netbooks and related software” (p. 5).
While many agree that school leaders must take concrete steps to educate students to understand the
impact of their online behaviour and to become “technologically savvy,” researchers do not necessarily
agree that having cell phones in classrooms is essential to achieve these objectives. Some studies have
maintained that university students should be mature enough to control the urge to compulsively check
their phones (Fernandez, 2018), and that these students will agree to significant restrictions on their cell
phoneuseiftherulesareclear(Tatumetal.,2018)orifbonusmarksareofferedforabstinence(Katz & Lambert,
2016). The ethics of “rewarding” students to follow cell phone policies is certainly ques- tionable, but
more importantly, the relevance of these findings to elementary or even secondary school contexts is
problematic at best.

PotentialDetrimentsofUsingCellPhonesinClassrooms
In contrast to the studies suggesting the benefits of cell phones in academic environments, other stud-ies
reported that cell phones have potential disadvantages for student learning. However, the in-depth
research investigating the relationship between cell phone use and academic performance has received
limited scholarly attention.
BelandandMurphy’s(2016)studyontheimpactofcellphonesonstudents’academicperformance,
reported that when cell phones were banned from classrooms, standardized test scores went up approx-
imately 6% on average and more than 14% for low-achieving students. The researchers observed thatthe
ban’s differential effect on previously underperforming students is especially significant in light of
school-board equity policies, as “banning mobile phones could be a low-cost way for schools to reduce
educational inequality” (Beland & Murphy, 2016, p. 18).
Wilmer et al. (2017) reinforced these findings, concluding that studies on this issue “generally sup-
port the conclusion that poor academic performance (generally assessed by GPA) can be predicted by
higher levels of smartphone use, instant messaging, media multitasking, and general electronic media
usage”(p.11).Moreover,JacobsenandForste(2011)reportedanegativeassociationbetweencellphone

3
 CJEAP,195
use and self-reported grade point average (GPA). Additional research similarly suggested that unstruc-
tured cell phone use in the classroom might negatively affect learning and grades (e.g., Duncan et al.,
2012; Froese et al., 2012; McDonald, 2013). Other studies reported that while performing school activi-
ties, unstructured cell phone use, such as playing video games (e.g., Jackson, 2002; Jackson et al., 2011;
Mifsud, 2003) multitasking (e.g., Cain et al., 2016; Dietz & Henrich, 2014; Sana et al., 2013), visiting
social-networkingsites(e.g.,Rosenetal.,2013;Willcocks&Redmond,2014),andInternetsurfing(e.g.,
Beranuy et al., 2009; Jenaro et al., 2007) tended to have a negative effect on student learning.
The literature further revealed that in-class texting for non-class purposes is an area of concern for
educators.Forinstance,usingestimatesderivedfromasurveysampleof777studentsatsixU.S.univer- sities,
McCoy (2013) concluded that 86% of the respondents reported that they had used their cell phone to
text during class for non-class purposes. In a study of 269 college students from 21 academic majors,
Tindell and Bohlander (2012) found that 92% of the respondents had used their cell phones to text mes-
sages during class time.
In another study of 92 preservice teacher candidates, Thomas and O’Bannon (2013) discovered that
67.4% of respondents identified cell phone use in class as a primary disruption to meaningful learning.
Chaklader and Bohlander (cited by Tindell & Bohlander, 2012) published comparable data, finding that
students who received text messages during class had significantly lower test scores compared to those
students who did not receive text messages in class. Removing cell phones from classrooms is likely to
reduce students’ temptation to check their devices, play games, text, and surf the Internet, consequently
enhancing their ability to focus and thus improving their performance due to greater intake and memory
of academic material.

CellPhonesandE-Cheating
Beyond the consequences of student distraction during instruction, another leading concern about thein-
classpresenceofcellphonesistheiruseine-cheating.AtleastthreestudiesbyMcAfee(2012),Pickett and
Thomas (2006), and St. Gerard (2006) reported that some students used their cell phone to cheat in
school.TheCanadianCouncilforLearning’s(CCL’s)2010surveyof20,000studentsat11post-second-
aryeducationalinstitutionsfoundthattechnologyplayedasignificantroleinbothcheatingandstudents’
attitudes toward cheating. Data from the same study also revealed that, respectively, 73% and 60% of
first-yearuniversitystudentscheatedonwrittenworkorassignmentsandcheatedontestsinhighschool.
SaidouniandBahloul(2018)supportedthisfinding,statingthat35%ofthestudentsintheirstudyreport- ed that
cell phones and other screen technologies were being used to cheat on exams.
Haller(2017)reportedthatanonlinesurveybyMcAfeeof1,201U.S.highschoolstudentsinGrades 9-
12echoedtheseoutcomes,findingthatroughly33%ofthestudentsusedcellphonesorotherelectronic devices to
cheat at school. The same study also indicated that 60% of students either had seen or had known
“another teen who used a connected device in class to cheat on an exam” (para. 3).
Similarly, according to Wallace (2009), a study by Common Sense Media, using estimates derived
from a large U.S. national survey of 2,000 students, reported that in 2009, roughly 25% of middle and
high school students said “they didn’t think storing notes on a cell phone or texting during an exam
constituted cheating” (para. 2). This study’s outcomes parallel the results of other studies. For instance,
Morin (2019) cited to a 2015 Pew Research Centre study in which 35% of the surveyed students had ac-
knowledgedusingtheircellphonestocheatonhomeworkassignmentsortests.Becausecellphonescan be used
surreptitiously and discreetly to look up answers, text questions to friends, store notes, and even take
pictures of full exam pages, their potential for increasing academic dishonesty may be sufficient to
justify stricter consequences, policies, and codes of conduct regarding their presence in classrooms.

CyberbullyinginSchools
Amoreseriousconcernsurroundingcellphonesistheirroleinfacilitatingcyberbullying.Paolini(2018) pointed
out that cyberbullying is one of the most pervasive and dangerous maladies afflicting students today.
Hartnell-Young (2008) succinctly stated that, in the context of cyberbullying, the cell phone is a
“potentiallyoffensiveweapon”(p.160).Troublingly,reportshavestatedthatasmanyas25%ofstudents in
British Columbia, Canada had been victims of cyberbullying as far back as 2002 – well before the
proliferationofthecellphone–andthatnumberhadgrowncloserto50%inTorontoonlyadecadelater

51
Smale,Hutcheson, &Russo
(MacKay et al., 2020).
In a study of 62 adolescents and 75 parents from the United States, Wong-Lo and Bullock (2011)
reported that 90% of the participants in the cohort group had reported being victims of cyberbullying
through virtual media such as cell phones. According to Haller (2017), McAfee’s (2017) online survey
cited earlier supported this outcome, concluding that roughly 33% of teens reported being cyberbullied.
The same study also indicated that “girls are cyberbullied 30 percent more than boys” (para. 8).
More recent studies reported that children who owned cell phones in Grades 3 to 5 were more likely
tobebothvictimsandperpetratorsofcyberbullyingcomparedtothosewhodidnotowncellphones(En-
glander,2018)andthatsix-year-oldswhoregularlyusedmobilee-devicesweremorelikelytoexhibitbe-
havioural problems such as misconduct issues and attention difficulties in school (Hosokawa & Katsura,
2018).Thesedataaresignificantbecausetheysuggestthatcellphoneusecannotonlyhaveadetrimental
impactonstudentbehaviour,butalsothatcyberbullyinghasincreasedascellphoneshavebecomemore
ubiquitousamongyoungpeople.Ofcourse,becausethisconnectionismerelycorrelational,itshouldnot
beinterpretedasmeaningthatcellphones“caused”increasesinbullying;nonetheless,thesefindingsare
concerning.
Regarding the legal implications of cyberbullying, Canadian courts have ruled that bullies need not
physicallyharmvictimsbecausewrittenandverbalthreatsofsufficientmagnitudeareenoughtowarrant serious
criminal charges. After an Abbotsford, British Columbia teen died by suicide after being repeat- edly
tormented and harassed by classmates, the court, in R. v. W.(D) (2002), held that the primary per-
petrator W.D., a 15 years-old Grade 9 student, was guilty of uttering threats of death or bodily harm and
criminal harassment (MacKay et al., 2020; R. v. W.(D), 2002). While the court did not specify whether
bullying occurred via any digital device, the case did set an important legal precedent, highlighting that
the intent to intimidate a peer is enough to warrant a criminal conviction, regardless of a student’s inten-
tionstocarryoutthethreats.JudgeC.J.Rounthwaite,commentingonthecriminalharassmentchargein this case,
explained that the “offence does not require that the threatener have any intention to carry out the threat,
only that they intend the words to intimidate or be taken seriously” (R. v. W. (D), 2002, para. 19).
Not much of a leap is required to realize how cell phones in schools could contribute to increases in
written and verbal threats due to these devices’ inconspicuous nature, especially when cyberbullying is
compared to more traditional, overt forms of bullying. Moreover, because cyberbullying can occur in
such a discreet and subtle manner in schools, it is significantly more difficult for staff to monitor and
policeit.Importantly,cyberbullyingoccurringoutsideofschoolscanalsohavenegativeeffectsonschool
climates,necessitatingeducators’“jurisdiction…[to]extendbeyondtheschoolgroundsandafterschool hours”
(MacKay et al., 2020, p. 159). In the future, school personnel may need to act with increasing
vigilancewhenmonitoringstudents’cellphoneuse.Therefore,educatorswillbenefitfrommoreexplicit
policies governing cell phone use on school grounds.
Indeed, Paolini (2018) suggested that creating stricter and better-enforced policies on student cell
phoneusewouldplayapivotalroleinaddressingand,hopefully,eliminatingthecyberbullyingepidemic
occurring both in and out of schools. Interestingly, France for example has taken extreme measures in
addressing this crisis by implementing a complete ban of cell phones on school grounds for students
from Grades 1 through 9 at the federal level (Rubin & Peltier, 2018). The rationale for this move was to
decrease learning distraction and improve students’ social skills and interpersonal relationships, thus
potentially reducing the incidences of cyberbullying that occurs among students both on and off school
grounds.
WhileadoptingtheFrenchperspectiveseemsbeneficialintheory,RubinandPeltier(2018)observed that
teachers are skeptical of how such a new form of regulation would be enforced as they question whether
policing students’ cell phone use in the school halls is really the best use of educators’ time. To date, it
appears that, in other countries, policies governing cell phone use in schools have largely been
unsuccessful (McConville, 2018).
Ina2014study,Gaoandcolleaguesfoundthatcellphonepoliciesacrosselementary,secondary,and post-
secondary institutions were largely disregarded as students continued to use their e-devices any- way,
despite this behaviour directly breaking school rules and regulations. This outcome is unfortunate,
though unsurprising, because “teenage brains are not quite mature enough to make good decisions con-
sistently”(Libquaid,2009,para.11),andwithoutadequateresourcesandprocedurestoenforceschool

52
 CJEAP,195
policies, they can easily be subverted with little risk of meaningful consequences. Therefore, effective
regulationofcellphoneswillrequirenotonlyadequateresourcestoenforcesuchpolicies,butalsoschool
personnel willing to impose the penalties for infractions.

StudentSexting
A contentious issue that arises in relation to searching students’ cell phones is the ever-growing prom-
inence of students’ use of cell phones to engage in “sexting” (Hachiya, 2017). Sexting is a combination
ofthetwowords“sex”and“texting”(Chaudharyetal.,2017).Forthepurposeofthispaper,“sexting”is
definedasthe“self-productionanddistributionbycellphoneofsexuallyexplicitimagesinthecourseof
consensual, voluntary activity” (Eraker, 2010, p. 557).
Educators need to look no further than survey data highlighting the prevalence of sexting among
youth. Drawing on data from an AP-MTV poll, Libquaid (2009) reported that 25% of the teenager par-
ticipants were involved in some form of sexting behaviour. Supporting this outcome, Chaudhary et al.
(2017) summarized the results of a 2008 national cross-sectional online survey of 653 students aged 13
to 19 years-old in the United States. The key results of the survey revealed that 48% of the youth had
received sexually suggestive text messages, 31% had received nude or semi-nude photographs or vid-
eos, 38% had sent or posted sexually suggestive text messages, and 20% had sent or posted semi-nude
photographs or videos. Moreover, according to this same study, 71% of females and 67% of males also
“reported sending sexually suggestive messages and images to their boyfriend/ girlfriend” (Chaudharyet
al., 2017, p. 2).
Other studies also reported the prevalence of sexting among today’s youth. For example, Strassberg
et al. (2013), drawing on data from a survey conducted among 606 students at a private high school in
theUnitedStates,reportedthatapproximately20%oftherespondentshadsentsexuallyexplicitpictures
ofthemselvesviatheircellphonetoanotherteen.Similarly,inastudyof420seventhgraders,Houck et al. (2014)
reported that 22% of their student participants had sent sexually explicit material via their cell phone.
Consistent with these compelling findings, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Un- planned
Pregnancy (2008) reported similar results. These statistics are astounding, suggesting a deeply engrained
sexting phenomenon among teenagers from different backgrounds.
Thegrowingconcernovertheimpactofyouthsextingwaslegitimizedbyarecentlongitudinalstudy that
found that sexting was associated with poorer mental health, including higher rates of anxiety and
depressionamongstsixthgraders(Chaudharyetal.,2017).Ouytseletal.(2014),usingdataderivedfrom a
retrospective study, found that 15- to 18-year-olds in Belgium reported an association between sexting
and depression. Additional studies (Dake et al., 2012; Mitchell et al., 2012; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2013)
providedconsiderableevidencetosupporttheassociationbetweensextingandmentalhealthissuessuch
asdepression.Otherstudies(Dakeetal.,2012;Libquaid,2009;Walker&Moat,2010)alsoreportedthat
teenagers who sexted were more likely than other teenagers to contemplate or attempt suicide.
Thesharingofintimateprivateimagesasaformofcyberbullyingcanhavedevastatingconsequenc- es, as
showcased by the high-profile tragic case of Amanda Todd, a 15-year-old Canadian girl living in Port
Coquitlam, British Columbia, who committed suicide after being continually ridiculed, harassed,
extorted, demeaned, and tormented over semi-nude photographs of her body that had been disseminated
byherpeersonline(MacKayetal.,2020).InSeptember2012,inadesperatepleaforhelp,AmandaTodd posted a
YouTube video in which she did not speak but rather held up handwritten cue cards telling her story
about being bullied online.
Amanda Todd’s case, among many others, clearly depicts the severity of cyberbullying and how
socialmediaplatformssuchasFacebook,Twitter,andInstagramcanbeusedtotormentandbullyyoung people
and place them at risk (Smale & Hill, 2016). The connection between cyberbullying and suicide
shouldnotbeinterpretedmerelyascauseandeffect,asacomplexsetofmentalhealthissuesareusually present in
many cases (“The Link Between Cyberbullying and Teen Suicides,” 2013).
Two incidents from the United States starkly illustrate the deleterious effects of sexting. Kranz
(2009) reported on a tragic case that occurred in suburban Cincinnati, Ohio, after an 18-year-old high
schoolstudente-mailedanudephotographofherselftoherboyfriendwhoapparentlypasseditontofour of her
friends before forwarding it to other. Over the following weeks, hundreds of teenagers in local high
schools viewed the student’s picture, apparently on their cell phones. As a result of being subjected to
bullying and humiliating taunts, even at her graduation, the student took her own life in July 2008.

53
Smale,Hutcheson, &Russo
The parents of the deceased student sued the school board alleging violations of Title IX of the
Educational Amendments (of 1972), claiming discrimination based on gender, and Section 1983 (Civil
ActionforDeprivationofRights,1871),claimingthedeprivationoftheirdaughter’scivilrights.Afeder- al trial
court in Ohio denied the school board’s motion for summary judgment because questions of fact
remained about whether educational officials had done all they could to protect the student who com-
mitted suicide. The court did grant the board’s motion for summary judgment on the parents’ negligent
infliction of emotional distress charge on the basis that the board and individual school officials were
entitled to immunity (Logan v. Sycamore Community School Board of Education, 2012).
A similar tragedy occurred in Florida (Meacham, 2009). A 13-year-old student in the Tampa area
took her life 3 months after sending a picture of her naked breast to a male student she liked who then
forwarded the image to others, resulting in her being harassed at school.

SextingandCellPhoneSearches
The presence of underage nude images on confiscated e-devices, such as cell phones, presents addi-
tional risks for teachers and administrators who conduct searches. In addition to needing to be prudent
abouthavingreasonablegroundstoconductsearchesbyfirstdeterminingwhetherstudentsbrokeserious
enough rules that evidence of such infractions could be uncovered via searches, school personnel also
need to be extremely cautious about viewing sexted images, in light of child pornography laws in Can-
ada. Copying, viewing, forwarding, or archiving nude images of students during investigations could
jeopardizenotonlyeducators’careers,butalsotheirfreedombecausepossessionof“childpornography” carries
serious legal consequences (Hachiya, 2017), including possible termination of employment and being
subjected to criminal charges, as noted in R. v. Cole (2012).
In R. v. Cole, heard by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in 2012, a Sudbury high school teacher
faced criminal charges for downloading graphic sexual images of an underage female student onto his
school-issued laptop. The teacher’s employing school board permitted him to use a school-issued laptop
computerforteachingpurposesandincidentalpersonaluse.Theboard’spolicyclearlystipulatedthatthe
teachers’ personal files would remain private, but subject to access by school administration if required.
During a routine virus scan to safeguard the integrity of the school’s computer network, a technician
discovered 379 pictures containing nude and partially nude photographs of an underage female pupil.
Because the teacher had domain administration rights to the school’s computer network, he was able to
access these pictures from a student’s email account. The technician immediately notified the principal
about the situation, who directed him to copy the photos onto a compact disc. Subsequently, the police
were contacted and without a warrant, searched the contents of the laptop and discs in addition to gener-
ating a mirror image of the hard drive for forensic purposes. Officials then formally charged the teacher
with possession of child pornography and unauthorized use of a computer contrary to ss. 163.1(4) and
342.1(1) of the Criminal Code (1995), respectively.
TheteacherallegedthatthepolicehadinfringedonhisSection8rightsundertheCharter(1982)by
conducting a warrantless search of his laptop. Section 8 of the Charter guarantees individuals the rightto
be “secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” The SCC ruled that the school board had the right to
examine the computer, but the police did not have the authority to search without a judicial warrant.
However,themajoritynotedthattheevidencecouldstillbeusedinthiscase,concludingthatthe“exclu- sion of
the material would have marked a negative impact on the truth-seeking function of the criminal trial
process” (para. 97). Therefore, the Court dismissed the teacher’s appeal, and a new trial later found him
guilty.
In sum, if educators suspect that sexting is occurring on school grounds, they should confiscate the
devices and immediately turn them over to the proper authorities, without searching them, especially if
the images are pornographic or suspected of being used to bully other students. Although Cole pertained
to a teacher’s criminal misconduct, its circumstances have key implications for administrators (Kwas-
niewski, 2012). For instance, the principal in Cole may have jeopardized his career if he had viewed or
copied graphic sexual images during the school investigation. Summing up the research on principal
investigations,Hachiya(2017)concludedthatthe“bestpracticewouldbeconfiscatingsuspecteddevices and
turning them over immediately to law enforcement officers. Principals should never copy, forward,
archive, or otherwise possess nude images of minors, regardless of the circumstances” (p. 587).

54
 CJEAP,195
Cell Phones in Classrooms
Perhapsthemostextremeexampleofimplementingacompletebanonstudentpossessionofcellphones in
classrooms can be seen in Ontario, Canada’s largest province. A directive of the Ontario Ministry of
Education (2019) stated that personal mobile devices, such as cell phones, are permitted during instruc-
tional time if they are used only for educational purposes, for health or medical purposes, or to support
studentswithspecialeducationalneeds.ThispolicywasinitiallyimplementedonNovember4,2019and set a
provincial standard for all K-12 schools in Ontario. Individual school boards across Ontario were
obligatedtoincorporateandadministerpoliciesandguidelinesprohibitingcellphonesonschoolproper- ty and
school buses, in school-sanctioned activity, and during instructional time.
Inthefirstofthreeexamplesofhowthepolicywasimplemented,theRainbowDistrictSchoolBoard (2020)
website stated that cell phones and related technologies “can be disruptive and must not be acti- vated in
class or during examinations and/or assessments without the permission of school staff” (para. 8). In
another example, the Limestone District School Board (2019) released a statement asserting thatit would
provide “students with access to technology to support teaching and learning, and permits the use of cell
phones and other personal devices in the classroom as directed by the teacher.” Similarly, in Windsor,
Ontario, Vincent Massey Secondary School’s (2018) school handbook noted that cell phones are banned
in class except for “educational purposes under teacher direction. Staff and administration may
confiscate the cell phone. Repeat offences by the student will require parents/guardians to retrieve
confiscated phone/electronic device from Administration and progressive discipline imposed” (p. 5).
ControversyaroseinNewYorkCityafterofficialsinitsDepartmentofEducationimplement- ed a district-
wide cell phone ban in 2005 that could have been waived only for students who obtainedthe principal’s
authorization to use their cell phones. This ban was the target of an unsuccessful 2007 challenge on the
ground that the board overreached its authority by denying parents their constitutional right to stay in
contact with their children in school. The challenger also alleged that the cell phone ban
violatedtheU.S.Constitutionbecauseit“infringedonparents’fundamentalrighttoprovideforthecare,
custody,andcontroloftheirchildren”(Priceetal.v.NewYorkCityBoardofEducation,2007,p.7).The court
observed that “nothing about the cell phone policy forbids or prevents parents and their children
fromcommunicatingwitheachotherbeforeandafterschool”(p.28).In2015,NewYorkCityMayorBill de
Blasio largely lifted the ban on cell phones in New York public schools (Fertig, 2015).
While Canadian courts have yet to enunciate a legal precedent for justifying a complete ban on cell
phones, Price (2017) recognized that no constitutional right entitles students to bring their cell phones to
schools in New York City. Due to the similarities in civil and criminal jurisprudence in American and
Canadianlaw,andtherelativelackofcaselawinCanadawhencomparedtotheUnitedStates,Canadian courts
often look to American law for points of comparison and clarification. Thus, much can be trans- posed
from Price to Ontario (Kiedrowski et al., 2009).

SearchandSeizureofCellPhones
One line of defence school personnel do have to prevent the negative impact of cell phones in schools is
search and seizure (Clarke & Russo, 2016; Russo & Clarke, 2016). Canadian courts have supported the
teachers’ rights to search students and/or their property for evidence of suspected wrongdoing or offenc-
es, which include the misuse of e-devices such as cell phones.
R.v.M.(M.R.)isalandmark1998judgementbytheSCConsearchesofstudentsbyschoolofficials. Even
though M. (M.R.) does not relate directly to e-searches, it is important because it established the
precedent for school personnel in Canada to search students without requiring a judicial warrant.
In M. (M.R.), a junior high school vice-principal (VP) who was responsible for supervising the
school dances searched a 13-year-old student, M.M.R. Prior to a dance, student informants, who were
consideredtrustworthy,advisedtheVPthatM.M.R.wassellingdrugsonschoolproperty.Afterarriving
atthedance,M.M.R.andafriendwereescortedtotheVP’sofficebecause,basedonthosestudents,they
weresuspectedofhavingdrugs.TheVPaskedthestudentstoturnouttheirpockets,removetheirshoes,
andliftuptheirpantlegs.Duringthephysicalsearch,theVPdiscoveredaplasticbagcontainingasmall
amountofcannabisstashedinM.M.R.’ssock.OnmakingthediscoverytheVPseizedthehiddenbagof
cannabisandgaveittoaplainclothesRCMPofficer,whowaspresentintheVP’sofficeatthetimeofthe search.
The RCMP officer advised M.M.R. that he was under arrest for possession of narcotics, reading

55
Smale,Hutcheson, &Russo
himthepolicecautionincludingtherightstotalkwithalawyerandtocontactaparent.
M.M.R. tried unsuccessfully to phone his mother but did not want to contact another adult. Ac-
cording to the description of the facts reported in the SCC’s opinion in this case, the RCMP officer later
searched M.M.R.’s school locker, but found no additional drugs. The SCC acknowledged that the VP’s
actions were authorized by the Nova Scotia Education Act (1995-96) and were reasonable under the
circumstances. Summing up M.R., Justice Cory, writing for the majority, asserted that “the search un-
dertakenby[theVP]wasconductedreasonably.Ittookplaceintherelativeprivacyoftheprincipal’sof- fice”
(para. 63). Justice Cory also explained that “the search conducted was appropriate to the offence of
possessionofaprohibitedsubstance[thattheVP]reasonablybelievedwasinthepossessionofM.R.M.” (para.
63).
Sections7and8oftheCanadianCharterofRightsandFreedoms(1982)protectallcitizensagainst
unjustified intrusions on privacy interests (Department of Justice, 2020). In schools, though, the safety
and well-being of others appears to override the individual right to privacy; thus, student rights in a
school setting are relatively lower than elsewhere in contemporary society (MacKay et al., 2020). This
principle is significant because it suggests that if cell phones are being used to harm other students, as
with cyberbullying, for example, then educators have the legal right to confiscate – and, potentially,
search – students’ phones without a warrant.
IntheU.S.,perhapsoneofthemostsignificantcasesinaneducationalcontextisNewJerseyv.T.L.O. (1985),
wherein the Supreme Court allowed warrantless searches in schools. In so ruling, the Court de- vised a
two-part test to evaluate the legality of searches by school officials: “[F]irst, one must consider ‘whether
the…action was justified at its inception;’ second, one must determine whether the search as
actuallyconducted‘wasreasonablyrelatedinscopetothecircumstanceswhichjustifiedtheinterference
inthefirstplace”(p.341).TheCourtaddedthat“asearchwillbepermissibleinitsscopewhenthemea- sures
adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the
age and sex of the student and nature of the infraction” (p. 342).
Following T.L.O. (1985), which courts in the U.S. have applied more than 400 times with school
officials winning the vast majority of cases, Canadian educators and administrators do have some legal
precedent from which to work in this type of case. According to Hachiya (2017), the “general require-
ments of a student search would apply while searching for a device, such as a cell phone, but the law is
not entirely clear about searching the contents of a device” (p. 178). In theory, teachers have the right to
both confiscate and search students’ cell phones in accordance with school policy, education acts, and
the law. In practice, however, searching a student’s cell phone, computer, or related e-device is arguably
morepersonalthanphysicalsearchesofhisorherbackpack,purse,orwallet,asvastamountsofpersonal
information can be “meaningful, intimate, and touch on the user’s biographical core” (R. v. Cole, 2012,
p. 4).
As noted by the SCC in R. v. Plant (1993), the “biographical core” refers to “details of the lifestyle
andpersonalchoicesoftheindividual”(p.293).Giventhebreadthanddepthoftheintimateinformation
contained within e-devices such as cell phones, a definition of “reasonable” searches is not consistently
upheldinCanadianorAmericancourts.Thevariabilityandinconsistencyinjudicialdecisionsregarding
schools’rightstosearchstudentcellphonescanbeseeninthedifferentialoutcomesofthefollowingfive school-
related cases described below.
In Klump v. Nazareth School District (2006), a case from Pennsylvania, a teacher confiscated a
student’s cell phone after the student was caught using it on school grounds in violation of the rules. An
assistant principal and the teacher thoroughly searched the contents of the cell phone in an attempt to
implicate other students in the violation of school rules. Through the non-consensual search of the con-
fiscatedcellphone,theeducatorsuncoveredadrug-relatedtextmessageincontraventionoftheschool’s drug
policy. In addition, the educators called nine classmates whose phone numbers were stored in the
phone’selectronicaddressbooktoseeiftheywerealsoviolatingtheschool’scellphonepolicy.Thetwo educators
also held an online conversation with the student’s younger 10-year-old brother, without iden- tifying
themselves as the owner of the cell phone.
In light of the search, the student’s parents filed suit in a federal trial court seeking compensatory
and punitive damages against the school board and its educators for violating their son’s Fourth Amend-
ment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The court ruled that although the initial
seizureofthecellphonewasnotunreasonableanddidnotviolatethestudent’sFourthAmendmentright,

56
 CJEAP,195
the educators had acted outside their jurisdiction in searching the contents of the cell phone . The court
asserted that school officials “had no reason to suspect at the outset that such a search would reveal that
[thestudent]wasviolatinganotherschoolpolicy;rather,theyhopedtoutilizehisphoneasatooltodetect other
students’ violations” (Klump v. Nazareth School District, 2006, p. 640).
Similarly, a federal trial court in Virginia, although largely upholding the search of a student who
was suspected of possessing marijuana, rejected an associate principal’s motion for qualified immunity
inthefaceoftheclaimshehadviolatedtheFourthAmendmentbysearchinghiscellphone(Gallimorev. Henrico
County School Board., 2014). The court explained that no reasonable administrator could have expected
to discover marijuana in a student’s cell phone.
On the other hand, in J.W. v. Desoto County School District (2010), a federal trial court in Mis-
sissippiallowedevidencediscoveredona12-year-oldstudent’scellphone.Ateacherconfiscatedthecell phone
after catching the student reading a text message from his father during class in direct violation of
schoolpolicy.Despitethelackofsuspicionofanyadditionalwrongdoingbythestudent,multipleschool officials
searched the contents of the cell phone, including private and personal images from the photo
archivesthathadbeentakenatthestudent’shome,withonephotoofaclassmateholdingaBBgun.The
cellphonewaseventuallyturnedovertothelocalpolice,whoclaimedthatavarietyofpicturesportrayed gang-
related activity (MacKay et al., 2020; Nowak & Glenn, 2017).
Officials suspended the student for three days and ultimately expelled him because the school rules
forbad “wearing or displaying in any manner on school property clothing, apparel, accessories, or draw-
ingsormessagesassociatedwithanygang…associatedwithcriminalactivity,asdefinedbylawenforce- ment
agencies” (J.W. v. Desoto County School District, 2010, p. 2). The court decided that the school officials
were justified in searching the personal contents of the cell phone, and that this search did not
violatethestudent’sFourthAmendmentrights,inlanguageanalogoustothatinsection8oftheCanadi- an
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982).
In Ratt v. Tournier (2014), a 12-year-old male student in Saskatchewan violated school rules by
ignoring his teacher’s requests to stop texting during class. The teacher confiscated the cell phone and
gave it to the VP, who was responsible for discipline and enforcement of school rules. The VP searched
the student’s cell phone and viewed a text message on the first screen referring to a recent car theft. He
questioned the student and then consulted the principal about the incident, who advised him to contact
the local police. A police officer requested the student to text the sender of the message in order to find
outwherethestolencarwaslocated.Eventhoughtheplaintiffhadnothingtodowiththetheft,thepolice officer
took him out of school to find the car.
The student’s grandparents, his legal guardians, unsuccessfully filed suit, seeking $50,000 in puni-
tive damages against both the VP and school board for allegedly breaching the student’s right to privacy
and for committing negligence. In dismissing, Justice Acton asserted that “students may expect some
degreeofprivacyrespectingthecontentsoftheircellphone.Asageneralrulethevice-principalorteach- ers will
not be scrolling through the contents” of the students’ cell phones (Ratt v. Tournier, 2014, para. 33).
Under the facts of this case, the court pointed out that, where a student is using a “cell phone and texting
messages in clear violation of school policy, a policy of which the student is aware, the student can
anticipate a reduced expectation of privacy” (para. 33).
The lack of consistency in what is considered “reasonable” grounds to perform a search on a stu-
dent’s cell phone creates uncertainty for both administrators and teachers. Thus, while policies relatedto
possession and use of cell phones on school property can be enforced fairly safely via seizure, infor-
mationalsearchesareanentirelydifferentissueandshouldbelimitedtoonlywhenabsolutelynecessary
or,betterstill,lefttothejurisdictionofthepolice.WhiletheRattcaseinvolvedacellphonebeingseized from a
student due to a violation of school rules and regulations, another type of search occurs when a cell
phone is searched incidental to the arrest.
In R. v. Jones (2015), police searched two teenagers for possession and trafficking of a controlled
substance,contrarytoss5(1)and5(2)respectivelyoftheControlledDrugsandSubstancesAct.Through a 911
complaint, the police were advised that two teenagers were dealing drugs from the school parking lot.
Positioned half a block away from the school, the police officers watched a white vehicle for a short
period of time and noticed that other cars were driving up and quickly exchanging something by hand,
and then driving away. When the teenagers left the site, the police activated their emergency lights and
pulledoverthevehicle,smeltanodorofcannabisemanatingfromthecar,andconductedaroadside

57
Smale,Hutcheson, &Russo
search. The police seized a small amount of money, cannabis, drug paraphernalia, and a cell phone that
waspoweredupandhadnopasswordprotection.Withoutasearchwarrant,thepoliceconductedaquick
examinationofthecellphone’scontentsandnoticedtworecenttextmessageconversationsregardingthe
purchase of drugs. The following day, the police viewed additional text messages on the cell phone and
transcribed the contents. Four days later, the cell phone was sent to the province’s crime unit for down-
loading and forensic purposes.
In R. v. Jones (2015), a case before a provincial court in Saskatchewan, the accused argued that the
police had violated his section 8 Charter rights on three separate occasions: first, when the police went
through the contents of the cell phone at the scene of the arrest; second, when the police went throughthe
contents of the cell phone at the RCMP detachment; and third, when the cell phone was sent away to
Saskatoonforamoredetailedexamination.Thecourtheldthatthetextmessagesobtainedfromallthree
searchescouldbeusedasevidenceinthecase.AstothefirsttwoCharterissues,thejudgenotedthatthe original
search of the cell phone had taken place soon after the arrest; as well, another search occurred “roughly
six hours later at the Nipawin RCMP Detachment, in which contents of the text messages were
transcribed (para. 57).” The judge determined that both searches fell “within a reasonable period of time
after the arrest has occurred such that they are still connected and incident to arrest” ( R. v. Jones, 2015,
para. 57).
Withrespecttotheforensicanalysisofthecellphonebypolice,thejudgeruledthattheaccused’ss.8
Charterrightshadbeenviolatedand“[runafoul]”ofthetailoredsearchconditionssetoutinR.v.Fearon (R. v.
Jones, 2015, para. 71). However, the court added that the evidence should not have been excluded
becausethepoliceofficer“wasactingingoodfaithwhenhethoughthedidnotrequireawarranttohave
thephonesentawaytobesearched”(para.84).Thecourtconcludedthatthepoliceofficer’sconductfell “at the
lower end of the spectrum of seriousness and no adverse message would be sent by admitting [some of]
the contents of the phone into evidence” (R. v. Jones, 2015, para. 84).

RecommendationsforPolicyandPractice
Duetothegravityoftheresponsibilitiesplacedoneducatorstoday,schoolboardsmustdevelopnuanced, well-
articulated cell phone policies. These policies must strike a balance between protecting the rightsof
individual students, as well as the interests of their parents to have a more active role in directing the
upbringing of their children, including while they are in school, and maintaining safe, orderly learning
environmentsbypreventingstudentmisuseofcellphones.Whilenoteveryoneagreesontherole,ifany, cell
phones should play in schools, or on the circumstances justifying seizure and content searches, poli-
ciesareneededtoaddressthemanyissuesrelatedtostudents’cellphones,which,despitetheirextensive use, have
led to relatively little litigation in Canada.
As revealed in most of the litigation, if school policies were “reasonably related to legitimate ped-
agogical concerns” (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 1988, p. 273), including safety, then the
judiciarygenerallyruledinfavorofeducationalofficialswhenstudentsviolatedschoolpolicies.Perhaps
themostimportantlessontobegainedfromthereviewoflitigationisthatschoolboardsandeducational
leadersneedtodevelopcellphoneusepoliciesandapplythemcarefullywhendiscipliningstudentswho
violatedtheirprovisions.Toreiterate,asreflectedinmostofthecases,thejudiciaryiswillingtodeferto the
authority of educators to enact reasonable cell phone policies in order to preserve school safety and
security.
Attemptstobanorlimitstudentuseofcellphonesinschoolsarelikelytobecontroversial,tosaythe
least.Evenso,schoolofficialscanprevailandlimittheamountoftimespentpolicingcellphonepolicies by taking
the time to plan carefully. To this end, officials might wish to consider the following ten sug- gestions.
First, subject to controlling legislation and directives from ministries of education, educational lead-
ersshouldbeginbyconsideringtheextentofpublicsupportforpoliciesdesignedtobancellphoneusein school.
This recommendation does not suggest that parents and/or students should be given the prover-
bial“heckler’sveto”topreventeducationalofficialsfromenactingappropriatecellphonepolicies.How- ever, if
parents and students are likely to demonstrate significant resistance to policies, educators might wish to
consider whether to proceed without first developing a consensus in support of their policies in their
school communities because enforcement would be difficult at best in the face of opposition.
Second,ifcommunitiesarelikelytosupportcellphonepolicies,educationalleadersandtheirboards

58
 CJEAP,195
should involve representatives of key constituencies in writing and reviewing guidelines because ensur-
ing such agreement can be of invaluable assistance. At a minimum, committees should include a school
boardmember,theboard’slawyer,abuilding-leveladministrator,ateacher,astaffmember,aparent,and a
student, particularly at the secondary level, because cell phones have become such an integral part of
studentlife.Infact,asTatumetal.(2018)suggested,includingstudentsinthedevelopmentofcellphone policies
would yield greater acceptance and compliance with stricter rules and regulations.
Third,policiesshouldclarifywhetherstudentsareforbiddenfrommerelypossessingcellphones or using
them in schools. If students cannot possess phones in schools, policies should clearly address
whetherphonescanevenbebroughtintoschoolbuildingsormustbestoredinlockersneartheentrances
totheschoolsorclassrooms,because,ofcourse,policiescannotpreventcellphoneuseoutsideofschools.
Evenifpoliciesintendtoforbidorlimitcellphoneuseinschools,theyshouldincludeexceptionstoallow students
to carry devices for documented medical necessities or emergencies such as family illnesses.
Fourth, because educators should be mindful that simply writing policies has been shown to be in-
effectivewithoutproperenforcement(Gaoetal.,2014),policy-makersmustcarefullyconsiderhowthey
intendtoupholdcellphoneregulationsbeforetheyareimplemented.Accordingly,ifstudentsviolatethe
rules,policiesshouldspellouttheirdueprocessrights.Inprotectingtheserights,policiesshouldidentify the
circumstances under which educators can confiscate students’ cell phones, who can take them away,
who has the authority to possess phones once they are taken away from students, how long officials can
maintain possession of phones, and when, to whom, and under what conditions they can be returned.
Policies should also specify the types of infractions for which students can have their cell phones
taken away, such as merely speaking with friends, sending text messages, and/or using cameras with re-
cording features to cheat, and for which they can be disciplined. As a general principle, when providing
examples of infractions, policies should use language such as “includes, but is not limited to” because
given how rapidly technology, in particular, evolves, keeping policies up-to-date is challenging at best.
As well, courts generally accept such language because they understand the task facing educators.
Fifth,insettingpunishments,policiesshouldincludeprogressivelevelsofdiscipline,outliningsanc- tions
for first and subsequent offences during the same academic year. Almost needless to say, serious enough
first offenses may warrant the expulsion of students who violate school policies. At the same time,
policies should address whether students can appeal their penalties, including time frames within which
they must act, along with what they must do to challenge their punishments.
Sixth, policies should explain what must occur before educators can search student cell phones. Pol-
icies should describe illustrative circumstances under which phones can be searched, who may search
them,whether witnessesmust be present to observesearches,whethersearchesare tobe videotapedasa
precaution to safeguard the rights of students and searchers, and the level of suspicion necessary before
educators can proceed with searches.
Seventh, policies should provide regular professional development sessions to keep staff members
updated about the restrictions board policies place on students’ use of cell phones.
Eighth, the policies should require the parents and students to read, sign, and date a form indicating
that they will observe school rules and regulations with regard to phone usage.
Ninth, educators should keep parents and students informed about policies by including them in
student handbooks, materials sent home, and/or on school and district websites.
Tenth, insofar as student use of cell phones is unlikely to diminish, educational leaders should re-
view their policies annually, typically between academic years. It is wise not to review policies duringor
shortly after controversies because placing a “cooling off period” between conflicts and thoughtful
review affords a better perspective. Another value of reviewing policies regularly is that in the event of
litigation, evidence of their having been updated can help to convince courts that educators are doing
theirbesttobeup-to-date,whilesafeguardingtherightsofallinthefaceofrapidchangesinboththelaw and
technology.

Conclusion
In sum, the cumulative evidence of the risks and detrimental impact of cell phones on student learning,
well-being, and safety suggests that educators must address these devices’ presence and roles in schools
more seriously and systematically than has been the case to date. While some educators believe that cell
phonescanbeusedtoenhanceandboostinstruction,othersfearthatthenegativeeffectsoftheiruse

59
Smale,Hutcheson, &Russo
in class clearly outweigh the potential benefits. Importantly, student cell phone use has been associated
with increases in cyberbullying, academic dishonesty, sexting, and poorer mental health. Moreover, the
removal of cell phones from classrooms has been shown by some researchers to increase students’ aca-
demic performance and reduce educational inequality among students (Beland & Murphy, 2016).
Findingtherightbalanceforstudentcellphoneuseinschoolsisadauntingchallengecallingfor a
community-wide approach involving parents, teachers, school boards, ministries of education, and
broader social awareness about the effects of cell phones on youth achievement and well-being. Consis-
tency, and follow-through, in expectations is of fundamental importance if students are to respect rules
limiting their freedom if students are unlikely to abide by rules that are not consistently enforced. Con-
sensus on the appropriate role of cell phones in schools is unlikely to emerge in the near future. Even so,
creating policies and procedures regulating student use of cell phones in schools is an important step in
addressingandamelioratingthegrowingconcernsabouttheirmisuseinandaroundschools,theireffects on
mental health, and maintaining schools as safe and orderly places for learning in which all students can
succeed.

References
ACLU.(2019,September1).J.W.v.DesotoCountySchoolDistrict.https://www.aclu.org/cases/jw-v-
desoto-county-school-district
Bain,L. Z. (2015). Howstudents use technology to cheat andwhat faculty can do aboutit.
InformationSystems Education Journal, 13(5), 92-99
Beland,L.P.,&Murphy,R.(2016).Illcommunication:Technology,distraction&student
performance. Labour Economics, 41, 61-76.
Beranuy,M.,Oberst,U.,Carbonell,X.,&Chamarro,A.(2009).ProblematicInternetandmobile phone
use and clinical symptoms in college students: The role of emotional intelligence.
ComputersinHumanBehavior,25(5),1182-1187.
Blikstad-Balas,M.,&Davis,C.(2017).Assessingtheeducationalvalueofone-to-onedevices: Have
we been asking the right questions? Oxford Review of Education, 43(3), 311-331.
Cain,M.S.,Leonard,J.A.,Gabrieli,J.D.E.,&Finn,A.S.(2016).Mediamultitaskingin adolescence.
Psychonomic Bulletin Review, 23(6), 1932-1941.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter], Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being
Schedule B to the Canadian Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11.
Canadian Council on Learning. (2010). The21st century cheater: Academic dishonesty in
Canada’s schools. https://www.ccl-cca.ca
Chaudhary,P.,Peskin,M.,Temple,J.R.,Addy,R.C.,Baumler,E.,&Ross,S.(2017).Sextingand mental
health: A school-based longitudinal study among youth in Texas. Journal of Applied
Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 8(1), 1-27.
CivilActionforDeprivationofRights,42U.S.C.§1983.
Clarke,P.T.,&Russo,C.J.(2016).Searchandseizureintheelectronicera:Aninternational
perspective – Part one. Education and Law Journal, 25(2), 125-157.
CriminalCode,R.S.C.1985,c.C-46.http://canlii.ca/t/544xp
Dake,J.A.,Price,J.H.,Maziarz,L.,&Ward,B.(2012).Prevalenceandcorrelatesofsexting behavior in
adolescents. American Journal of Sex Education, 7(1), 1-15.
DepartmentofJustice.(2020,June9).Section8-Searchandseizure.https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-
sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art8.html
Derounian,J.(2017).Mobilesinclass?ActiveLearninginHigherEducation,00(0),1-12. Dietz, S.,
& Henrich, C. (2014). Texting as a distraction to learning in college students.
ComputersinHumanBehaviour,36,163-167.
Duncan, D. K., Hoekstra, A. R., & Wilcox, B. R. (2012). Digital devices, distraction, and student
performance: Does in-class cell phone use reduce learning? Astronomy Education Review,
11(1), 1-4.
EducationAct,S.N.S.1995-96,c.1.

60
 CJEAP,195
Englander,E.(2018).Cellphoneownershipandcyberbullyingin8-11yearolds:Newresearch.
Pediatrics,142(1).https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/142/1MeetingAbstract/7
724
Engel,G.,&Green,T.(2011).Cellphonesintheclassroom:Arewedialingupdisaster?
TechTrends,55(2),39-45.
Eraker,E.C.(2010).Stemmingsexting:Sensiblelegalapproachestoteenagers’exchangeof self-
produced pornography. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 25(1), 555-596.
Fernandez, S. (2018). University student’s perspectives on using cell phones in classrooms: Are
theydialingupdisaster?TurkishOnlineJournalofEducationalTechnology,17(1),246-258.
Fertig,B.(2015,January7).DeBlasiolistscellphoneban:Letsschoolssetnewtechpolicies.
WNYC.https://www.wnyc.org/story/city-lift-cell-phone-ban-schools/
Froese,A.D.,Carpenter,C.N.,Inman,J.R.,Schooley,J.R.,Barnes,R.B.,Brecht,P.W.,& Chacon, J.
D. (2012). Effects of classroom cell phone use on expected and actual learning.
CollegeStudentJournal,46(2),323-332.
Frost,D.F.(2015).Overviewofsearchesinschools:Necessaryorexcessive?InW.T.Smale (Ed.),
Educational and administrative law (pp. 315-337). The Edwin Mellen Press.
Gallimorev.HenricoCountySchoolBoard.,38F.Supp.3d721(E.D.Va.2014).
Gao,Q.,Yan,Z.,Zhao,B.,Pan,Y.,&Mo,L.(2014).Tobanornottoban:Differencesinmobile phone
policies at elementary, middle, and high schools. Computers in Human Behaviour, 38, 25-
32.
Hachiya,R.F.(2017).Dangersforprincipalsandstudentswhenconductinginvestigationsof sexting
in schools. The Clearing House, 90(5), 177-183.
Haller, S. (2017, August 2). Study: 1 in 3 students use cellphones to cheat on exams. USA Today.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/allthemoms/parenting/2017/08/02/teens-use-phones-to-
cheat-in-school/34910927/
Hartnell-Young,E.(2008).Mobilephonesforlearninginmainstreamschooling:Resistanceand
change. In J. Traxler, B. Riordan, & C, Dennett (Eds.), Proceedings of the mLearn 2008
Conference: The bridge from text to context (pp. 160-167). Learning Sciences Research
Institute.
https://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/HartnellYoung_Mobile-
phones-for-learning-in-mainstream-schooling.pdf
Hartnell-Young, E., & Vetere, F. (2008). A means of personalizing learning: Incorporating old
and new literacies in the curriculum with mobile phones. Curriculum Journal, 19(4), 283-
292.
HazelwoodSchool District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
Hosokawa,R.,&Katsura,T.(2018).Associationbetweenmobiletechnologyuseandchild adjustment
in early elementary school age. PLoS One, 13(7), 1-17.
Houck,C.D.,Baker,D.,Rizzo,C.,Hancock,E.,&Norton,A.(2014).Sextingandsexual behavior in at-
risk middle-schoolers. Pediatrics, 133(2), 276-282.
Jackson,G.B.T.(2002).Handheldcomputing:Educationalsaviourorfantasy?TechKnowLogia, 4(4),
79-81.
Jackson, L. A., von Eye, A., Fitzgerald, H. E., Witt, E. A., & Zhao, Y. (2011). Internet use,
videogame playing and cell phone use aspredictorsof children’sbody massindex (BMI),
body weight, academic performance, and social and overall self-esteem. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27(1), 599-604.
Jacobsen, W.C., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social outcomes of
electronic media use among university students. Cyberpsychology Behavior, and Social
Networking, 14(5), 275-280.
Jenaro,C.,Flores,N.,Gómez-Vela,M.,González-Gill,F.,&Caballo,C.(2007).Problematic
internet and cell-phone use: Psychological, behavioral, and health correlates. Addiction
Research & Theory, 15(3), 309-320.
J.W.v.DesotoCountySchoolDistrict,2010WL4394059,(N.D.Miss.2010).

61
Smale,Hutcheson, &Russo
Katz,L.,&Lambert,W.(2016).Ahappyandengagedclasswithoutcellphones?It’seasierthan you think.
Teaching of Psychology, 43(4), 340-345.
Kiedrowski,J.,Smale,W.T.,&Gounko,T.(2009).CellularphonesinCanadianschools:Alegal framework.
Education & Law Journal, 19(1), 45-65.
Klump v. Nazareth Area School District, 2010 WL 4394059 (N.D. Miss. 2010).
Kolb,L.(2011).Adventureswithcellphones.EducationalLeadership,68(5),39-43.
Kranz,C.(2009,March22).Familywantstougherlaw.CincinnatiEnquirer.https://www.newsp
apers.com/clip/38829523/the-cincinnati-enquirer/
Kukulska-Hulme, A.(2007).Mobileusabilityineducationalcontexts:Whathavewelearned?
TheInternationalReviewofResearchinOpenandDistanceLearning,8(2),1-6.
Kuznekoff,J.H.,&Titsworth,S.(2013).Theimpactofthemobilephoneusageonstudent learning.
Communication Education, 62(3), 233-252.
Kwasniewski, B. W. (2012). Supreme court decision on workplace computers and employee
privacy.CharityLawBulletinNo.295.http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/charity/
2012/chylb295.pdf
Libquaid, L. (2009, December 4). Sexting is more common than you might think. Seattle Times.
http://seattletimes.com/nation-world/sexting-is-more-common-than-you-might-think/
Loganv.SycamoreCmty.SchoolBoardofEducation,2012WL2011037(S.D.Ohio2012).
LimestoneDistrictSchoolBoard.(2019).Cellphoneuseinclassrooms.https://www.limestone.on.ca/news/
what_s_new/cell_phone_use_in_classrooms
MacKay,A.W.,&Sutherland,L.I.,&Barnett,J.(2020).Teachersandthelaw:Diverseroles and new
challenges (4th ed.). Emond.
Marcoux,E.(2009).Thephone:Atoolforlearning.TeacherLibrarian,36(4),73-75.
Markett,C.,Sanchez,L.A.,Weber,S.,&Tangney,B.(2006).Usingshortmessageserviceto
encourage interactivity in the classroom. Computers and Education, 46(3), 280-293.
McAfee. (2012, June 25). The digital divide: How the online behavior of teens is getting past
parents. https://docplayer.net/16377547-The-digital-divide-how-the-online-behavior-of-
teens-is-getting-past-parents.html
McConville,E.(2018).Whybanningcellphonesinschoolmissesthepoint.Bates.https://
www.bates.edu/news/2018/03/23/why-banning-cellphones-in-schools-misses-the-point/
McCoy,B.(2013).Digitaldistractionintheclassroom:Studentclassroomuseofdigitaldevices for non-
class related purposes. Journal of Media Education, 4(4), 5-12.
McDonald,S.E.(2013).Theeffectsandpredictorvalueofin-classtextingbehavioronfinal course
grades. College Student Journal, 47(1), 34-40.
Meacham,A.(2009,November30).Ashatteredselfimage.TampaBayTimes.https://www.tam-
pabay.com/archive/2009/11/29/a-shattered-self-image/
Mifsud, L. (2003). Learning “2go”: Pedagogical challenges to mobile learning technology in
education. In K. Nyiri (Ed.), Mobile learning: Essays on philosophy, psychology, and edu-
cation (pp. 165-173). Passagen Verlay.
Mitchell,K.,Finkelhor,D.,Jones,L.,&Wolak,J.(2012).Prevalenceandcharacteristicsofyouth sexting:
A national study. Pediatrics, 129(1), 13-20.
Morgan, R., Meldrum, K., Bryan, S., Mathiesen, B., Yakob, N., Esa, N., & Ziden, A. A. (2017).
Embedding digital literacies in curricula: Australian and Malaysian experiences. In G. B.
Teh&S.C.Choy(Eds.),Empowering21stcenturylearnersthroughholisticandenterpris- ing
learning: Selected papers from Tunku Abdul Rahman University College International
Conference2016(pp.11-19).Springer.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4241-6_2
Morin,A.(2019).Howteensusetechnologytocheatinschool.https://www.verywellfamily.com/ how-
teens-use-technology-to-cheat-in-school.html
National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. (2008). Sex and tech: Results
from a survey of teens and young adults. https://powertodecide.org/what-we-do/informati
ion/resource-library/sex-and-tech-results-survey-teens-and-young-adults
NewJerseyv.T.L.O.,469U.S.325(1985).

62
 CJEAP,195
Nowak,B.,&Glenn,W.J.(2017).Searchesofstudents’cellphones:Caseanalysisandbest practices.
Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, 5, 16-29.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2019). Cellphones and other personal mobile devices in schools.
Ontario Ministry of Education. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
OntarioSecondarySchoolTeachers’Federation.(2018).Theimpactofcellphonesinsecondary and
post-secondary education worksites.
Ouytsel, J. V., Gool, E. V., Ponnet, K., & Walrave, M. (2014). Brief report: The association
between adolescents’ characteristics and engagement in sexting. Journal of Adolescence,
37(8), 1387-1391.
Paolini,A.(2018).Cyberbullying:Roleoftheschoolcounsellorinmitigatingthesilentkiller epidemic.
International Journal of Educational Technology, 5(1), 1-8.
Pickett, A. D., & Thomas, C. (2006). Turn off that phone. American School Board Journal,
193(4), 40-44.
Pricev.NewYorkCityBoardofEducation,837N.Y.S.2d507.(N.Y.Sup.Ct.2007).
R.v.Cole,2012SCC53(CanLII)[2012]3SCR34.http//canlii.ca/t/ft969
R.v.Fearon,2014SCC77,[2014]S.C.R.62.
R.v.Jones(H.)(2015),468Sask.R.264 (PC).
R.v.M.(M.R.),1998CanLII770,[1998]3SCR393.http://canlii.ca/t/1fs0w
R.v.Plant,[1993]3S.C.R.281.
R.v.W.(D.),2002CarswellBC641.
RainbowDistrictSchoolBoard.(2020).Safeschools.https://www.rainbowschools.ca/schools/
school-policies-procedures/safe-schools/d
Rattv.Tournier,2014SKQB353(CanLII).http://canlii.ca/t.gf7s9
Rosen, L. D., Carrier, M., & Cheever, N. A. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it:
Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behaviour, 29, 948-
958.
Rosen, L. D., Lim, A., Carrier, M., & Cheever, N. A. (2011). An empirical examination of the
educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the classroom: Educational
implications and strategies to enhance learning. Psicologia Educativa, 29(2), 163-177.
Rubin, A. J., & Peltier, E. (2018, September 20). France bans smartphones in schools through 9th
grade.Willithelpstudents?NewYorkTimes.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/20/world/
europe/france-smartphones-schools.html
Russo,C.J.,&Clarke,P.T.(2016).Searchandseizureintheelectronicera:Aninternational perspective
– Part two. Education and Law Journal, 26(1), 1-19.
Saidouni, K., & Bahloul, A. (2018). The use of mobile-assisted language learning in EFL
teaching and learning practices and readiness. Trans Internet Journal for Cultural Studies,
22. http://www.inst.at/trans/22/the-use-of-mobile-assisted-language-learning-in-efl-teach-
ing-and-learning-practice
Sana,F.,Weston,T.,&Cepeda,N.J.(2013).Laptopmultitaskinghindersclassroomlearningfor both
users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24-31.
Scomavacca,E.,Huff,S.,&Marshall,S.(2009).Mobilephonesintheclassroom:Ifyoucan’t beat them,
join them. Communications of the ACM, 52(4), 142-146.
Smale,W.T.,&Hill,J.(2016).Theprincipal’sroleinregulatingstudents’useofsocialmedia
technology. Journal of Educational Administration & Foundations, 25(1), 19-28.
St.Gerard,V.(2006).Updatingpolicyonlatestrisks forstudentswithcellphones intheschool.
EducationDigest,72(4),43-45.
Strassberg, D. S, McKinnon, R. K., Sustaita, M. A., & Rullo, J. (2013). Sexting by high school
students:Anexploratoryanddescriptivestudy.ArchivesofSexualBehavior,42(1),15-21.
TheCanadianPress.(2013,December15).Linkbetweencyberbullyingandteensuicidesover-
simplified, experts say. https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/link-between-cyberbully-
ing-and- teen-suicides-oversimplified-experts-say

63
Smale,Hutcheson, &Russo
Tatum,N.T.,Olson,M.K.,&Frey,T.K.(2018).Noncomplianceanddissentwithcellphone
policies: A psychological reactance theoretical perspective. CommunicationEducation,
67(2), 226-244.
Thomas,K.,&O’Bannon,B.(2013).Cellphonesintheclassroom:Preserviceteachers’ perceptions.
Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(1), 11-20.
Tindell,D.R.,&Bohlander,R.W.(2012).Theuseandabuseofcellphonesandtextmessagingin the
classroom: A survey of college students. College Teaching, 60(1), 1-9.
TitleIXoftheEducationAmendmentsof1972,20U.S.C.§1681.
Vincent Massey Secondary School. (2018). Student handbook 2018-2019. https://www.publicb
oard.ca/school/Massey/About%20Us/Documents/Student%20Handbook%202018-2019.pdf
Wainwright,A.(2012).4benefitsofhavingmobiletechnologyintheclassroom.https://www.
securedgenetworks.com/blog/4-benefits-of-having-mobile-technology-in-the-classroom
Walker,J.,&Moat,S.(2010).Child’splayorchildpornography:Theneedforbetterlawsregard- ing
sexting. ACJS Today: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, 35(1), 1-9.
Wallace,K.(2009,June17).High-techcheatingontheriseatschools.CBSNews.https://www. cbsnews.com
/news/high-tech-cheating-on-the-rise-at-schools/
Willcocks, B., & Redmond, P. (2014). Evaluating a 1-to-1 iPad project: Beyond rose coloured
glasses.Australian Computers in Education Conferences 2014. https://eprints.usq.edu.au
/26253/8/willcocks_redmond_acec_2014_pv.pdf.
Wilmer, H. H., Sherman, L. E., & Chein, J. M. (2017). Smartphones and cognition: A review of
research exploring the links between mobile technology habits and cognitive functioning.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8(605), 1-16.
Wong-Lo,M.,&Bullock,L.M.(2011).Digitalaggression:Cyberworldmeetsschoolbullies.
PreventingSchoolFailure,55(2),64-70.
Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2013). Sexting and itsrelation to sexual activity and sexual risk
behaviorinanationalsurveyofadolescents.JournalofAdolescentHealth,55(6),757-764.

64