Having worked in education for the majority of my working life, I have seen the negative impacts of phone usage and social media on the younger generation.
There needs to be a collective effort to ensure our young people reduce the amount of time they spend. Parents, schools and other important figures in a young person’s life must work together on this.
I am a teacher and the phones are at the most overwhelming thing to battle on a daily basis. Despite having a no phones rule school wide during instructional time, it’s extremely hard to enforce and a constant fight to stop kids who are so addicted to their devices to put them away and learn something that is less reinforcing and much more boring.
I teach in hs. 2011 is the year I remember. That’s when phones really started to become an issue. To some extent it has destroyed education. Our entire district put a no phone policy in place (instead of individual hs in our district trying different strategies). There are tangible consequences for refusal to follow our phone policy (the best being making parents come pick up student and phone…the parents need some skin in the game)! if the refusals continue team meetings and visits to student services result. Unfortunately, parents are a huge part of the problem….taking an addicts source of addiction away makes it tough at home..oh well! Anyway, with support from our district office, the “phone issue” has decreased quite a bit. When students and parents are aware there are actual consequences….it can work!
I'm glad to hear there are school districts taking a stand, I'm still not in that phase of parenthood yet but I am definitely in support of more broad restrictions for phone use in schools. Phone lockers as Haidt recommends seems like a good start.
I teach at a public HS. The year before we instituted a Yondr (locked pouch) program I had two students throw tantrums - writhing on the ground - because I told them to go to the office and turn their phones in. It was constant with the phones. I love our locked pouch policy.
I've used a Yondr pouch at a concert before! What a great idea. And yes, just like heroin addicts, I think the top 5% of children that are really hooked will go into violent withdrawal in the immediate term, but then be better off in the long term. I'm so glad that your public high school implemented this strategy effectively.
I went to a jack white concert and 6000 people had no issue with it! I feel like 2500 hs kids could generally handle it. I’m more worried about parents complaining about not being able to reach their child. I’m 52…latchkey kid….wouldn’t see my good, caring parents for days in the summer sometimes lol. Anyway I tell parents there is a main office phone and you can call that if you need to reach your child.
That’s how we did it all the way up until 2010-2011. Parents seem to be extremely anxious about their kids and I think it rubs off on a lot of kids. It’s kind of a vicious cycle
I had some kids who I truly thought would have meltdowns. I saw a documentary on treatment centers for South Korean kids addicted to their phones…I fully expected that…but it didn’t happen! When expectations are clear and, more importantly, there are tangible immediate consequences.
As I said in the post above there are a few steps before the shit really hits the fan. First being just bringing the phone up to me and putting it on my desk. As long as I stayed calm and told a student that it’s no big deal..you can do it and get it back at the end of class. I keep an even keel and try to make it way less contentious than it could be. It works about 95% of the time. Kids are resilient. I was really impressed with how they handled their phones last year.
I have ten and twelve year old boys… neither of them have a smart phone. We do allow them to play video games with friends - up to two hours each weekend - and on road trips and air travel.
We’ve told them if they have straight A’s in school… we can talk about getting them a smart phone as juniors in high school.
And I share all my reporting with them on this subject… leading with Dr. Haidt’s exhaustive analysis of this tragedy.
I'm so glad to hear that your boys appreciate the issue already, the limitation on video games is a good idea too, particularly for boys. Your success with your boys gives me hope and inspiration for my son.
No child should have access to a private TV, private phone exchange with anonymous people, a private message exchange, game console and record player 24x7.
I’m not speaking of school, I’m speaking of at any time before adulthood.
The easiest way is to delete those apps. The easiest way to delete them is to take the mobile away, and set hours to access it, like music, gaming, talking with friends had always been.
No child should be exchanging messages with adults the parents don’t know.
The mobile phone is not a babysitter, just as a TV is not a babysitter.
It’s the parent’s responsibility, not the phone manufacturer, not media sites, not game manufacturers. The parent.
It’s not hard. I’ve used social media since the early 80’s. It’s not for children.
I hear your points for sure, but on top of individual parental responsibility I do think there is room for a more broad restriction for phones at school, irrespective of what different parents do at home.
I agree completely - it astonishes me that they haven’t been universally banned already. But asocial depression isn’t due to phone use in school alone.
I taught a highly specialized class as an invited expert years ago, which would result in a test and accreditation that could double salaries. About 5% of the people in the room were absorbed on their computer and didn’t look at me. The professor apologized to me, and one of the dodos had the temerity to threaten a lawsuit for not passing.
Needless to say their father got an earful from me.
I'm also a teacher. Our little school has banned phones. All students have to hand their phones in at the start of the day and get it back at the end. It has helped. Though still, so many of them when I ask when they go to sleep, it's 12 or 1am, and yup you guessed it, they were on their phone.
The difference between the moral panic people had towards prior technologies and the panic concerning social media is different because we have been using the new forms of social media with algorithm driven content for a while now. For previous technological developments, the concerns of humanity developed prior to their widespread dissemination. The Luddites were breaking the new machinery when it had just gotten into the textile factories in Manchester. They thought everyone would become unemployed. It didn't happen and they were wrong because they did not actually see what those developments were doing.
With social media it is different. Facebook started becoming popular in 2009, Twitter around the same time. There were very few people then, some content by random friends, a few communities or groups, barely any ads, a few games, and that is it. You were barely interacting with unknown people, it was not as image driven or short video driven as it is now. Then came Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok, text started disappearing, ads took over, content became more widespread and in order to create more engagement, more algorithm determined short-form content was pushed through. And that changed everything for worse.
We are now against social media because we are not making guesses on what it can do and what it will do. We are against the harmful effects of social media because we have seen what it has actually done and how terrible it gets with each passing day. This is not being a Luddite and this is certainly not being anti-tech.
I 100% agree John, I introduce my piece with such a comparison because I do anticipate push-back from large advocates and parents who insist on 24/7 smartphone contact with their children. Those are the two biggest barriers to a widespread intervention.
Thanks for highlighting this. This is something about which I have been concerned for some time.
An aside and then a question, if I may.
About a year ago, I read about the global drop in puberty age during the pandemic.
Girls all around the world entered puberty at an unprecedented young age, including menstruation.
At first they thought it was stress.
It wasn't.
It was the blue light from the extra screen time.
So it seems that this new-ish technology is not only having social and relationship consequences. It is actually at the level of biology.
Um, what the hell are we doing? Is this Jurassic Park? Everyone has been so busy asking, Could we? that no one stopped to ask, Should we?
And now a question: Regarding the social panic you mentioned which erupted with previous tech innovations such as radio and automobiles and telephones and television. Were the same arguments made then? That the new thing was degrading the family and rotting kids' brains and leading to frayed social fabric because kids were in their room listening to the radio or watching TV or talking on the phone or out driving around?
Meaning is it much ado about nothing?
Or (and this seems the case to me) were those technologies also frought with new potential dangers (teenagers dying in drunken horseback riding accidents on a Friday night were probably rare) which have compounded over time, leading us to where we are now with an entire generation of global guinea pigs as an experimental cohort? One which will be spoken about 100 years from now the way we talk about people wearing radioactive jewelry back in the day because they simply didn’t realize the danger?
These questions are very interesting and beyond my level of expertise for sure! I can imagine the social implications of radio, TV, and more broadly the internet will be studied for centuries. These have been the most connecting technologies in human history and most development has occurred within the last 100 years. (I can't speak to the whole blue light thing, never heard about that, but would be incredibly difficult to study from the public health viewpoint)
I 100% agree with you on this Shah.
Having worked in education for the majority of my working life, I have seen the negative impacts of phone usage and social media on the younger generation.
There needs to be a collective effort to ensure our young people reduce the amount of time they spend. Parents, schools and other important figures in a young person’s life must work together on this.
I am a teacher and the phones are at the most overwhelming thing to battle on a daily basis. Despite having a no phones rule school wide during instructional time, it’s extremely hard to enforce and a constant fight to stop kids who are so addicted to their devices to put them away and learn something that is less reinforcing and much more boring.
I teach in hs. 2011 is the year I remember. That’s when phones really started to become an issue. To some extent it has destroyed education. Our entire district put a no phone policy in place (instead of individual hs in our district trying different strategies). There are tangible consequences for refusal to follow our phone policy (the best being making parents come pick up student and phone…the parents need some skin in the game)! if the refusals continue team meetings and visits to student services result. Unfortunately, parents are a huge part of the problem….taking an addicts source of addiction away makes it tough at home..oh well! Anyway, with support from our district office, the “phone issue” has decreased quite a bit. When students and parents are aware there are actual consequences….it can work!
I'm glad to hear there are school districts taking a stand, I'm still not in that phase of parenthood yet but I am definitely in support of more broad restrictions for phone use in schools. Phone lockers as Haidt recommends seems like a good start.
I teach at a public HS. The year before we instituted a Yondr (locked pouch) program I had two students throw tantrums - writhing on the ground - because I told them to go to the office and turn their phones in. It was constant with the phones. I love our locked pouch policy.
I've used a Yondr pouch at a concert before! What a great idea. And yes, just like heroin addicts, I think the top 5% of children that are really hooked will go into violent withdrawal in the immediate term, but then be better off in the long term. I'm so glad that your public high school implemented this strategy effectively.
I went to a jack white concert and 6000 people had no issue with it! I feel like 2500 hs kids could generally handle it. I’m more worried about parents complaining about not being able to reach their child. I’m 52…latchkey kid….wouldn’t see my good, caring parents for days in the summer sometimes lol. Anyway I tell parents there is a main office phone and you can call that if you need to reach your child.
That’s how we did it all the way up until 2010-2011. Parents seem to be extremely anxious about their kids and I think it rubs off on a lot of kids. It’s kind of a vicious cycle
I had some kids who I truly thought would have meltdowns. I saw a documentary on treatment centers for South Korean kids addicted to their phones…I fully expected that…but it didn’t happen! When expectations are clear and, more importantly, there are tangible immediate consequences.
As I said in the post above there are a few steps before the shit really hits the fan. First being just bringing the phone up to me and putting it on my desk. As long as I stayed calm and told a student that it’s no big deal..you can do it and get it back at the end of class. I keep an even keel and try to make it way less contentious than it could be. It works about 95% of the time. Kids are resilient. I was really impressed with how they handled their phones last year.
I have ten and twelve year old boys… neither of them have a smart phone. We do allow them to play video games with friends - up to two hours each weekend - and on road trips and air travel.
We’ve told them if they have straight A’s in school… we can talk about getting them a smart phone as juniors in high school.
And I share all my reporting with them on this subject… leading with Dr. Haidt’s exhaustive analysis of this tragedy.
They get it. And they even appreciate it already.
I'm so glad to hear that your boys appreciate the issue already, the limitation on video games is a good idea too, particularly for boys. Your success with your boys gives me hope and inspiration for my son.
The issue is entirely in parental control.
No child should have access to a private TV, private phone exchange with anonymous people, a private message exchange, game console and record player 24x7.
I’m not speaking of school, I’m speaking of at any time before adulthood.
The easiest way is to delete those apps. The easiest way to delete them is to take the mobile away, and set hours to access it, like music, gaming, talking with friends had always been.
No child should be exchanging messages with adults the parents don’t know.
The mobile phone is not a babysitter, just as a TV is not a babysitter.
It’s the parent’s responsibility, not the phone manufacturer, not media sites, not game manufacturers. The parent.
It’s not hard. I’ve used social media since the early 80’s. It’s not for children.
I hear your points for sure, but on top of individual parental responsibility I do think there is room for a more broad restriction for phones at school, irrespective of what different parents do at home.
I agree completely - it astonishes me that they haven’t been universally banned already. But asocial depression isn’t due to phone use in school alone.
I taught a highly specialized class as an invited expert years ago, which would result in a test and accreditation that could double salaries. About 5% of the people in the room were absorbed on their computer and didn’t look at me. The professor apologized to me, and one of the dodos had the temerity to threaten a lawsuit for not passing.
Needless to say their father got an earful from me.
I'm also a teacher. Our little school has banned phones. All students have to hand their phones in at the start of the day and get it back at the end. It has helped. Though still, so many of them when I ask when they go to sleep, it's 12 or 1am, and yup you guessed it, they were on their phone.
The difference between the moral panic people had towards prior technologies and the panic concerning social media is different because we have been using the new forms of social media with algorithm driven content for a while now. For previous technological developments, the concerns of humanity developed prior to their widespread dissemination. The Luddites were breaking the new machinery when it had just gotten into the textile factories in Manchester. They thought everyone would become unemployed. It didn't happen and they were wrong because they did not actually see what those developments were doing.
With social media it is different. Facebook started becoming popular in 2009, Twitter around the same time. There were very few people then, some content by random friends, a few communities or groups, barely any ads, a few games, and that is it. You were barely interacting with unknown people, it was not as image driven or short video driven as it is now. Then came Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok, text started disappearing, ads took over, content became more widespread and in order to create more engagement, more algorithm determined short-form content was pushed through. And that changed everything for worse.
We are now against social media because we are not making guesses on what it can do and what it will do. We are against the harmful effects of social media because we have seen what it has actually done and how terrible it gets with each passing day. This is not being a Luddite and this is certainly not being anti-tech.
I 100% agree John, I introduce my piece with such a comparison because I do anticipate push-back from large advocates and parents who insist on 24/7 smartphone contact with their children. Those are the two biggest barriers to a widespread intervention.
Thanks for highlighting this. This is something about which I have been concerned for some time.
An aside and then a question, if I may.
About a year ago, I read about the global drop in puberty age during the pandemic.
Girls all around the world entered puberty at an unprecedented young age, including menstruation.
At first they thought it was stress.
It wasn't.
It was the blue light from the extra screen time.
So it seems that this new-ish technology is not only having social and relationship consequences. It is actually at the level of biology.
Um, what the hell are we doing? Is this Jurassic Park? Everyone has been so busy asking, Could we? that no one stopped to ask, Should we?
And now a question: Regarding the social panic you mentioned which erupted with previous tech innovations such as radio and automobiles and telephones and television. Were the same arguments made then? That the new thing was degrading the family and rotting kids' brains and leading to frayed social fabric because kids were in their room listening to the radio or watching TV or talking on the phone or out driving around?
Meaning is it much ado about nothing?
Or (and this seems the case to me) were those technologies also frought with new potential dangers (teenagers dying in drunken horseback riding accidents on a Friday night were probably rare) which have compounded over time, leading us to where we are now with an entire generation of global guinea pigs as an experimental cohort? One which will be spoken about 100 years from now the way we talk about people wearing radioactive jewelry back in the day because they simply didn’t realize the danger?
These questions are very interesting and beyond my level of expertise for sure! I can imagine the social implications of radio, TV, and more broadly the internet will be studied for centuries. These have been the most connecting technologies in human history and most development has occurred within the last 100 years. (I can't speak to the whole blue light thing, never heard about that, but would be incredibly difficult to study from the public health viewpoint)
Btw I have not yet read Haidt's books but they've been on my list for several years. I just downloaded samples so they are now on-deck.