Smartphones Don't Belong in Schools
This isn't anti-technology. This is pro-education.
Why are kids allowed phones in schools? This is a question that has puzzled me for a long time, especially now that my oldest child is in grade eight and has described to me the level of distraction that plays out in class on a daily basis. (He is now the only kid in the class without a smartphone—a unique designation he does not appreciate one bit.)
Even though phones are technically banned from use during class hours, students keep them in their desks and check them surreptitiously. My son says that at least half the kids spend the whole day with one AirPod in, listening to music, which obviously comes from a phone in their desk or pocket. During recess, they huddle over videos and memes and social media posts, although my son clarifies that this doesn't affect him because he and his friends usually play sports during breaks.
I still have questions. "But if phones aren't allowed, then what's the teacher doing to stop them?" He says that the teacher confiscates phones whenever she sees them, but there seems to be a tacit rule that if they're out of sight, they're out of mind. I don't blame the teacher for this; she has been fabulous all year and is no doubt exhausted with having to deal with phones on top of her already challenging job.
The broader system seems deeply flawed. School is a child's job. It's a big deal. It prepares them for the world, academically and socially. It requires focus, persistence, and repetition. It can be boring at times, but often that's when the young developing brain is soaking in information and forging connections even while daydreaming. To add smartphones to that environment is to change it completely—and not for the better. In fact, the presence of smartphones in such a setting clearly impedes kids' ability to get an education. That, to me, is horrifying and irresponsible on the part of adults.
What's the Problem With Phones?
Jonathan Haidt, a social science professor at New York University, recently wrote a great piece on his Substack, titled "The Case for Phone-Free Schools." It was reprinted in The Atlantic and has been making the rounds online. In it, Haidt describes an environment familiar to anyone who has school-aged kids—students who seem permanently distracted and congenitally distractible, drama and conflicts playing out all day on platforms staff cannot access.
He points to ample evidence that smartphones and social media are at the root of the international epidemic of mental illness that has surged since 2012. (He's been working hard on compiling evidence alongside Dr. Jean Twenge, author of iGen and Generations.) But how does that play out in schools, specifically?
Haidt points out that we adults have enough trouble maintaining focus with our smartphones close at hand, despite having fully developed prefrontal cortexes. Now imagine how hard it is for a kid to do the same. He cites a study that found that just seeing a smartphone or hearing an alert causes students to underperform. The constant dopamine jolts that kids get from looking at their phones causes them to become irritable when they're separated from them; this could be why "heavy phone users have lower GPAs."
And phones separate people, making it harder to start conversations and make or develop in-person friendships when everyone is looking at a screen rather than each other. No wonder loneliness rates are spiking. As Haidt cites MIT professor Sherry Turkle, when we're on our devices, "we are forever elsewhere." It's so sad.
Why Are Phones Still Allowed?
Parents are a big part of the problem, expecting to be able to reach their kids at all times. They're ignoring the fact that they have chosen to entrust their child to a school staffed by decent humans with an office that has functioning phones, which should be sufficient assurance of their safety.
As I explain in my own book, many parents have fallen into the rut of "catastrophe thinking," assuming that disaster lies around every corner and that a tightly-woven web of constant digital connection provides protection. Interestingly, Turkle points to 9/11 as being the root cause of this, and of course mass school shootings have only solidified this thinking further.
But Haidt faces the awkwardness of this question head-on, citing Ken Trump, the president of National School Safety and Security Services. If there actually were a school shooting, heaven forbid, then kids using their personal phones is the last thing you'd want. Not only does it distract them from adults providing life-saving instructions, but it creates noise. Furthermore, Haidt says, "It seems to me that 300 parents rushing to the school in 300 cars would probably make things more difficult for first responders."
Another ironic reason, I think, for phones' persistence in the classroom is that their ubiquity has resulted in their being incorporated into classroom lessons and activities, perhaps due to teachers' attempts to reach kids through the same devices they're so attached to. Indeed, this has been one of my son's arguments for getting a phone, saying he "needs" it for class-based activities. (I point out that the teacher/school has an obligation to provide whatever device the necessary app is on.)
But this, too, is problematic. The claims about screen-based learning being more engaging for kids fail to consider their built-in distractions. As Haidt writes:
"Any increase in engagement during a lesson may be offset by students following off-ramps during the same lesson. When we add in the costs to all other teachers and the loss of social connection between classes, it's hard to see how the marginal benefit of a phone-based lesson outweighs the costs of a phone-focused student body."
Plus, there's a fine line between engagement and entertainment. When kids get accustomed to a base level of visual and auditory busyness, it is difficult to focus on reading a boring page of text and doing other mundane activities.
What Can Be Done?
There are plenty of solutions. What's lacking is willingness on the part of teachers, school administrators, parents, and students. But some impressive precedents are being set.
Consider the town of Greystones, Ireland, where eight primary schools in the distract recently banded together to say no to smartphones. The Guardian explains that it is a voluntary pact "to withhold smartphones from children—at home, in school, everywhere—until they enter secondary school. Applying it to all children in the area will, it is hoped, curb peer pressure and dampen any resentment." Of course, families can choose to act differently, but most are incredibly supportive of the idea. They're relieved that they are not the only ones doing it, so their kid feels less socially marginalized, and they can present it to their (dissenting) child as a school rule, which makes it easier.
Stephen Donnelly, Ireland's health minister and a father within the Greystones school district, has even said the policy should be adopted nationwide. In an op-ed for the Irish Times, he writes, "We regulate broadcast and print media. We regulate food and drink and medicines. We have extensive child protections in place in so many areas of our society. We’re now beginning to do it in the digital space."
In fact, not limiting smartphone access sounds utterly illogical and insane when you read this analogy by Donnelly:
"Imagine a school stocked its library with graphic, violent pornography, which any student aged 11 and older was allowed access. It would be a national story for weeks. Heads would roll. There could well be prosecutions. But that's exactly what smartphones offer if they don’t have parental controls on them."
Haidt enumerates and expands on the various approaches to limiting phones in schools, and he concludes that only two are feasible, either making kids lock their phones in individual pouches that require a magnetic pin to reopen, or using phone lockers that keep them out of their hands for the full school day. Parents must accept that they can't reach their kids till the final bell goes, unless they call the office. (I would expand these limits beyond middle school to high school, as well.)
He also suggests that parents not give smartphones to their kids initially, but rather ease into it with a "dumb" phone that still calls and texts, minus the apps that are the biggest problem. He suggests gadgets like a Gizmo watch that allows calls from a select few numbers. He implores parents to wait till high school before giving kids smartphones. The Wait Until 8th pledge has received great coverage, but most eighth-graders still attend a primary or middle school, where adding smartphones is hardly a smart idea.
A Recipe for Success
The bottom line is that kids are being asked to do the impossible—focus on school while resisting the allure of the devices in their pockets. It's hard enough for us adults; how on earth do we expect our children to do it? I think the kids are desperate for boundaries; they are happier when they get them.
Donnelly described talking to a group of students. When he asked, "If you could simply make smartphones and social media not exist, would you?", one by one every single student put up their hand.
Haidt banned all laptops in his university-level lectures and said that, by the end, "students strongly agreed that this improved the class for them." There are numerous accounts of students shifting from resentment to relief when phone use is strictly limited.
Cal Newport, a Georgetown University professor and author of Digital Minimalism (one of my favourite books on this topic), said getting phones out of the classroom is a no-brainer. He told NBC News, "The ability to be free of distraction and concentrate on things is increasingly valuable, so it's a good general function of our schools to be a place where our students get trained to keeping their concentration on one thing at a time."
If we truly want our kids to succeed and thrive in school, to focus on and learn the lessons that they have so few years to absorb, then limiting their access to smartphones during school hours is a wise decision. This is not anti-technology; this is pro-education and pro-wellbeing. It's the best thing we can do for them.
Other News:
We are 3 weeks out from book launch day! Tuesday, July 11 marks the date when Childhood Unplugged: Practical Advice to Get Kids Off Screens and Find Balance will be available for purchase in bookstores and online (and from me, if you happen to know me personally!).
If you’re in Ontario, there will be public book launch parties happening on July 11 in Port Elgin at Three Sheets Brewery, 6-9 p.m., July 13 in Toronto at Flying Books, 784 College St., 6:30-8 p.m., and July 15 in Muskoka, location and time TBD. More details to come soon.
You Might Also Like:
When Should I Give My Kid a Phone?
What Is the U.S. Surgeon General Saying About Social Media?
Is the Future Analog?
Amazing! I wish it could happen. The teachers i worked with tried so many ways to stop the phone use in class. We understood that a phone vibrating or lighting up could co-opt a student’s attention for the rest of the period. We wanted no phones. We, however, were told by senior admin to find ways to use the phones productively and to stop being anti-technology.