Larry Magid: Mixed feelings about bill to limit smartphones in school

Though there is no shortage of articles and books claiming that smartphones have led to mental health declines and other problems, there is also research demonstrating the nuanced nature of these claims.

I have mixed feelings about California’s AB 3216 titled “Pupils: use of smartphones.” The bi-partisan bill, which Gov. Newsom has indicated he will sign, would require school districts to develop and adopt “a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones.” The bill was Introduced by Assembly Members Josh Hoover (R-Folsom), Josh Lowenthal (D-Long Beach) and Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance).

The bill is predicated on its authors’ assessment that smartphone use in school “interferes with the educational mission of the schools, lowers pupil performance, particularly among low-achieving pupils, promotes cyberbullying, and contributes to an increase in teenage anxiety, depression, and suicide.

Although these assumptions are widely held, they are not universally accepted by researchers. For example, a study from Finland’s Aalto University, published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior, found that “Smartphones can improve academic performance, when used appropriately.” The researchers did acknowledge that “the more time users spend on entertainment apps relates to the level of nomophobia they experience, which in turn alters sleep habits.’  An article published by the U.S. National Library of Medicine defines nomophobia as “a psychological condition when people have a fear of being detached from mobile phone connectivity.

Though there is no shortage of articles and books claiming that smartphones and social media have led to mental health declines and other problems, there is also research demonstrating the nuanced nature of claims regarding the impact of social media and other smartphone use on youth mental health.  As Nathan Davies pointed out in his ConnectSafely literature review on social media and youth mental health there are many other factors, besides technology, that may be impacting youth mental health.

Distractions

However, it doesn’t take much research to know that smartphones or anything else that distracts a student from paying attention to what’s happening in class is likely to have negative effects on academic performance.  And I don’t need any research to tell me that many people – including a lot of adults – are guilty of looking at their phone or their PC when they should be paying attention to other people or situations, including when they are in meetings. One reason I don’t need research is because I’ve been guilty of that myself. At a recent conference, I had my laptop out, ostensibly to take notes, but found myself checking my email and even doing some very distracting web surfing when I should have been paying attention.

And I was far from the only person using a device during that and most other meetings I attend. In Zoom meetings, I often notice people looking away from the camera, most likely at their phones or PC screens. I’ve also heard complaints from college and university instructors about their students being distracted during class. There is no doubt in my mind that smartphones, despite their many positive uses, are competing for the attention of both kids and adults, often at inappropriate times.

It’s pretty hard to enforce regulations to prevent adults from using devices during meetings, but K-12 students are in a supervised situation where educators can enforce rules, including banning the use of phones or other devices.

Opposition 

In a letter to the Senate Education Committee, California School Board Association Deputy Legislative Director Erika Hoffman opposed the bill, arguing that it “limits the decision-making authority of the governing board as they would now have to adopt a policy, even if, through local community meetings, it was found that there was no need to limit/prohibit the usage.” She pointed out that “governing boards already have the authority to limit smartphone use in schools” and that decisions like this “are best made at the local level by people who understand, reside, are invested in, and accountable to the communities they serve.”

Specific policies

The California bill requires that districts create smart phone policies, but it doesn’t specify what those policies should be other than to “limit or prohibit the use by its pupils.” The key word is the “or” between “limit” and “prohibit” as well as the vagueness of the term “limit.” As I read it, it pretty much allows districts to create whatever policy they want, including putting very few restrictions on the use of smartphones, but it also provides the option of more stringent policies, including prohibiting them completely.

Under current law, districts are already free to enact their own rules and many districts already have policies in place to limit or prohibit smartphones. Given that, I’m not sure why an additional law is necessary, although I do think there is an argument in favor of requiring districts to at least debate the issue and consider creation of a policy.

I would prefer the state allow districts to decide as they see fit, not to create districtwide limits.

The bill, said Kerry Gallagher, a school administrator and teacher and also ConnectSafely’s Director of Education, is “at best performative and at worst will create unnecessary urgency for districts to ‘do something’ that will not actually make a difference.” She said it “creates extra work for already-stretched-thin educators at a time when we are trying to close achievement gaps lingering from students’ and teachers’ time away from one another in 2020-2021.”

Exceptions

AB 3216 does have some exceptions, which mitigate some of my concerns. These include “emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger,” when a doctor determines that the phone is “necessary for the health or well-being of the pupil,” when the phone is required for a “pupil’s individualized education program,” and when a teacher or administrator “grants permission to a pupil to possess or use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator.” If I read this right, educators can override the policies which, in my opinion, is a good thing. They, not state or local politicians, are in a better position to know what is appropriate in their classrooms and for their students.

Based on these exceptions and the vagueness of the term “limit,” the bill seems both toothless and harmless. It’s toothless in that it doesn’t really require much other than a basic policy, and it’s harmless in that it will allow for essential and appropriate use of smartphones while encouraging districts to find ways to keep them from being a distraction during class. Being toothless doesn’t mean it’s useless, but it does give districts broad discretion.

What’s really needed

I applaud the intention behind this bill, but I wish it provided districts and schools with the resources to do more than just impose limits or prohibitions. What’s needed are more youth mental health resources and more support for students who are struggling with their schoolwork. We also need an awareness campaign to help students better understand the negative impact of excessive and inappropriate use of devices, including during class time. These campaigns should be led by the students themselves, many of whom might agree that putting away smartphones in class benefits them and their fellow students. The bill should also encourage peer counseling and other resources to deal with distractions, cyberbullying, mental health and other problems linked to smart phone use.

Limits and prohibitions have their place, but the goal should not just be to force students to forgo the use of phones while they are in elementary, middle or high school, but to develop good habits that will last them a lifetime, including in the workplace and in family and social situations that will stay with them for life.

What we really need is a societywide awareness campaign not unlike those that have led to the reduction in smoking and other dangerous or antisocial behaviors such as drinking while driving or making racist or sexist remarks. Those behaviors were common when I was a child, but they are now widely regarded as inappropriate.

Larry Magid is a tech journalist and internet safety activist. Contact him at larry@larrymagid.com.