An opinion piece by Sianna Zewdie (Y11) and Karolina Sacha (Y11)
Note: Please remember that this is an opinion piece (marked above) and gives our opinion of the student experience at our school. This is not to make claims about school administration, but to give an honest portrayal of school life here.
A Message from the Leadership Team at La Châtaigneraie Secondary
We take the concerns raised in this article very seriously. Our leadership team has met with both students to listen to their perspectives and clarify key points. While we acknowledge that, in a diverse school community of over a thousand secondary students representing over 80 nationalities, incidents of discrimination may occur, we are committed to addressing them promptly and effectively. We are confident that most incidents are reported and followed up with both disciplinary and remedial actions as necessary.
Our school upholds a zero-tolerance policy for racism, bias, and any form of discrimination. Every reported incident is thoroughly reviewed to ensure accountability and reinforce our commitment to inclusivity and respect. We are dedicated to working collaboratively with the student body to explore ways they can contribute to our ongoing efforts to combat discrimination through education, awareness, and by fostering a safe and supportive environment for all.
School leadership remains actively involved in this matter and continues to be in close contact with the students to ensure their concerns are heard and addressed appropriately.
Building a Just and Joyful Tomorrow… One Phone Confiscation at a Time
Murmurs of discontent have been spreading around the school ever since the announcement of the new phone rule a few weeks ago. As of February 3rd, La Chât’s new policy is that the school will be phone-free, imposing stricter and more severe consequences on those who violate this doctrine.
To briefly summarize: phones must be switched off and out of sight at all times, and if you’re caught with it, brace yourself for a confiscation with additional charges depending on how many times you’ve had it taken away before. Many students are unhappy with this new change, but a significant number believed it wouldn’t actually make much of a difference or be strictly enforced.
The Upside: an Escape from Inconsistencies
With the new rule, many students push their way around it, arguing (or even going beyond that) with teachers when they are caught with their phones out. Nevertheless, before this new rule was put in place, the use of phones throughout the school was not clear between teachers and students.
Many teachers had different views on this rule. Some with different levels of how strict they were with it—either they asked the student to put their phone back in their bag or would take it away until the end of the lesson or the day. There was some miscommunication between the staff of the school for where phones—and laptops, for that matter—could be used in the school. These incorrect interpretations of the past rule were a hassle for many teachers and students. In comparison, the new rule ensures far fewer disputes between the student body and the staff—an outcome which, granted, is rather positive.
Students Silenced
Although the new rules have already been implemented, many students feel that they have been left unheard. In the month of January, a questionnaire was sent out to students, about the phone use on campus. Many found that this technology didn’t negatively affect their learning; on the contrary, the use of phones for music improves their focus and concentration, and this was clearly evident in the results. This new rule has ignored their concerns and bothered their learning experience. In the future, when the foundation asks for the students’ opinions, most will not be keen to provide their input, as this situation has clearly shown how their views have consistently been disregarded.
One staff member clarified the situation, explaining that this policy was primarily made by staff; student input was viewed to see what they thought, but ultimately was not taken into account for the decision-making process. If that is true, then what was even the point of asking us?
Penalty Problems
The policy states that the penalty after the third confiscation will be as follows: ‘The electronic device will be confiscated and held at reception. A parent or guardian must collect the device at the end of the school day.’
While at first glance it seems a viable threat for students, upon closer inspection many secondary consequences become clear. For a start, it raises complications with parents, many of whom work in Geneva or Lausanne and will not be leaving work early just to pick up a phone from the school reception. In the words of a student, when they told their parent about this rule “they just laughed, and they were like: ‘No, we’re not doing that!’” – a response which seems to be the same for most.
This policy is especially concerning in cases where students take the bus home or to extracurriculars, as it is against Swiss law to enter a bus without a ticket, and no student will uphold the school’s instructions over that of the law. Keeping students’ property beyond school hours raises significant legal and ethical issues, which is not something a school of this standing should be involved with.
The policy also fails to account for cases where both parents are on work trips and students are left home alone, which is a common case for high school students here due to the nature of their parents’ work. In those cases, if a phone was confiscated for the third time, would the school keep it until parents returned? And the school considers this a better policy?
Another issue has occurred due to this new rule: many students have problems with getting their phones back once it has been confiscated. The school shouldn’t be so difficult on returning the student’s phones back to the child. With the high school students having a non-structured schedule, such as starting late and finishing early, teachers should be aware of this, and not be permitted to confiscate phones when students have not started lessons yet, or have finished before the set school day ending. Once their phones are confiscated, there shouldn’t be any extra hassle to receive their phones when their day ends, whether it’s at lunchtime or at 16:30.
The Bathroom Predicament
With the new rules, calls have to be made in the reception, or when not able to be easily contacted, the loudspeakers are used for communication. There is a lack of student privacy, the ability to talk to parents in private has been taken away, now making the bathrooms far more crowded. For those students who are going through a hard time, who need some comfort or important information from their close relatives, their lives have become far more difficult. Is this new policy really benefiting students’ wellbeing?
On the topic of crowded bathrooms, on some occasions, the bathrooms are used by students to contact parents more easily. But now, teachers have taken this no phone policy to a whole other level. On some occasions, teachers have entered the bathrooms, when they have suspected phone use, to confiscate them. This is not a covert surveillance operation for the FBI—this is a breach of privacy, and frankly, an absurd invasion of personal space.
It is also a legal violation to students’ privacy and protection of minors. Under Article 13 of the Swiss legislation, which is also referenced in Ecolint’s Child Protection Policy, “every person has the right to privacy in their private and family life and in their home, and in relation to their mail and telecommunications.” Entering bathrooms could potentially violate this guarantee—unless, of course, confiscating a phone is now classified as a national emergency.
The school Code of Conduct for staff also addresses this potential issue with Section D.1, stating that ‘Male staff should not enter female changing rooms, or vice versa, except in an emergency.’ If the usage of phones is considered by the school to be an emergency, we urge them to reconsider their priorities.
This is not a covert surveillance operation for the FBI—this is a breach of privacy, and frankly, an absurd invasion of personal space.
Even in this case, the Code of Conduct instructs teachers to ‘Knock loudly on the entrance door and announce your presence. If there is no external door, staff should stand at the entrance to the toilet/changing room and announce themselves loudly.’ Evidently, this precaution is not taken, as if a teacher announces their arrival, students generally tend to have the common sense to hide their phones, so they wouldn’t be confiscated. While, yes, it is true that students will sometimes hide in bathrooms to use their phones without permission, entering the bathrooms (particularly as a teacher of the opposite gender), is a gross violation of our rights to privacy.
One staff member in particular openly reported to students that he overheard talking in the theater bathrooms, and so he directed a cleaning lady to open the door for him so he could catch the girls in the act. Other staff members have reportedly banged on bathroom stalls, asking girls if they were on their phones. This all clearly goes against the rules stipulated in the Code of Conduct, and is also so obviously inappropriate.
Other Issues
For art and theater students, the use of phones is needed for their projects, without them, their work has been inconvenienced. In clubs and communities within the campus, phones are used as a communication tool, such as WhatsApp and messages. With taking this away, information won’t be easily accessible and passed on as quickly as done previously. Last minute plans and events will be missed or forgotten. This can cause many problems in the long run.
With the talk of changing the current smartwatch regulations, an idea of removing student’s right to having a smartwatch has just started to become a conversation with teachers and students. Many students use their apple watches, or other brands, to keep up with their busy schedules, check their timetable, be on time for meetings, class, and tutoring. This tool has become very useful for many students and has significantly benefited them. By removing these devices, there is a chance that students may miss important events, making the students’ lives even more complicated.
As much as it might horrify school administrators, students are not that addicted to electronics…
This appears a rather petty move on the school’s part; removing phones is at least somewhat understandable (despite its questionable justification and execution)– but smartwatches? It’s not as if students are prone to scrolling on TikTok on their watches during break and lunch—most people just use it because of its convenience for schedules and the like. As much as it might horrify school administrators, students are not that addicted to electronics, and the assumption that we might be further highlights the gap in understanding between teachers and students.
Additionally, another technology rule is the use of laptops in the cafeteria before the start of the school day is not permitted. For many students, this seems like an odd rule, since during the same time of the day, laptops are allowed to be used in the library. When a student arrives at school early – for example at 7:30 – they aren’t allowed to use their laptops for educational purposes to use their free time productively. Many find this bothersome, especially for upper school students which want to use their online notes to do some revision before their first lessons of the day start.
The Wrong Priorities
The school has spent a long time deliberating over this issue, and it seems to have been an extremely pressing matter for the administration. While we students value their commitment to creating a positive and effective learning environment for us, it often feels like this issue has been prioritized over much more important ones.
The school, despite being lauded for its diversity and internationality, has a chronic problem with extreme racism. As a person of color at this school (particularly as a black person), I have witnessed and experienced many instances of racial prejudice and discrimination, many of which regrettably do not seem to have been appropriately acknowledged and handled by the school. While many students seem to be in fear of whipping out their phones in the hallways, they have no shame shouting slurs at each other as they know that they are unlikely to receive punishment for it, because apparently Instagram is a much bigger threat to our development than a hostile school environment.
It seems to be that in a classroom, if one student is scrolling on social media and another says the n-word, it will only be the student on their phone in trouble.
– Sianna Zewdie (Y11)
It seems to be that in a classroom, if one student is scrolling on social media and another says the n-word, it will only be the student on their phone in trouble. This may seem like a gross exaggeration, and you may roll your eyes at it, but I assure you it’s not—because I’ve witnessed it happen firsthand. This stark contrast between the enforcement of minor rules and the neglect of serious issues speaks volumes about the school’s misplaced priorities and the urgent need for a stricter approach to discrimination in its walls. In the words of one student: “They give us so many presentations on so many problems, but when have they actually done anything about it? They say we are a ‘community’ school but [it seems like] all they’re trying to do is make us look good.”
The Science Doesn’t Agree?
Perhaps the most absurd part is that the school has defended their newfound rigidity on the basis that research has pointed towards the “negative effects of phone use [in schools]”—but this might not actually be the case. It is no surprise that excessive use of electronic devices is not good for adolescents’ mental and physical health, and we are not contesting this fact. However, banning phones from schools is considered by many experts to be the wrong approach.
Dr. Rachael Jefferson, a senior international educator and consultant, and a former teacher at La Chât who teaches sociology and health/wellbeing among other things, has argued against the new rules. Under Ecolint’s post on LinkedIn introducing this new policy, she wrote:
“The research is contentious on mobile phone usage in school actually […] NEW research does not confirm that a school ban solves the mobile phone problem. If the school wishes to have a phone ban, so be it. But please don’t use the school-related research (there is so little anyway) to justify a phone ban. Transparency and honesty are essential with school rules. This is an under researched space.”
Jefferson went on to clarify that in a situation like this, it is more important to educate students on proper phone usage rather than a lazy default ban. In fact, she also references this study by Victoria A. Goodyear et al. which studied the effectiveness of phone bans in schools. The research states:
“There is no evidence that restrictive school policies are associated with overall phone and social media use or better mental wellbeing in adolescents. The findings do not provide evidence to support the use of school policies that prohibit phone use during the school day in their current form, and indicate that these policies require further development.”
The study also goes on to discount the research that Ecolint bases its policy on, stating that:
“The evidence is currently weak, mixed, and largely based on ecological studies, and is consequently insufficient to inform policy and clinical practice.”
The Real Reason for Phone Rule
This raises the question: if the research really is as insufficient and underdeveloped as this study and Dr. Jefferson claim, then why is the school so eager to create rules based on it? Is it because the real problems in this community are not easily controlled, and so they’re trying to make it look like they’re improving the development of the school? Is it to maintain their image of a school of ‘high’ stature? Is it purely an ego thing? In truth, it’s not really us who are obsessed with our phones—it’s them. It is becoming increasingly apparent, as one student put it, that “they don’t care about us, they care about their image.”
In truth, it’s not really us who are obsessed with our phones—it’s them.
Phones have been a source of dispute between students and teachers for a long time, and this new policy has attempted to mediate that issue. However, we urge the Ecolint administration to adjust this gross overreach, to address the concerns raised in this article, and add further clarification to the gaps in the policy. Not only that, but we seek answers to the many questions that have been left unanswered for students, one being: why did LGB have until March 3rd to implement the new phone policy, while La Châtaigneraie and Nations had it implemented immediately?—that, and more, students would very much like to know. And what if parents decide not to sign this contract? Well, in the words of a member of the school leadership team: “you’ll be kicked out of school”!
Fully agree with this well-written, and well researched article. As parents of La Chat secondary students, we feel this was a rush to implement something that is poorly thought-out.
Perhaps what is not understood, is that mobile phones are considered a necessity these days as the author clearly points out. We use them for security, for efficiency, support, and communication. It took one of our children 20 minutes to get permission from reception to contact us – imagine if it was an emergency? Do prisoners have more rights and freedoms than students at Ecolint? For the record, we are in favour of supporting responsible use, not draconian, prohibition-era methods. Schools should be a place to educate – currently it’s teaching students and parents how to break rules and get around authority. What kind of future are we creating?
Very well written, and very true. The school implementing this rule is just making the students dislike coming to school more, and it’s doing the opposite of creating a “safe space” for them!!! It’s making them feel targeted, unheard, and in some ways unsafe.
Message from the Leadership Team at La Châtaigneraie Secondary:
We take the concerns raised in this article very seriously. Our leadership team has met with both students to listen to their perspectives and clarify key points. While we acknowledge that, in a diverse school community of over a thousand secondary students representing over 80 nationalities, incidents of discrimination may occur, we are committed to addressing them promptly and effectively. We are confident that most incidents are reported and followed up with both disciplinary and remedial actions as necessary.
Our school upholds a zero-tolerance policy for racism, bias, and any form of discrimination. Every reported incident is thoroughly reviewed to ensure accountability and reinforce our commitment to inclusivity and respect. We are dedicated to working collaboratively with the student body to explore ways they can contribute to our ongoing efforts to combat discrimination through education, awareness, and by fostering a safe and supportive environment for all.
School leadership remains actively involved in this matter and continues to be in close contact with the students to ensure their concerns are heard and addressed appropriately.
Typical Ecolint Admin response. Deflect and deny, do anything but stand up for their most vulnerable students. Make no mistake what is described in this article is exactly what is happening at this school. I stand in solidarity with the authors of this article. What is occurring is not just occasional discrimination it is recurring racism. Don’t buy the PR job. This is the same school where the r-slur and f-slur are used prevalently and nothing is done. We can do better. – Everett Johnson
Reach out to me at Everett.johnson@learning.ecolint.ch
swear u dont even go la chat
It’s disheartening to see the school deny what is clearly happening within the community. This should be an opportunity for the school to wake up, acknowledge the issues at hand, and take meaningful action, rather than brushing everything under the rug. To dismiss the voices of young, talented writers like for simply raising awareness is incredibly sad. Our children should be applauded for their courage to speak out, not silenced for doing so. It’s time to address the real issues, not deflect from them
Such an important perspective to be shared. As an ecolint alumni it hurts my heart to see the persistent racism the author mentioned, but I can’t say I’m surprised. It was the same in my day, with not only students perpetrating racism and Islamophobia, but teachers as well. With incidents not being taken seriously or dismissed entirely. The ecolint response to this article is classic.
I’m sure many can agree that feeling racially targeted at school will impact a student more than their phone pinging with an Instagram notification…
What is ecolint doing to ensure the safety and well-being of their students and staff that are from minoritized backgrounds? Parents pay good money, and staff work long hours for an authentic multicultural, inclusive education not to have racism being ignored.
Thank you for such an insightful look into this crucial issue. I graduated from Ecolint many years ago, and had my own issues with race and religious discrimination, even as far as to have been on the end of blatantly offensive ethnic stereotypical jokes made at my expense (and the expense of other students of color) by a teacher in front of the entire class – for which there were no disciplinary measures taken by the school board against this teacher.
The issue on phones is missing the forest for the trees, and I can say without a doubt that students are surely more concerned with the outward racism, and the erasure of diversity and representation from within the community of teachers and administrative leadership at Ecolint.
The historical reputation of Ecolint is too valuable to be sullied by unsafe and unhealthy working and learning environments for its supposedly valued minoritised communities, both in the student and staff bodies.
More poignantly – what is Ecolint doing to preserve the safety of the marginalised groups learning and working there, who go to the administration heart in hand about the difficulties and challenges they have experienced due to their identities? The school owes a duty of care to its students and staff – if not them, then who is responsible for ensuring a safe learning environment?
The issue of ‘it’s those darn smartphones’ pales in comparison to the dozens of accounts of racism, unfair treatment, double standards, and failure to protect valuable members of the Ecolint community (staff and students alike) in the face of these issues is a glaring issue that demands front-and-center attention.
Not only this, but removing phones also may impede students and staff from being able to collect evidence of the institutional erasure, discriminatory remarks, and other incidents – that Ecolint would no doubt deny or deflect in any case.
I consider it a great privilege to have been able to graduate from the International School of Geneva, but seeing even more of what I experienced, be it through stories of other alum, friends, professional connections, and excellent pieces of student journalism such as this one is deeply disappointing.
I understand the school’s decision to implement a no-phone policy, and while there may be valid reasons for it, I can’t help but feel that a more pressing issue is being overlooked: the ongoing concerns about racism within the school.
If students are expressing that they feel nothing is being done when racist incidents occur, we as parents must ask—why? Are the consequences for such behavior not clearly stated? Are students truly held accountable, or do they “get away” with making harmful remarks? Do teachers feel equipped to handle these situations appropriately? Most importantly, is the school’s zero-tolerance policy truly being enforced?
A phone policy may shape classroom focus, but ensuring that all students feel safe, valued, and protected should be the greater priority. If students are repeatedly voicing that they don’t see action being taken, that signals a failure in communication, accountability, or both. I urge the school to be as proactive in addressing racism as it is in addressing phone usage.
I hope to see a response from leadership on how these concerns will be handled moving forward.
I find the school’s reaction to the article deeply concerning. Students raised issues that are clearly important to them, yet the school has failed to take these concerns seriously or acknowledge the problems. Instead, the school’s response appears to focus on discrediting the well-written article.
Contrary to the school’s claims, both the article and the comments from students and alumni clearly highlight that these issues exist and have not been addressed effectively. This should serve as a serious wake-up call for the school.
The Ecolint website states: “At Ecolint, we believe in fostering an environment where every child not only thrives academically but also is and feels safe, supported”.
I hope to see communication on specific decisions and action steps to really improve the situation.
.
The school has a serious problem with racism. The phone policy is way down on our list of priorities because we handle phone use at home as a family. We had and have children at each school at the LGB campus and are moving our two younger children out, like other families in our community. We came because one of our Principals was black and an Assistant Principal brown, we came because we felt seen and our children would be protected. Within a year the Principal was bullied out by the teachers, as was a black teacher and rumor has it the current brown Assistant Principal that has been at the school for many years. Families from our community are now being advised not to come because their children are not safe. Our experience at the Middle School has been the worst with the constant change and the teachers pulling all the strings and making all the decisions. The Secondary school has been the same. The primary school has been fair due to the Principal. Our community would like to know why if the school claims to be an inclusive school that welcomes everyone why are all your teachers from Canada, the UK or the US and not from diverse backgrpunds? Our children need to be taught and led by people that look like people in the real world not by people who have little education themselves and too much time on their hands to refer to black and brown children as “little bit**es with needy parents, that should leave if they want their children to be taught by non white teachers.” Who is accountable? HR in every other organisation in the world is accountable. The phones are not the issue, racism, bullying and lack of sensitivity to our multicultural world are. We are moving on and following other families from our community to other international schools in the area. Good luck, as in all the time we have been at LGB, it has only gotten worse and we only have one shot at raising our mixed family right and it is not at the International School of Geneva, LGB campus.
phones are not a priority issue in the school in the slightest. new principal of the la chat campus had no tangible accomplishments so decided to work towards creating this policy while clear cases of discrimination, both racial and gender, have been disregarded and no action taken.
leadership terms “zero tolerance” for the sake of using buzz words of which hold no value.
bathroom congregation problems aren’t due to phones, nor is discrimination. the only problem regarding mobile devices is inability to focusing class/checking your phone in class. and with all due respect to the teachers and leadership, using phones during class has not gotten any harder. it is the same as before, where if it is seen, it is taken. only outside of class, where there isn’t some pressing mater such as learning to be focusing on, do we see increased difficulty in phone use.
if caring about student performance and focus in class was the priority, having a phone box such as mr. fyfe used to, is far more effective and actually solves the issue at hand, while also solving the bathroom trips problem. everyone puts their phone on dnd/shut off, and places it in the box to get back after class. no one can check it, unlike with this current rule where if you wanted to you could either in class, or simply go to the bathroom.
having teachers and staff focus so heavily on confiscating phones, to the point where someone wearing headphones, phone in pocket or bag, can have it confiscated is unnecessary and overkill.
enforcement fatigue is also to be brought into question. having a policy so strict requires a lot of work from staff, who’s jobs are already hard enough. with certain teachers even mentioning , although jokingly in many cases, that there should be an incentive for confiscating phones due to the effort involved.
when comparing the inaugural week of the rule to now, there has been a very clear decrease in enforcement, and as it keeps up, we will be left with a situation similar to what it was before, only the punishments are slightly worse. also questionable as well-explained in the article.
I find, and I’m sure many others do too, that the new phone policy was superficial. ‘okay’ on paper but more harmful than good in practice. a PR stunt led by la chat and ecolint seniority such as mrs. sayed hassen who needed an accomplishment under her belt to mark her relatively mundane time at the school so far. most significantly, this felt rushed. for most decisions done by the school, we hear talks of it months beforehand. the phone policy, maybe a week and a half between first word and initiation.
additionally, with little to no acknowledgement of student opinions and feelings, it is as though those making the policy haven’t the slightest clue of what it feels like to be on the receiving end of it.
this is not disregarding the many teachers and staff who are in accordance of the policy and no longer use their phones, but if students could hypothetically confiscate teachers’ phones, the reception would most likely have an equal amount of both student and staff devices. quite besides the point though.
the school preaches that this policy shapes classroom focus, it doesn’t. a simple mr. fyfe phone box in each room would solve this issue perfectly. so I think we’d all appreciate if the school deviated from this “the bigger the better” mentality regarding policy making, especially when rushing it, and instead sat back and thought about how to solve other, more pressing issues, such as discrimination, or even people vaping in bathrooms, also taking into account students’ opinions while they are at it.
okay
This article creates a false dichotomy between addressing the serious issues of racism and discrimination in the school and implementing a phone ban, which is proven to be an effective means to improving student performance and concentration.
It is misleading, and cherry-picks data in an attempt to prove an incorrect argument.
Cool! Since you’re on our site, why don’t you have a look at some of our more recent articles instead of airing out grievances from a year ago?