برچسب: Bans

  • Cellphone bans becoming more common in California schools

    Cellphone bans becoming more common in California schools


    Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    In California and across the United States this year, policies banning or restricting student cellphone use on school campuses are being enacted in an effort to curb bullying, classroom distractions and addiction to the devices.

    “It’s part of the zeitgeist right now, and there is a trend toward cellphone restriction,” said Troy Flint, spokesperson for the California School Boards Association. “There’s more scrutiny of the issue now than there was previously.”

    Lincoln Unified School District in Stockton, Santa Barbara Unified, San Francisco Unified, Roseville City School District and Folsom Cordova Unified near Sacramento are among the California districts starting the school year with cellphone restrictions on their campuses.

    Cellphone restrictions look different across the state, depending on school district, school or even individual teachers’ policies. In some schools, students entering a campus or classroom are required to put their phones in an electronic pouch that can only be unlocked by school staff with a special magnet. In other schools, cellphones are turned off and put in lockers in the classroom. More commonly, students are asked to turn off their phones and to put them in their backpacks or pockets during class time.

    California district leaders got a nudge from Gov. Gavin Newsom last week when he urged them to take immediate steps to restrict cellphone use this academic year. Newsom reminded school leaders that legislation signed in 2019 gives them the authority to regulate smartphones during school hours.

    “Excessive smartphone use among young people is linked to increased anxiety, depression, and other mental health issues,” Newsom said in a letter to school leaders on Aug. 14. 

    California lawmakers are also considering proposed legislation to restrict student cellphone use on all public school campuses, a mandate at least five other states have already enacted. Without a statewide mandate, it’s up to districts, schools or teachers to implement a policy.

    San Diego Unified officials have indicated they are studying the issue, while Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD), the state’s largest school district, is finalizing a policy that will ban student cellphone and social media use. It will go into effect in January.

    “Kids no longer have the opportunity to just be kids,” said Nick Melvoin, the LAUSD school board member who authored a resolution calling for the policy. “I’m hoping this resolution will help students not only focus in class, but also give them a chance to interact and engage more with each other — and just be kids.” 

    Melvoin commended Newsom for encouraging other districts to follow suit. 

    “I have seen the positive effects firsthand at schools that have already implemented a phone-free school policy, and look forward to seeing the benefits of this policy take hold districtwide next semester,” Melvoin said.

    But the policies have had pushback from some parents who fear losing touch with their children during emergencies.

    “Some parents, some families feel that the cellphone is essential for notification in the case of a natural disaster, a school emergency, or a school shooting,” said the CSBA’s Flint. “Or some people use it for less extreme, but still important reasons, like monitoring their kids’ required medicine. Some families with students with disabilities like to have an additional level of contact with their students at schools.”

    Cellphone addiction is a problem

    School cellphone bans gained momentum nationally in May when Surgeon General Vivek Murthy issued an advisory calling on policymakers, technology companies, researchers and families to minimize the harm of social media and to create safer, healthier online environments to protect children online. 

    Murthy said there is growing evidence that social media use is associated with harm to a young person’s mental health, adding that 95% of children between the ages of 13 and 17 use at least one social media platform, and more than a third use social media constantly. 

    Santa Barbara Unified has made mental health a priority when it comes to cellphone use on campus. The Off and Away policy requires cellphones be turned off and put away in classrooms, and anywhere on a campus where learning is taking place, said Assistant Superintendent ShaKenya Edison. 

    Consequences for not complying with the policy ranges from students and parents being required to meet with school staff, to confiscating phones. Students may be referred to counseling or a therapist if necessary, Edison said.

    “One of the things that the (planning) committee was very clear about — we had doctors also on our committee, and psychologists — is that we need to treat cellphone usage as an addiction, not as defiance,” Edison said. “So it really is trying to get at the root of the dependency of the phone.”

    Students became more reliant on cellphones and smartwatches during the Covid pandemic, when the devices were the only way they could connect to their social circle, Edison said. Students sometimes use their phone to deal with the anxiety of being in the classroom, or when they are struggling with academics, she said. 

    University of San Francisco researchers found that 12- to 13-year-old children in the U.S. doubled their non-school related screen time from 3.8 hours a day to 7.7 hours a day when campuses were closed during the pandemic. 

    Warning signs of smartphone addiction in students include becoming distressed at the thought of being without their phone, thinking about their phone when not using it, interrupting whatever they are doing when contacted on their phone, or having arguments with others because of phone use, said Jason Nagata, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of California San Francisco. 

    Santa Barbara Unified is taking on the cellphone addiction problem inside and outside the classroom. Along with including parents in the planning of the program, the district offers parents information about monitoring social media and age-appropriate apps on their website.

    “We receive gratitude from parents saying, ‘Thank you for tackling this. I’m trying to tackle it at home, and I don’t know how to tackle the dependency. So thank you for at least dealing with it on the school site,’ ” Edison said.

    Students are more focused without phones

    Andrea Blair-Simon says the ban on cellphone use in the Folsom Cordova Unified School District allows her eighth-grade daughter, Laila, to fully focus on her studies in the classroom and to socialize with others during breaks and lunch. She had previously watched her daughter sit with her friends texting one another instead of talking.

    “I love the cellphone policy,” Blair-Simon said. “I think it benefits the kids. I think it benefits the teachers. I’m not saying don’t have it (a cellphone), I’m just saying it’s not necessary during school hours. Before or after, do whatever you want. It’s your life. It’s your own time. But when you’re on a teacher’s time — school time — using school resources, listen to your teacher.”

    The no-phone policies also curtail online bullying, Blair-Simon said. Things like posting unflattering pictures with mean comments can damage kids’ self-image, she said.

    Under last year’s cellphone policy update, Folsom Cordova Unified no longer permits students in transitional kindergarten through eighth grade to use cellphones, smartwatches or other mobile communication devices anywhere on campus during the school day. High school students can’t use them in classrooms.

    Last year, Laila and her classmates were required to use a lockable Yondr Pouch, which allows students to keep their phone, but with no access to it unless a teacher or school administrator unlocks the pouch. Now, instead of pouches, students have been asked to turn off their phones and put them away.

    “This year, there are no warnings, and you are to be sent straight to the office,” Laila said. “This year, they have a little locker in the office, like a phone locker, and it has to be locked in there until the end of the day if they catch you with it.” 

    Laila would like to have her phone at lunch or during passing periods, but she acknowledges that students are more focused and spend more time talking to one another during breaks than before the ban.

    Policies improve school climate

    Drama teacher Keith Carames says there has been a positive shift in culture and climate at James Lick Middle School in San Francisco since the school began requiring students to lock their phones in a Yondr Pouch at the beginning of the school day. 

    “There’s been a significant shift away from the buzzing and the distractions,” Carames said. “There’s been a significant decrease in digital bullying.”

    The school is part of San Francisco Unified, which requires cellphones, smartwatches and other mobile devices to be turned off and put away during classes and passing periods. 

    James Lick Middle School has its own, stricter policy that requires students to present a lockable pouch, provided by the school, when they show up on the campus — empty or not. If the student does not have their pouch, the phone is confiscated. If a student’s phone is not in the pouch during the school day, security is called to confiscate it, Carames said.

    Some districts in the state without districtwide cellphone bans allow individual schools to make their own rules about cellphone use on their campus.

    Fresno Unified relies on a 20-year-old policy that prohibits students from using phones in an inappropriate and disruptive way, like invading someone’s privacy, cheating on tests or ridiculing or shaming someone. Students who violate the policy can have their phones confiscated, or can be suspended or expelled.

    The board policy is the “minimum requirement” for the district, Fresno Unified spokesperson A.J. Kato told EdSource on Wednesday. Each school determines how the policy is implemented on its campus and has the discretion to go beyond what the policy dictates.

    Bullard High in Fresno Unified introduced the Yondr Pouch in 2022 to create a phone-free campus, The Fresno Bee reported.  Students must lock their phones in the pouch during the school day – even during lunch. After 2022-23, the first school year with the pouches, Bullard High officials credited its 17% improvement in English proficiency to the restriction, The Bee reported. 

    Teachers largely support restrictions

    Teachers nationwide say cellphones are a major distraction for students in class, according to Pew Research released in 2023. A third of public K-12 teachers surveyed for the report said cellphones are a major problem, while 20% said they are a minor problem. Almost three-quarters of the high school teachers surveyed said phones are a major distraction to their students, compared with 33% of middle school teachers and 6% of elementary school teachers.

    Cellphone disruptions in the classroom have been a recurring topic for teachers and administrators at staff meetings in the Roseville City School District, said school board member Jonathan Zachreson.

    Some teachers in the district conducted an informal experiment, asking students to note how many times they received alerts on their phones during class. The teachers discovered that the students who had the most alerts were performing worse than others academically, Zachreson said.

    The K-8 district near Sacramento put a new cellphone policy in place this year to cut down on classroom distractions and behavior problems. The policy requires students to turn off cellphones, personal tablets, Bluetooth headphones or smartwatches and to store them away during school hours.

    The district’s elementary schools already had a no-phone policy, but it was not enforced uniformly across the district, Zachreson said. The district decided to put a uniform policy in place and to expand it to all grade levels.

    Even without district policies, some teachers have banned phones in their classrooms. Nicolle Fefferman, a longtime LAUSD educator and co-founder of the Facebook group Parents Supporting Teachers, is one of them. When cellphones are not tucked away, Fefferman said, it can be challenging for teachers to “police” their use. 

    “I would tell my students: ‘I see you for so little time every day that I’m really selfish. I’m really greedy,’” Fefferman said. “‘I want every minute of your attention for the work that we’re doing together in this class.’” 

    A Phineas Banning Senior High School classroom with a “phone parking lot” in Los Angeles Unified School District.
    Credit: Mallika Seshadri

    United Teachers Los Angeles, the union representing more than 35,000 educators across LAUSD, supports the board’s decision to implement a districtwide policy. 

    “For these policies to be effective, strong collaboration is essential,” Gina Gray, an LAUSD middle school English teacher, told EdSource in a statement on behalf of the union.

    “School district administrators must work closely with educators and parents to implement these changes,” Gray said. “Educators care deeply about the well-being of our students, and their families should be included in decisions about changes to our school communities.” 

    California Teachers Association President David Goldberg agrees: “Our union has supported improving school environments and restricting the use of smartphones on campuses,” he said in a statement. “As educators, we always seek to help our students reach their full potential, and we are moved by the data, listening to our students and their families, and our own experiences showing that smartphones can be a distraction and harmful to the mental health of students.”

    Bans gain national momentum

    California may soon join Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and Ohio in passing legislation that bans or restricts cellphone use on public school campuses.

    Although California law allows districts to restrict the use of cellphones on campus, it does not require them to. That could change if a bill working its way through the Legislature passes. Assembly Bill 3216 would require school districts to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use of smartphones by students. The bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee last week and is likely to make it to the governor’s desk for final approval, according to School Services, an education consulting company. 

    Another piece of legislation, Senate Bill 1283, would allow, but not require, districts to limit students’ use of social media while on campus. The bill is expected to get a vote on the Assembly floor this month.

    The bills have bipartisan support. 

    “Josh Hoover’s a Republican who’s putting forth this legislation (Assembly Bill 3216),” Zachreson said. “Gavin Newsom is pushing school districts to take action. You have Ron DeSantis and an Arkansas governor doing the same thing. I mean, when you have Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis on the same page, I think you have a winning issue.”





    Source link

  • Cellphone bans don’t solve the real problem — addictive social media

    Cellphone bans don’t solve the real problem — addictive social media


    Courtesy: Ednovate Charter School

    Recently, Instagram unveiled new policies designed to address what we all see: teenagers suffering the adverse effects of addictive social media apps. The new policies include making teen accounts private by default, stopping notifications at night, and including more adult supervision tools for parents. 

    While this is a first step, as school leaders and parents, we know the addiction is bigger than just Instagram. This is a larger reflective moment for us as educators, parents and caretakers of tomorrow’s leaders. We must go beyond platform-by-platform fixes.

    I’ve been an educator for more than 20 years. Now, as a school leader of seven high schools in Southern California, reaching nearly 3,000 students from historically underserved communities in Los Angeles and Orange counties, I see the impact that technology has had on our teenagers, and how captivating social media and gaming apps have become. It has taken a long time to teach myself the self-regulation skills to manage social media and more, and I am in my 40s. Now imagine trying to learn it at 13, unaware of all the tools working to hook us.

    Jonathan Haidt, author of the book “The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness,” argues that girls who “spend five or more hours each weekday on social media are three times as likely to be depressed as those who report no social media time.”

    It is overwhelming for parents, teachers or anyone who cares about the future leaders of our communities.

    Just a few weeks ago, it seemed like every week another school district or state was announcing a sweeping cellphone ban, but no one was asking a critical question: Are America’s youth hooked on phones, or are they addicted to the social media and gaming apps that have become central to their social lives and to staying informed? How do we break the spell that these companies have cast over teenage minds?

    Cellphones themselves aren’t the problem. Notice that we don’t need to ban the Calculator, Camera app, Google search, or many other tools, because those tools don’t have the intentional captivating pull of direct messaging, new posts or endless scrolling.

    It seems to me that social media apps and games that are optimized for long-term addiction should be banned or significantly altered before banning cellphones, which are ultimately a great learning and communication tool. Cellphones can promote the development of a student’s necessary sense of independence. 

    This calls for collective action. We must work together and continue listening to our teachers, acknowledging the challenges and burden that cellphones present in the classroom for them. But the first step should be to tackle what is distracting students on their cellphones before banning the phone outright. Maybe our time as educators is better spent pushing for balanced policies that protect our kids rather than working tirelessly to police our kids and their phones. Instead of focusing on cellphone use or hoping for each platform to announce their individual fixes, school leaders from across the nation need to come together and demand answers from social media and addictive gaming companies. Instagram is the first company to make a move, but the rest of these companies are actively recruiting users as young as 13 years old with minimal verification, and watching these cellphone bans from a comfortable distance. Surely, educators and social media apps can partner to create an innovative solution to the real problem.

    As school leaders, we should call on social media companies and gaming companies to meet with us, to come up with practical solutions to the addictive technologies they have created.

    •••

    Oliver Sicat is the CEO of Ednovate, a network of free, public charter high schools in Los Angeles and Orange County. Ednovate primarily serves first-generation college-bound students from underrepresented and underserved communities.

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • U.S. Navy Cancels Lecture by Author Who Planned to Complain About Book Bans

    U.S. Navy Cancels Lecture by Author Who Planned to Complain About Book Bans


    Under the misguided policies of Trump and Hegseth, censorship and book banning have been widespread, especially by the Defense Department. Hegseth is eager to please Trump and has stripped recognition from anyone of distinction who is female and/or non-white. Even a photograph of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb, was taken down–because of its name. The Navajo Code Talkers were put into storage. The first women to achieve military feats and honors were mothballed. The U.S. Naval Academy removed almost 400 books from its library because of DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) themes.

    Ryan Holiday was invited to lecture at the Naval Academy a few weeks ago, as he had in the past. Shortly before he was to speak, he was asked not to mention the books that had been removed from the Academy’s library. When he refused, his speech was canceled.

    Question: if the men and women of the U.S. Navy are brave enough to risk their lives, aren’t they brave enough to read a book about race and gender?

    Holiday wrote in The New York Times:

    For the past four years, I have been delivering a series of lectures on the virtues of Stoicism to midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., and I was supposed to continue this on April 14 to the entire sophomore class on the theme of wisdom.

    Roughly an hour before my talk was to begin, I received a call: Would I refrain from any mention in my remarks of the recent removal of 381 supposedly controversial books from the Nimitz library on campus? My slides had been sent up the chain of command at the school, which was now, as it was explained to me, extremely worried about reprisals if my talk appeared to flout Executive Order 14151(“Ending Radical and Wasteful Government D.E.I. Programs and Preferencing”).

    When I declined, my lecture — as well as a planned speech before the Navy football team, with which my books on Stoicism are popular — was canceled. (The academy “made a schedule change that aligns with its mission of preparing midshipmen for careers of service,” a Navy spokesperson told Times Opinion. “The Naval Academy is an apolitical institution.”)

    Had I been allowed to go ahead, this is the story I was going to tell the class:

    In the fall of 1961, a young naval officer named James Stockdale, a graduate of the Naval Academy and future Medal of Honor recipient who went on to be a vice admiral, began a course at Stanford he had eagerly anticipated on Marxist theory. “We read no criticisms of Marxism,” he recounted later, “only primary sources. All year we read the works of Marx and Lenin.”

    It might seem unusual that the Navy would send Stockdale, then a 36-year-old fighter pilot, to get a master’s degree in the social sciences, but he knew why he was there. Writing home to his parents that year, he reminded them of a lesson they had instilled in him, “You really can’t do well competing against something you don’t understand as well as something you can.”

    At the time, Marxism was not just an abstract academic subject, but the ideological foundation of America’s greatest geopolitical enemy. The stakes were high. The Soviets were pushing a vision of global Communism and the conflict in Vietnam was flashing hot, the North Vietnamese fueled by a ruthless mix of dogma and revolutionary zeal. “Marxism” was, like today, also a culture war boogeyman used by politicians and demagogues.

    Just a few short years after completing his studies, in September 1965, Stockdale was shot down over Thanh Hoa in North Vietnam, and as he parachuted into what he knew would be imprisonment and possibly death, his mind turned to the philosophy of Epictetus, which he had been introduced to by a professor at Stanford.

    He would spend the next seven years in various states of solitary confinement and enduring brutal torture. His captors, sensing perhaps his knowledge as a pilot of the “Gulf of Tonkin incident,” a manufactured confrontation with North Vietnamese forces that led to greater U.S. involvement in Vietnam, sought desperately to break him. Stockdale drew on the Stoicism of Epictetus, but he also leveraged his knowledge of the practices and the mind-set of his oppressors.

    “In Hanoi, I understood more about Marxist theory than my interrogator did,” Stockdale explained. “I was able to say to that interrogator, ‘That’s not what Lenin said; you’re a deviationist.’”

    In his writings and speeches after his return from the prison known as the Hanoi Hilton, Stockdale often referred to what he called “extortion environments,” which he used to describe his experience as a captive. He and his fellow P.O.W.s were asked to answer simple questions or perform seemingly innocuous tasks, like appear in videos, and if they declined, there would be consequences.

    No one at the Naval Academy intimated any consequences for me, of course, but it felt extortionary all the same. I had to choose between my message or my continued welcome at an institution it has been one of the honors of my life to speak at.

    As an author, I believe deeply in the power of books. As a bookstore owner in Texas, I have spoken up about book banning many timesalready. More important was the topic of my address: the virtue of wisdom.

    As I explained repeatedly to my hosts, I had no interest in embarrassing anyone or discussing politics directly. I understand the immense pressures they are under, especially the military employees, and I did not want to cause them trouble. I did, however, feel it was essential to make the point that the pursuit of wisdom is impossible without engaging with (and challenging) uncomfortable ideas.

    Seneca, the Stoic philosopher, used a military metaphor to make this very argument. We ought to read, he said, “like a spy in the enemy’s camp.” This is what Stockdale was doing when he studied Marxism on the Navy’s dime. It is what Seneca was doing when he read and liberally quoted from Epicurus, the head of a rival philosophical school.

    The current administration is by no means unique in its desire to suppress ideas it doesn’t like or thinks dangerous. As I intended to explain to the midshipmen, there was considerable political pressure in the 1950s over what books were carried in the libraries of federal installations. Asked if he would ban communist books from American embassies, Eisenhower resisted.

    “Generally speaking,” he told a reporter from The New York Herald Tribune at a news conference shortly after his inauguration, “my idea is that censorship and hiding solves nothing.” He explained that he wished more Americans had read Hitler and Stalin in the previous years, because it might have helped anticipate the oncoming threats. He concluded, “Let’s educate ourselves if we are going to run a free government.”

    ADVERTISEMENT

    SKIP ADVERTISEMENT

    The men and women at the Naval Academy will go on to lead combat missions, to command aircraft carriers, to pilot nuclear-armed submarines and run enormous organizations. We will soon entrust them with incredible responsibilities and power. But we fear they’ll be hoodwinked or brainwashed by certain books?

    Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” was not one of the books removed from the Naval Academy library, and as heinous as that book is, it should be accessible to scholars and students of history. However, this makes the removal of Maya Angelou’s “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” inexplicable. Whatever one thinks of D.E.I., we are not talking about the writings of external enemies here, but in many cases, art, serious scholarship and legitimate criticism of America’s past. One of the removed books is about Black soldiers in World War II, another is about how women killed in the Holocaust are portrayed, another is a reimagining of Kafka called “The Last White Man.” No one at any public institution should have to fear losing their job for pushing back on such an obvious overreach, let alone those tasked with defending our freedom. Yet here we are.

    The decision by the academy’s leaders to not protest the original order — which I believe flies in the face of basic academic freedoms and common sense — has put them in the now even stickier position of trying to suppress criticism of that decision. “Compromises pile up when you’re in a pressure situation in the hands of a skilled extortionist,” Stockdale reminds us. I felt I could not, in good conscience, lecture these future leaders and warriors on the virtue of courage and doing the right thing, as I did in 2023 and 2024, and fold when asked not to mention such an egregious and fundamentally anti-wisdom course of action.

    In many moments, many understandable moments, Stockdale had an opportunity to do the expedient thing as a P.O.W. He could have compromised. He could have obeyed. It would have saved him considerable pain, prevented the injuries that deprived him of full use of his leg for the rest of his life and perhaps even returned him home sooner to his family. He chose not to do that. He rejected the extortionary choice and stood on principle.



    Source link