U.S. News

Bell to Bell bans are fine in my honest opinion.

I do not acknowledge the mandate that all children must have constant access to their phones. Students who have a legitimate reason to carry their phones on their person at all times should be supported by their parents with a request to the school administration. School admins who receive such requests by parents should accept them with no questions asked, and only confiscate the device from the student if they are found to be misusing it or disrupting a class with it; no "If I see it; I snatch it" rules are to be allowed.

If schools have to issue "Phone-allowed Hall Passes" constantly; it disrupts class. If a student can be issued a personal pass that discloses they're allowed to keep their phone on them, per parental request for a legitimate reason, think medical reasons or reasons related to disability and note taking, there's less interruption if a student needs to make a critical phone call to get help.

I do believe schools should provide and encourage device storage. Students of appropriate ages should be allowed to access them in storage during break times. Teaching students the ability to self-disconnect from their mobile devices is important. This can be done efficiently and without cruelty. Responsible students with fewer phone infractions can be permitted to carry their phone more often or during wider hours of the day; while those who do misuse their phones or disrupt classes with them can be forced to keep their phones in storage from bell to bell as the law suggests.

It is not to help the children.

Leave the kids alone. They're already oppressed enough (the real reason their mental health is shit, phones are a scapegoat)

Kids are being harmed, but so is everyone else.

We need to stop acting as if there is some bandaid fixes or regulations that can adress these issues.

Phones in general need to be refocused on their utility, and social media specifically needs to be rebuilt as a public services, and the notion of it as a for profit enterprise needs to be buried six feet under.

In this age of school shooters I don’t know that I’d feel comfortable sending my hypothetical kid to school without a phone, or knowing it wouldn’t be allowed to be on them provided they kept it away and silent.

Definitely confiscate it if it’s out when it shouldn’t be, but when phones can be how people have access to money, bus passes, ID, etc then it seems unreasonable to not expect kids to learn how to be responsible about having it with them. I don’t want to deal with a bunch of 18 year olds that don’t know how to use a phone appropriately in the workplace.

So glad to hear that more districts are following the evidence on the toxicity of cell phones on youth mental health. As a former secondary teacher, I've been following this very closely, and it's good to see politicians actually doing the right thing in increasing numbers globally, finally. If only we could get more parents on board with banning social media access for their children (until age ~16) in the first place!!

To be clear, there's very little evidence that having dumb phones are a problem. Phone calls are great, and simple SMS/MMS texting is largely used by students effectively for communication and to build connections. And, obviously, are more than sufficient for parents to keep in contact with their children.

The problem is smart phones, especially "social media" apps, but, more generally, with addictive and deceptive dark patterns in most popular apps and, increasingly, websites.

For example, within minutes with a fresh account on TikTok, Instagram, or SnapChat shorts, teenage girls will be shown content promoting self harm/suicide and encouraging disordered eating. Teenage boys will be shown misogynistic "manosphere" and racist content just as quickly. It's incredibly toxic.

I've already written too much for an Internet comment, but if you want to learn more, Jonathan Haidt's "The Anxious Generation" is a great, recent popular press book that explains this in detail. The only big criticism I've heard is that he does the Malcolm Gladwell thing where he jumps a bit farther than the evidence supports, but the book is otherwise very sound, well explained, and well researched. And, even if his conclusions aren't the ideal solution (as sorted by evidence), it's still grounded in reality and much better than the status quo, so I think this criticism is overstated.