Ellen Glickman: Point
Cellphones are distractions,
not toys—let parents and teachers
decide on their use in schools.
In today’s digital age, the ubiquitous presence of cellphones has transformed them into essential tools for communication, information and entertainment. However, when placed in the hands of children under 16, these devices can become detrimental, leading to physical inactivity, social isolation, and addiction driven by sophisticated algorithms.
As a scientist concerned about public health, I urge parents and policymakers to recognize that the cellphone is not a toy but a powerful device that requires responsible handling.
Research indicates a negative correlation between cellphone use and physical activity among adolescents. A recent study involving 17 adolescents found that increased cellphone use was associated with decreased physical activity and increased sedentary behavior. This sedentary lifestyle contributes to rising obesity rates and related health issues. Moreover, excessive screen time can lead to social isolation, as face-to-face interactions are replaced by virtual engagements, hindering the development of essential social skills.
The addictive nature of social media platforms exacerbates these problems. These platforms — designed to capture and hold users’ attention — employ algorithms that encourage prolonged use, making it challenging for young minds to disengage.
Recognizing this, California enacted the “Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act” in September. This legislation prohibits social media platforms from providing addictive feeds to minors without parental consent, aiming to mitigate the adverse mental health outcomes associated with heavy social media usage.
The bill acknowledges the mental health crisis, noting the increase in adolescent suicides, depressive episodes, and feelings of sadness and hopelessness in recent years. While the act is a significant step toward protecting children, it is ultimately the responsibility of parents to guide their children’s use of technology. Understanding the merits and responsibilities of being an educational and social advocate is crucial in facilitating healthier, more active lifestyles for young people.
Government leaders nationwide are beginning to recognize the gravity of the issue. While California has taken an initial step, other states are attempting to implement policies that limit excessive social media use among minors. New York and Texas have proposed similar legislation requiring social media companies to implement stricter parental controls.
Lawmakers in these states argue that such measures are necessary to curb the growing mental health crisis.
Congress has held hearings examining the effect of social media on mental health, calling on technology executives to testify on their platform’s role in increasing addiction and psychological distress among youth. These discussions highlight the growing concern among lawmakers about the long-term consequences of unregulated social media use.
Yet, despite these hearings and policy proposals, progress remains slow. The powerful influence of the tech industry, coupled with legal and logistical challenges, makes enacting a one-size-fits-all solution difficult.
It’s important to note that the human brain, particularly the prefrontal cortex responsible for decision-making, is not fully developed until the mid-20s. Granting unrestricted access to cellphones at a young age can interfere with this development, leading to impulsive behavior and poor decision-making. Therefore, while legislation like the one in California provides a framework for protection, parental involvement is paramount in ensuring children develop resilience through real-world interactions and physical activity.
Before the smartphone era, society enjoyed more direct social interactions and higher levels of physical activity. Today, we face increasing rates of physical inactivity, obesity and mental health issues among youth. The pervasive use of cellphones and social media platforms has introduced new challenges that threaten to alter the health landscape for this generation.
Some schools have taken proactive measures to reduce cellphone distractions during the academic day. In New Jersey and Ohio, institutions use neoprene bags with magnetic locks to collect and secure students’ phones upon arrival, returning them after school hours. This approach minimizes distractions and encourages students to engage more fully in their education and peer interactions.
However, managing cellphone use at home remains unregulated and falls squarely on parents’ shoulders. Parents must recognize the detrimental effects of excessive cellphone use and prioritize after-school activities and homework over screen time. Encouraging children to participate in physical activities and creative endeavors fosters social engagement and builds resilience.
While state governments are taking steps to mitigate the negative effects of social media, the federal government must take a stronger stance. Without nationwide regulations, technology companies will continue to operate with little accountability, exploiting young users for profit. National legislation that standardizes parental control requirements enforces age-appropriate content restrictions, and holds tech companies accountable for harmful algorithms would go a long way in safeguarding children’s well-being.
Parents and policymakers must work together to ensure youth develop healthy habits, engage in physical activity and build meaningful social connections. By recognizing the cellphone as a powerful tool rather than a toy, we can help safeguard the next generation’s well-being.
Ellen Glickman is a professor of exercise physiology at Kent State University. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.
Jennifer Huddleston: Counterpoint
Let parents and teachers,
not bureaucrats, decide on
cellphones in schools.
Should kids have access to smartphones in school? Some argue the smartphone problem leads to distraction. Others say smartphones are necessary for reasons related to safety or other concerns.
In reality, it is a more complicated question than it appears. Yet, oftentimes, when complicated questions arise, broad state-level policies that take the choice away from parents and educators lack the flexibility needed for a more nuanced solution.
As a former elementary and middle school teacher, I certainly empathize with educators, policymakers and parents who may be concerned that today’s kids are more distracted by their smartphones in negative ways. Some teachers have instead positively capitalized on young people’s desire to keep and use their smartphones.
Norms around any form of technology may vary from classroom to classroom or school to school. However, the “if you can’t beat them, join them” strategy for smartphone usage in school can be productive.
For example, teachers have used smartphones straightforwardly, such as for educational apps or conducting classroom polls or quizzes. Some teachers have supported students’ unique needs — such as allowing them to stream music to stay focused — but still restricted unauthorized use through classroom management. Others have helped students use their smartphones to gain organizational skills that may extend past the classroom, such as using calendars or keeping records of grades and assignments.
Outside of classroom use, there may be many legitimate reasons that a parent wants their child to have a smartphone at school. According to a survey from the National Parents Union, the most cited reason a parent wants their child to have a smartphone in the classroom is to be able to contact the parent in an emergency.
During the tragic Uvalde school shooting, a 10-year-old with a cellphone called 911 and kept law enforcement informed of the situation. Similarly, cellphones were a lifeline and further documented the harrowing reality of the Parkland High School shooting.
Other safety reasons may be more individualized, such as needing children with medical diagnoses to contact a parent. Sometimes, a parent and child need a means of communication when escaping an abusive partner. In some communities, violence outside of school and unjustified bias against immigrants have made parents feel safer knowing they can always contact their children.
Of course, safety is not the only reason a parent may feel more comfortable with their child having access to their smartphone during the school day. Parents in the National Parents Union survey also frequently cited the logistics of transportation or appointments and a desire for a child to be able to communicate about their mental health or other needs.
In some households, particularly those with low socioeconomic status, smartphones are the primary internet connectivity method. This means that a child needs access to a smartphone to complete the required assignments or that using a smartphone will help them keep up with their peers who might have access to more technology.
As with many cases regarding kids and technology, the answer is not one size fits all. Schools and parents should teach good digital citizenship skills, including the appropriate use of smartphones. State-level bans may not consider the nuanced reasons parents, students and teachers want smartphones and may make exceptions more difficult.
Such decisions are better made at a local level. The school, district, or classroom’s decisions should involve educators, parents and students to find the ideal balance and make exceptions when appropriate. Instead of a state-level ban, school choice programs available in over 33 states can allow parents to select the proper educational environment for their child, including whether smartphones should be in or out of the classroom.
Families will have a wide array of preferences when it comes to the use of technology in the classroom. Sometimes, a smartphone-free environment might appeal to parents. Still, others may want a school that embraces all the technology their child will likely encounter. It should not be presumed that parents or teachers who support students’ smartphone use are merely enablers of smartphone addiction. Instead, technology usage — like many other aspects — should be one factor in the choices around their child’s education.
Jennifer Huddleston is a technology policy research fellow at the Cato Institute and an adjunct professor at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School. She wrote this for InsideSources.com.
