Could you navigate the roads without GPS? What about writing an essay error-free? Could you complete that task without spell check? Although many media reports describe artificial intelligence (AI) as a new innovation, it has been around for decades. GPS and spell check are just two examples of how AI is an integral part of the technologies we use on a daily basis.
However, the introduction of ChatGPT shook the world. Possibilities for using generative AI to create content and deliver innovations in many fields and aspects of modern life are being developed and introduced quickly, and they are dramatically changing the way we use information. This is especially true in education.
Students are using AI to complete assignments, teachers are using it to develop lesson plans, and schools are using it to provide individualized support to children. However, there is a lack of clear guidance on the use of AI, which could create new challenges far beyond concerns about cheating, plagiarism and data privacy.
One concern is what we refer to as digital amnesia. People tend to forget information that is easily obtained through search engines. Typically, people search for the same word, concept or fact several times, because for many, the brain does not register the information. This dilemma is known as the “Google effect,” and research shows that this often has a negative impact on one’s ability to retain critical information.
AI could amplify the amnesia of knowledge and skills on a new level. When an artificial intelligence tool is used to complete homework, the knowledge and skills that would have been developed by completing those activities are no longer acquired. Similarly, when AI is used to make problem-solving decisions, the development of critical cognitive skills and intellectual creativity may be put at risk.
The availability of a wide range of AI tools is also raising fundamental questions about what should be taught and emphasized in schools. When calculators were adopted, certain tasks, such as the multiplication and division of large numbers, could be completed efficiently to save time for developing other skills. However, it is still important for students to learn essential arithmetic skills because we know it is foundational to learning more complex math.
For this reason, policymakers and educators must know how the use of AI will affect long-term learning outcomes before it is utilized in the classroom. Without carefully thinking through the consequences of using AI in ways that short-circuit learning, it could produce adverse educational effects that we are presently unable to envision, and it could exacerbate existing inequities.
Responsible integration of AI requires creating opportunities for users to actively engage in learning activities. AI tools can be used to promote creative thinking and problem-solving skills, giving users learning opportunities that deepen engagement and empower them.
We recently documented the possibility of using AI in this way. Through an AI-supported professional development program, we asked math teachers to complete an activity related to their daily teaching tasks and then used an AI tool to analyze their work. The tool identified areas where teachers needed additional support and provided them with activities to acquire the skills needed by asking targeted questions. Teachers learned by doing rather than by simply using AI to show them how to do it. This approach not only improved teachers’ knowledge and skills, it also improved their students’ performance.
This research showed that AI can be used as a teacher’s aide. It can analyze students’ work and identify which students need additional help. It can also suggest evidence-based strategies teachers can use to modify subsequent instruction to meet students’ needs.
As AI tools become more widely available, it is essential that state and district leaders pay close attention to what vendors are selling. Will new AI tools enhance and empower teachers and learners, or will they contribute to passivity? To answer this important question, teachers must be given an opportunity to investigate how these tools will be used to support students before decisions are made.
The second major concern is that teachers and students may begin to over rely on the information provided by AI. Generative AI is based on the data it is trained to assimilate and distill. As we now know, AI makes mistakes that only a well-trained user can identify. The rubrics and data used in AI tools to grade student work, provide guidance on how to address gaps in learning, or to improve student skills, may not be adequate. It could easily reproduce biases and inequities that exist in our schools and society.
To avoid these potential problems, content experts from diverse backgrounds must be involved in the development of AI tools in education. These tools must be vetted carefully by subject matter and pedagogical experts who can provide feedback before they are introduced into classrooms. No AI tool should be used unless protocols for data privacy are well documented and there is real evidence that it will improve teaching and learning
We are not wary or opposed to using AI to enhance learning. In fact, we believe it has tremendous potential to support teachers and empower learners if used correctly. However, policymakers and educators must ask the right questions about its use and take precautionary steps to determine which tools will be helpful and which may harm teaching and learning.
•••
Yasemin Copur-Gencturkis an associate professor at the University of Southern California’s Rossier School of Education and a leading researcher on AI in education.
Pedro Noguera is dean of USC’s Rossier School of Education and a newly appointed member of the U.S. Department of Education’s committee on the use of AI in education.
The opinions expressed in this piece represent those of the authors. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Eva Levenson, now a sophomore at Berkeley High School, has struggled with dyslexia since childhood but private phonics-based intervention made a difference. “I don’t understand what’s in the way of making a shift when, both in other states and locally, districts are able to help kids now,” she recently told the school board. “How is it possible we aren’t doing it in Berkeley right now?”
Credit: Ximena Natera / Berkeleyside / CatchLight
This story is a collaboration between EdSource and Berkeleyside, a nonprofit online newsroom covering the city of Berkeley. EdSource Reporter John Fensterwald contributed to this report.
How kids are taught to read in Berkeley is slowly starting to shift.
Teachers are studying the science of reading. More students are learning phonics, sounding out words by letters and syllables. And the school district is screening every student to flag those who may have dyslexia, a learning disorder that causes difficulty with reading, writing and spelling.
But these changes didn’t come easily. They are the result of a federal class-action lawsuit, filed in 2017, by four families of Berkeley students with dyslexia who claimed the district failed to teach them how to read.
And though the suit settled in 2021, the district’s method of teaching reading, a balanced literacy curriculum developed by Columbia University Teachers College professor Lucy Calkins called Units of Study, remains in place.
Rather than teaching students to sound out letters, the curriculum relies on a method called three-cueing — where students use context clues like pictures to figure out words — that has now been discredited and banned in several states. Some Berkeley teachers still use cueing, while others have dropped the practice.
Now, the wheels are just beginning to turn in a district long devoted to Calkins. Advocates hope that aligning with the science of reading will help close one of the largest achievement gaps in the country — last year, 26% of Black students in Berkeley schools met state standards in reading, compared with 83% of white students.
“Historically, Berkeley has been — and is — widely known for being a balanced literacy district,” Superintendent Enikia Ford Morthel said during a November panel discussion referring to the Calkins teaching method.
Enikia Ford Morthel, Berkeley schools superintendent, right.Credit: Kelly Sullivan / Berkeleyside
“What we want to be known for is being a district that is disrupting the narrative, disrupting persistent trends and data and really responding to our students,” she said. “This is not just another initiative. This truly is an imperative.”
Some students and parents aren’t yet convinced. Without a firm commitment to adopt a curriculum rooted in the science of reading, they are skeptical that they will see all the changes they believe are long overdue.
“At some point, you have to take responsibility,” said Rebecca Levenson, a parent of two children with dyslexia. Levenson wasn’t part of the lawsuit against the district, but she believes “it’s important for parents who see their children suffer to use their voice and power to make a difference for other families that are in that same situation.”
The Berkeley lawsuit was the second filed in California in 2017 over literacy instruction. In the other suit, the public-interest law firm Public Counsel charged on behalf of students in the lowest-performing schools that California had failed to meet their constitutional right to read. Under a $50 million settlement in 2020, 75 schools received funding and assistance to improve reading instruction. They were encouraged, but not mandated, to select instruction based on the science of reading.
While a district review of its elementary school literacy curriculum found that Units of Study failed to teach foundational literacy skills like phonics and vocabulary, Ford Morthel has stopped short of calling on the district to drop Lucy Calkins. The district is now beginning the process of adopting a new curriculum for the fall of 2025.
At a recent school board meeting, George Ellis, the court-appointed monitor, hammered home the importance of changing the Calkins curriculum. Without a “sound, comprehensive” core curriculum, he said, “it doesn’t matter what interventions we’re really providing, because we’re just filling up holes all over the place, and we’re never going to get caught up here.”
Attorneys and advocates hope the Berkeley lawsuit will spur other school districts to act faster to avoid legal action, accelerating the adoption of the science of reading in California and across the country. But Berkeley’s experience also demonstrates just how many barriers stand in the way of changing reading instruction.
Berkeley’s reading guru
When Lucy Calkins developed her approach in the 1990s, the balanced literacy teaching method was heralded as a new philosophy of education. Rather than teaching from rigid phonics textbooks, teachers introduced students to an entire library of independent books with the goal of teaching kids to love reading.
Calkins was the “guru of reading for people in Berkeley,” said Maggie Riddle, a former teacher and principal at Berkeley’s Jefferson Elementary, now called Ruth Acty. Once Calkins’ approach came to Berkeley, phonics came to be seen as a rote, old-school way of teaching, “dumbing down” instruction. “Berkeley was anti-phonics. One hundred percent,” Riddle said.
Berkeley wasn’t alone in this. Balanced literacy once enjoyed nearly universal popularity. “It was being used in every single Bay Area district,” said Deborah Jacobson, a special education attorney who brought the suit, a federal class action, against the Berkeley district seven years ago.
Special education attorney Deborah Jacobson, photographed at home on this month, brought up the federal class action lawsuit against the Berkeley school district in 2017. Credit: Ximena Natera / Berkeleyside / CatchLight
But the approach has fallen under fire amid a national reckoning over reading instruction, with a consensus growing that balanced literacy goes against what we know about how the brain works when learning to read.
This understanding anchors the science of reading, an approach backed by decades of exhaustive scientific research that suggests most children need systematic lessons in phonics, or how to sound out words, as well as other fundamentals, such as building knowledge and vocabulary, to learn to read. Teaching foundational reading skills especially benefits English learners. Advocates say reading is a civil right and phonics helps bring social justice to Black students.
More than half of states have passed laws requiring schools to align with research-based methods or favoring phonics. In September, Columbia University cut ties with the Reading and Writing Project that Calkins led for decades, citing the need to seek out new perspectives. Calkins herself has revised her curriculum to incorporate more explicit instruction in phonics and phonemic awareness.
A decade ago, California adopted a framework for K-12 literacy that encouraged districts to use evidence-based reading instruction, now commonly called the science of reading. But it wasn’t required, and the state didn’t push districts to adopt it.
Still, advocates say these changes don’t go far enough. The California Early Literacy Coalition plans to sponsor legislation that would create a comprehensive state literacy plan, mandating training in the science of reading for all teachers, not just new ones, and requiring the use of textbooks rooted in the approach.
In Berkeley, lawsuit cast a light
When Berkeley Unified was sued in 2017, Riddle said she saw it as an opportunity. She had moved up through the ranks to become head of K-8 schools and led legal negotiations for the district for two years. “Nobody ever wants the district to be sued, but it cast a light on the needs of kids in reading, especially kids with dyslexia,” Riddle said.
Not everyone saw it that way. It took five years to reach a settlement agreement, and the district’s core curriculum was a sticking point in negotiations. “The resistance was serious, but the lawsuit was serious, too,” recalled Riddle. During negotiations, the district implemented Fast Track Phonics to get phonics instruction into classrooms, but advocates criticized the decision as putting a Band-Aid on a broken system, leaving the core Calkins curriculum intact.
Berkeley signed the settlement agreement in 2021, but due to the pandemic, didn’t start working on implementation until the following year, extending the three-year plan until 2025. Initially, Ellis, the court monitor, criticized the school district and its board for failing to embrace the settlement. And in February, Jacobson said the district had breached the settlement agreement by moving too slowly, but decided not to file a notice in court after district leaders promised action.
In the last year and a half, the district has started taking steps toward the science of reading.
Elementary teachers did a book study of “Shifting the Balance,” an introduction to science of reading practices. The district implemented a universal screening system to flag students who might have dyslexia and started training literacy coaches to implement phonics-based intervention programs like Orton-Gillingham and Heggerty. The district also established a new department of curriculum and instruction, hired a districtwide literacy specialist, and began developing a multi-tiered system of support for struggling readers.
The district’s new focus has made a huge difference for some teachers, even those with decades of experience.
Angélica Pérez, a reading specialist at Thousand Oaks Elementary, said though she has known about phonics for years and even taught it, only recently has she received the systematic training she needed to implement it well with struggling readers.
In my 26 years in education and 15 years in the classroom, I wasn’t so aware of the importance of phonemic awareness.
Angélica Pérez, a reading specialist at Thousand Oaks Elementary in Berkeley.
The changes have won over some of the district’s critics, including Jacobson. “There is a new sense of urgency with the new administration and a new level of commitment,” Jacobson said. “Every year the light bulb seems to go on, more and more.”
Angélica Pérez’s reading room at Thousand Oaks Elementary School allows children to explore leisure reading. A longtime reading specialist, Pérez uses a phonics and phonemics curriculum to help struggling students. Credit: Ximena Natera / Berkeleyside / CatchLight
They have also earned the praise of the teachers union president. “There is a systematic plan to make sure our teachers are getting what they need so they can do their jobs best,” said Matt Meyer, president of the Berkeley Federation of Teachers.
Cost to students of the lengthy legal fight
For families whose children struggle with reading, Berkeley’s decades-long commitment to balanced literacy came at a price. Many students with dyslexia have either missed out on learning, or their parents have paid thousands of dollars in private tutoring to catch them up.
“After a certain point, the research shows that it becomes unrecoverable,” said Eliza Noh, a Berkeley parent who has a child with dyslexia. “The early years for teaching people how to read are critical.”
Levenson’s two children, Eva Levenson and Wen Dolphin, both have dyslexia and attended Berkeley schools 18 years apart. But Eva received private reading intervention, while Wen did not. The family says their experience shows the difference phonics-based intervention can make.
Rebecca Levenson and her youngest daughter,Eva, talk in their West Berkeley home. Levenson’s two children, Eva and Wen, who is in his late 20s and lives in Colorado, have struggled with dyslexia throughout their academic careers. Credit: Ximena Natera / Berkeleyside / CatchLight
Dolphin dropped out of school at 15, while Eva, now a sophomore at Berkeley High, is taking the same challenging classes as her peers. She began writing for The Jacket, Berkeley High’s student newspaper, and in October, penned an article about the Calkins curriculum.
“I know that my life trajectory could have been very different if I would have had the support that I needed in those really formative years,” Dolphin told a crowd at a Berkeley school board meeting last year.
When Lindsay Nofelt’s son was diagnosed with dyslexia, she shelled out thousands of dollars on a phonics-based intensive reading intervention program. Her son’s reading ability improved quickly, but what took Nofelt longer to piece together was Berkeley’s role in her son’s story.
Even after listening to Emily Hanford’s podcast “Sold a Story,” which thrust Calkins’ curriculum into the spotlight, she didn’t connect the literacy debate to Berkeley schools.
“I thought, if Emily Hanford is writing about this and sounds like it’s not serving the needs of the students, then there’s no way that Berkeley Unified school system would use such a discredited curriculum,” Nofelt said.
Students relax at lunchtime at Willard Middle School in Berkeley in August 2022. Credit: Ximena Natera / Berkeleyside/ CatchLight
But over time, Nofelt realized her son wasn’t the only one in Berkeley struggling with reading. As she learned more about the science of reading and the class-action lawsuit, she realized that the kind of reading instruction Hanford was describing in her podcast was happening in Berkeley. “When I found out they were one and the same, all of the pieces fell into place,” she said.
Two years ago, Nofelt formed Reading for Berkeley to educate parents about early literacy and give them resources to advocate for their children. It’s now a resource that Nofelt wishes she had when she was trying to help her son — digestible content designed to help families ask questions about their children’s literacy education and support their reading abilities.
Today, students with dyslexia and their parents are watching Berkeley closely, their hope resting on the district’s commitment to the science of reading.
At a recent school board meeting in January, Eva Levenson told the Berkeley school board directors and superintendent that she is still waiting to see a plan that addresses the failure of the district’s core curriculum.
“I don’t understand what’s in the way of making a shift when, both in other states and locally, districts are able to help kids now. How is it possible we aren’t doing it in Berkeley right now?”
I wasn’t expecting a math journal entry to shift my perspective. But as I scanned through my students’ reflections that morning, one response stopped me in my tracks:
“It’s more important to me that my teacher sees me as a person than if I get all the answers right.”
A student, who I’ll call Jason, had been in my class for months — quiet, polite, barely noticeable. Not failing, not thriving. Just…there.
Jason’s words reflected what many students feel but rarely say. As I reviewed other journal entries, I discovered an echo of voices expressing uncertainty, quiet resilience and a desire to be heard. I highlighted themes and let their words settle in, but as responses piled up, I needed help seeing the bigger picture.
That’s when I turned to artificial intelligence (AI), using it to help summarize journal entries — not replacing my judgment but sharpening it. ChatGPT surfaced patterns I might have missed: anxiety about speaking up, appreciation for kindness, the importance of being seen. AI didn’t give me a summary of responses — it gave me perspective, revealing what my students were telling me between the lines.
Too many students walk into math class carrying untold stories — about race, failure, shame, invisibility. And math, with its perceived rigid right-or-wrong structure, often leaves little room for the messiness of being human. Reflective journals and AI made that space. They reminded us that learning is emotional before it’s cognitive.
For educators exploring how to move from algorithms to empathy, here’s what I’ve learned:
Use AI as a reflection partner to surface trends in student voice. I introduced reflective journals with prompts like “How do you see yourself in math?” and “Where might math be important in your life?” When responses accumulated, AI helped me identify emotional throughlines—what students feared, valued, and needed to feel seen. It didn’t analyze feelings for me; it spotlighted patterns across dozens of responses, allowing me to respond not just as a content expert, but as a listener who could address the class’s collective needs.
Let AI handle the grunt work so you can do the heart work. After AI helped me identify themes like “I don’t feel smart, but I try harder than people know” and “I’m not the only one scared to ask for help,” I shared these anonymous insights with my class. Heads nodded. The room shifted. These reflections weren’t about fixing students — they were about making space where vulnerability felt safe and mathematical identity could evolve.
Design with AI — not for it. I didn’t start by asking what AI could do, but rather “What do my students need to feel seen, challenged and supported?” Only then did I explore how technology could help me meet those needs more thoughtfully and efficiently. The tools followed the vision, not the other way around.
Treat AI like a co-teacher, not a substitute. AI will never replace the personal connections at the heart of teaching, but it can help me see what I might miss in the everyday chaos of the classroom. This partnership allows me to combine technological insights with the relational knowledge that only comes from knowing my students.
The day after reading Jason’s journal entry, I greeted him more intentionally and shared that I had once felt the same way about being seen as a person first. It was a tiny signal: I see you. This breakthrough emerged from recognizing that community building in math class doesn’t require elaborate group projects or icebreakers. Sometimes it starts with something quieter: giving students space to examine their relationship with mathematics itself, then using AI to help us listen more deeply to what they’re telling us.
A week later, Jason lingered after class. “Thanks,” he said. “For, like, sharing with me.”
That two-second moment cracked something open — for both of us. Because behind every silence is a student waiting to be seen. And sometimes, the most powerful data we can use isn’t a test score or a benchmark — it’s a journal entry, a nod of recognition, or a quiet “thank you” made visible with the help of AI, reminding us why we teach.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
The use of personal devices has increased since the Covid pandemic closed school campuses in 2020.
Credit: Brett Sayles / Pexels
Children who use cellphones, smartwatches and other personal devices excessively are more likely to have shorter attention spans, be more anxious, have trouble thinking critically, be less physically fit and have problems interacting socially, according to research.
The debate about how much screen time is too much has been ongoing for more than two decades, but it has gained urgency in recent years as young people have become more reliant on cellphones and other devices.
The use of personal devices increased during pandemic school closures, with 12- to 13-year-olds more than doubling their recreational screen time to 7.7 hours a day in 2020, according to research led by the University of California San Francisco.
Adolescents have since decreased the number of hours they are on the phone, but cellphone use is still well above pre-pandemic levels, said Dr. Jason Nagata, an associate professor of pediatrics at UC SanFrancisco.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom brought the issue to the forefront earlier this month when he urged school district leaders to take immediate action to restrict cellphone use on campuses this school year. Newsom said excessive cellphone use by young people is linked to anxiety, depression and other mental health issues.
Cellphones, smartwatches and other personal devices aren’t inherently good or bad, Nagata said. They can be a useful tool for communication, education and socialization, but they also have their dangers, he said.
“The goal of parents and for teens is really to try to optimize all of the benefits, while really minimizing the risks,” Nagata said. “And, I do think that one of the risks associated with constant connection on phone use is that some teenagers and adults really can develop signs and symptoms of an addiction.”
Up to 95% of young people ages 13-17 nationwide report using social media platforms. A third say they use it “almost constantly,” according to the Office of the Surgeon General.
“If kids are on their phones 24/7, it doesn’t help them develop a sense that they can create, understand and generate thoughts and ideas,” said Dr. John Piancentini, a psychologist and professor at UCLA Health on its website.
Too much screen time can be bad for kids
Excessive cellphone use can impact a child’s mental health, resulting in anxiety and sometimes disruptive behavior disorders, according to research. Teens who use social media too much can develop body image issues and eating disorders, Nagata said. Others may feel less connected to friends and family.
Excessive phone use also has potential health consequences. One of the primary ways that phone use can adversely affect a young person’s health is by displacing sleep, which is essential to health and development, Nagata said. The blue light emitted by cellphones and other devices can suppress melatonin, a hormone that helps a person to sleep.
Cellphone sounds, such as notifications and rings, can also disturb rest. Sleep is important for teenagers in particular. Research shows that one-third of teens already get fewer hours of quality sleep than is required for optimal growth, development and academic achievement, Nagata said.
Young people who excessively use cellphones are also more likely to have sedentary lifestyles and to focus on the screen instead of what and how much they are eating, he said.
Increasingly, school districts are banning cellphones and other personal devices to keep students focused on school work and to encourage them to interact more with their teachers and peers. But what can parents do to ensure their children have a healthy relationship with their cellphones and other devices?
Warning signs of addiction
There is no consensus among researchers or physicians about exactly what constitutes phone addiction or problematic phone use, Nagata said. Despite that, the issue has become dire enough for the Surgeon General Vivek Murthy to issue an advisory in May, 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.
“I think, in general, parents and kids have a sense that maybe their use is too much, maybe it’s leading to problems at home, maybe it’s leading to problems at school,” Nagata said. “And so those might be indications that someone has problematic phone use or a phone addiction.”
Nagata said there are a few indications that your child may not have a healthy relationship with their phone:
If they are upset at the thought of being without their phone.
If they stop whatever they are doing to answer calls, texts or messages.
If they argue with others over the amount of time they are on the phone.
If they can’t reduce the amount of time they are on their device.
If time on the device interferes with schoolwork, chores or in-person socializing with family or friends.
Parents can limit phone use
Decreasing the use of cellphones and other devices before adulthood can be particularly important because research shows that screen-use patterns in young adulthood persist through adulthood.
Tips to decrease screen time:
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends having a family media use plan that outlines when phones can be used and when they can’t.
Initiate screen-free times before bedtime so that children get enough sleep. Parents could consider prohibiting screens in the bedroom and turning off devices and notifications at night.
Establish that dinner and social times are screen-free times to better promote conversation and socialization.
Parents should have regular conversations with their children about screen use and find opportunities for children to put away their phones and do nonscreen activities with friends.
Parents should try to work with the parents of their children’s friends to institute similar rules on social media and screen use to make implementation easier.
Parents should adhere to the family media plan and model good cellphone practices.
“The biggest predictors of children’s screen use are their parent’s screen use,” Nagata said. “It’s really important to practice what you preach.”
Parental monitoring and limiting of adolescent screen use were both linked to lower adolescent screen time, according to UCSF research. Punishing adolescents by taking away their devices or rewarding them with more screen time was not effective, Nagata said.
“There is not a one-size-fits-all solution for screen rules, so parents should consider their children’s ages, what electronic devices are in the household, and the family’s needs for communication and school work on electronic devices when constructing a family media use plan,” Nagata said.
California state legislators passed a bill Wednesday requiring school districts to ban or restrict student smartphone use on campuses during school hours.
Assembly Bill 3216, renamed the Phone-Free School Act, requires that every school district, charter school and county office of education develop a policy limiting the use of smartphones by July 1, 2026.
“Extended studies have demonstrated that the use of smartphones in classrooms can detract from students’ academic performances while contributing to higher rates of academic dishonesty and cyberbullying,” said the authors’ statement. “In consideration of California’s deficiency when it comes to academic performance, as compared to other states, it is imperative for the legislature to take action to resolve this issue.”
The Phone-Free School Act was authored by a bipartisan group of Assembly members that includes Republican Josh Hoover and Democrats Josh Lowenthal and Al Muratsuchi.
The legislation comes as states, school districts and individual schools are increasingly banning cellphones, smartwatches and other personal devices on campuses in an effort to curb classroom distractions, bullying and addiction to the devices.
At least five other states, including Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, South Carolina and Ohio have similar laws in place.
It is likely that Gov. Gavin Newsom will sign the legislation into law. He sent a letter to school district leaders earlier this month urging them to take immediate action to restrict cellphone use this school year. Excessive smartphone use increases anxiety, depression and other mental health issues in children, he said.
The use of personal devices increased during pandemic school closures, resulting in some students doubling their recreational screen time, according to research. This has led to concerns about addiction to the devices.
This legislation builds on a previous law passed in 2019 that gave school districts the authority, but did not require them, to regulate smartphones during school hours.
Assembly Bill 3216 allows school districts to enforce their cellphone policies by limiting student access to their smartphones. Currently, some schools enforce phone bans by requiring students to check them into “cellphone hotels” or stow them in locked pouches that can only be unlocked by school staff with a special magnet.
Many schools with cellphone prohibitions confiscate phones until the end of the school day if students flout the rules.
The legislation allows for some exemptions. Students will not be prohibited from using their phones if there is an emergency, when they are given permission by school staff, when a doctor says that the student needs the phone for medical reasons or when a smartphone is required in a special education student’s individualized education program.
The legislation also prohibits school officials and staff from accessing or monitoring a student’s online activities.
School districts are required to have “significant stakeholder participation” in developing their cellphone policy to ensure it is responsive to the needs of students, teachers and parents, according to the legislation. The policies must be updated every five years.
Adopting cellphone policies could collectively cost school districts hundreds of thousands of dollars, according to a state analysis of the legislation. Because it is a state mandate, the costs could be reimbursed by the state.
Not all screen time is created equal, and how kids spend it, whether creatively or passively, can make all the difference.
For instance, young children who watch a “Bluey” episode or play a memory game with their parents can build new cognitive and social-emotional skills early in their development. Also, teenagers can and have used their online networks to engage with social media-based mental health resources before they feel confident enough to reach out to a counselor or therapist.
But as children and adolescents have become increasingly isolated from their support systems at home and at school — exacerbated during the Covid-19 pandemic — they have become more vulnerable to threats such as cyberbullying and predatory behavior online. Kids’ first line of defense, ultimately, is an adult who has earned their trust and is able to guide them when necessary.
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, in 2022, 21.6% of students who were bullied said the bullying had happened online, a nearly 6 percentage-point jump from those reporting being bullied online in 2019. A 2021 survey by the National Crime Prevention Council found that only about a third of victims blocked their bully online, and only about a tenth told their parents about the incident.
New risks like AI-generated imagery and financial sexual extortion also contribute to the 87% increase in online child sexual abuse reports since 2019, according to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. As young children get online at earlier ages, preteens spend over half of their waking days on screens, and social media algorithms push harmful, addictive content to teen users, the threat of a dangerous interaction is often one unsolicited or derogatory message away.
Lawmakers and school administrators across the country are tackling online safety and well-being with policies such as banning cellphones in schools and restricting addictive algorithms on children and teenagers’ social media feeds. For Fareedah Shaheed, a children’s online safety expert, prevention and intervention start with the adults — parents, teachers and school counselors — interacting with kids on a daily basis.
Children’s online safety expert and consultant Fareedah Shaheed.
“I see the real change in those interpersonal relationships between (educators) and parents, people exchanging information they can use to start talking to (each other),” Shaheed told school administrators, counselors, teachers and advocates at a student wellness conference. “I believe the biggest impact is on the ground.”
EdSource interviewed Shaheed about her experiences and how adults can help keep young people safe online. Her remarks have been edited for length and clarity.
What can students learn about online safety from your early internet experiences?
When I was 13, I got my first smartphone. I started playing mobile games and talking to strangers online. I had a near miss with an online predator. I was (planning on) meeting someone at 16, when he was 40 years old. I was a very private teenager, and I kept my online life secret. So the only reason why I told my mom, ‘Hey, I’m just going to meet this guy that I met at an online game in the park,’ was because I was her only child, and I felt like it was the mature thing to tell her where I was going. But I wasn’t asking her for permission because she would’ve said no.
She knew that this was really serious if I was telling her this, because she knew I was a very private person. But she didn’t ask to look into my phone. And instead of her taking away my phone, getting upset with me, she just wanted to know, ‘Who’s this person? What’s his name? Why did you connect? Why do you like him? Why do you want to meet?’ And that changed my entire life because she came to me as an experienced friend, and I decided I did not want to go. That conversation saved me. From those experiences being groomed online and talking to strangers as a kid, I went into cybersecurity and threat intelligence, and I started doing workshops with organizations to raise awareness and then create some actionable impact on internet safety for kids.
What concerns about online safety do you hear from parents, educators and school counselors?
I hear a lot of stories about cyberbullying, kids talking to strangers online, being addicted to social media and making comparisons (online.) The hardest stories to hear are when parents lose their children. They lose their child through suicide, or they lose their child’s (trust) to someone targeting them. I heard from one parent that her son, who was groomed as a (child), was now grooming another child. The mental turmoil that she went through as a parent completely took her out. She came back from that, and told me her son is in therapy now (unpacking) his own history of abuse. She’s looking back at her life and retracing her steps as a parent, thinking, “What the hell did I do wrong?”
I advise parents to prioritize safe spaces, accountability, fun and empathy to protect kids online. We also have discussions over time about mental health resources and helping kids create a community around a shared problem, such as an after-school program for kids experiencing bullying. Many school counselors can also have a closer relationship with the student only because there is that degree of separation of, “You’re not my parent, and you’re not trying to control my life.” In certain circumstances, counselors have an easier time becoming the experienced friend role.
How have these threats, such as cyberbullying, grooming and sextortion, changed since you first used the internet?
We would always tell kids, “Don’t share pictures of yourself with other people, especially strangers,” right? Now you have AI (artificial intelligence). We’re at a point where it doesn’t matter if you don’t share (photos), someone can create something that looks real. I didn’t grow up with that. That’s a whole different ballgame. So I believe we have to act like everyone has been in this situation — anyone can experience extortion — and have mental health (resources) for those who are experiencing or experience this at some point.
New developments like AI can often feel inaccessible to parents and educators. How can adults protect kids if they don’t entirely understand the threat in the first place?
You don’t have to know more than your kids to protect them. You don’t have to be tech-savvy to protect them. You don’t have to know all the new slang to protect your kids, because what predators want are parents staying in the darkness. When you’re thinking about sextortion, AI, cyberbullying, predatory behavior, inappropriate content, screen time, all of these things rely on one domino effect. If you research the predatory handbook for targeting kids on Roblox or Minecraft, they’re not saying, “We want parents who don’t understand technology or the newest thing.” They’re saying, “We want parents who don’t know what their kids are going through emotionally.” They want parents who themselves struggle with mental illness, lack support or resources and feel isolated. That’s why the resources that will help protect kids are also support for parents — financial, self-care, mental health. That’s what matters more than parents knowing the latest thing.
Can school cellphone bans help protect kids online?
I believe there’s a better way to do it. Schools are trying to introduce something new to solve a huge problem, and I do believe that it’s necessary, but I don’t believe “ban” is the best term. I think “policy” is the best term. I believe schools have to have the students be part of the decision, otherwise it’s going to create a lot of friction. If the students are part of the decision, you understand how students are using the cellphone and how they can use it in a way that’s according to the policy and what’s best for them.
Many students don’t approach school counselors about their online problems, and many might not recognize that online interaction could be unsafe or outside the norm. In that case, how can schools better identify the issue and intervene?
Schools can help by giving them the tools to solve a problem that they don’t see, because the adults are not in control of what happens. Counselors can provide educational programs about mental health resources, talking through online scenarios and explaining the tools (students) can use to deal with a situation so that they can, one, identify it for themselves, and then two, know how to self-regulate. They can slowly work themselves out of the situation, whether it’s removing themselves from the relationship, blocking somebody, reporting somebody — no one has to know. Sometimes you can remove yourself from a situation and not have to talk to somebody about it. There should be resources for them when they need to talk about it and provide that support, but it’s also about making it normal to have those conversations in school, letting them hear different stories from other people, teaching them red flags and how to identify their own discomfort.
Can online threats present differently, especially for students in marginalized communities?
[A 2022 survey found that Black teens are about twice as likely as Hispanic or white teenagers to say they were targeted online for their race. Teenagers who identify as part of the LGBTQ community also face more harassment online related to their identities, including hateful language or sexual victimization, and have been found to be more susceptible to cyberbullying.]
Whether it was being a Black gamer girl online or posting on social media as a Black girl, I spent my entire childhood being bullied for being Black and for being the only Black girl in classes a lot of the time. It’s harder for kids from these backgrounds to have the tools and support systems to deal with the (bullying). So if there are other minority or underrepresented communities, they can also have that community at school. I’ve seen schools that have groups like Black Gamer Girl clubs — these five students that meet every Thursday after school, for example — that are really helpful for their mental health and for them to feel safe online. Schools can also have classes that serve them, in particular by giving them tools to deal with bullying, having conversations about what they see online if they’re creating content, how they make sense of someone saying something horrible about them, and then how to walk through that and emotionally regulate.
Teenagers also seek emotional support and information about their identities online. How can they identify the line between dangerous interactions and ones that might feel new and uncertain — and a little uncomfortable for parents — but might also help them feel more secure in themselves?
[For example, transgender and queer students often find acceptance in online communities known to reduce reports of depression and suicidal thoughts in LGBTQ youth. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many reported being stuck at home with unsupportive parents, flocking to online communities for acceptance.]
It’s so much better for your child to be involved in communities that you may be uncomfortable with when you’re there to support them, even in your discomfort, than for your child to go behind your back and not tell you and get a burner phone. Most of the time, the community that your child is connecting with online is going to be OK, so long as they have your support and someone to talk to. It becomes dangerous when the parent or caretaker can’t be involved because the child thinks that they can’t share their experiences.
I loved anime. I loved cosplaying. I loved gaming. And the online world has a lot of communities that understand you, you feel safe and that you’re in a non-judgmental space. But then, when you go to school or are with your parents or friends who are outside that space, they might make you feel like you’re different or too much or too little or weird. The reason why I started talking to strangers wasn’t because I love talking to strangers, but because I didn’t feel accepted elsewhere. If you’re a teenager and you’re worried about your best friend speaking with older strangers online, for example, the best thing you can do is stay in their life in whatever capacity is safe for you. When something happens, you can be there for them in whatever capacity you have and help them out of that situation.
What advice do you have for educators and parents trying to introduce young children to the online world in a positive way?
When children are younger than 7 or 8, it’s all about play and their association with you and play, being there with them in the environment, eye contact and engaging with them. Sensical, from Common Sense, is a great organization that has screen time suggestions based on age that are fun and joyful. As children get older, (parents and educators) can start introducing more teaching concepts. For some digital literacy resources and activities, you have FBI Safe Online Surfing, Google’s Be Internet Awesome and Net Smartz Kids. Fun is one of the most underrated ways to protect kids online and help them with screen time too. It doesn’t matter if the online activity is the greatest activity in the world, if a teacher is stressed out, in what way can you find fun in the activity? For early educators like preschool teachers and kindergarten teachers, anytime I do a workshop with a school, I ask, “What do you need? What are you seeing? What is your capacity? What is the kids’ capacity? What are their ages, their background?” Then, we create something customized for them. But (educators) shouldn’t shy away from technology.
Catherine Rampell is an opinion writer for The Washington Post who writes often about economics. She focuses here on the expansion of data collection by the Trump administration, even as it ceases to collect anonymous data about health trends. What worries me is the invasion of privacy by the DOGE team, who scooped up personally identifiable data from the IRS and Social Security about everyone, including you and me. Why did they want it? What will they do to it?
She writes:
It’s rarely comforting to appear on a government “list,” even (or perhaps especially) when compiled in the name of public safety.
It was alarming in the 1940s, when the U.S. government collected the names of Japanese Americans for internment. Likewise in the 1950s, when the House Un-American Activities Committee catalogued communists. And it’s just as troubling now, as the Trump administration assembles registries of Jewish academics and Americans with developmental disabilities.
Yes, these are real things that happened this past week, the latest examples of the White House’s abuse of confidential data.
Last week, faculty and staff at Barnard College received unsolicited texts asking them whether they were Jewish. Employees were stunned by the messages, which many initially dismissed as spam.
Turns out the messages came from the Trump administration. Barnard, which is affiliated with Columbia University, had agreed to share faculty members’ private contact info to aid in President Donald Trump’s pseudo-crusade against antisemitism.
Ah, yes, a far-right president asking Jews to register as Jewish, in the name of protecting the Jews, after he has repeatedly accused Jews of being “disloyal.” What could go wrong?
The same day, National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya announced a “disease registry” of people with autism, to be compiled from confidential private and government health records, apparently without its subjects’ awareness or consent. This is part of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s vendetta against vaccines, which he has said cause autism despite abundant research concluding otherwise.
This, too, is disturbing given authoritarian governments’ history of compiling lists of citizens branded mentally or physically deficient. If that historical analogue seems excessive, note that Bhattacharya’s announcement came just a week after Kennedy delivered inflammatory remarks lamenting that kids with autism will never lead productive lives. They “will never pay taxes, they’ll never hold a job,” he said, adding they’ll never play baseball or go on a date, either.
This all happened during Autism Acceptance Month, established to counter exactly these kinds of stigmatizing stereotypes. Kennedy’s comments and the subsequent “registry” set off a wave of fear in the autism advocacy community and earned condemnation from scientists.
Obviously, advocates want more research and support for those with autism. They have been asking for more help at least since 1965 (when what is now called the Autism Society of America was founded in my grandparents’ living room). But few in this community trust political appointees hostile to scientific research — or a president who has publicly mocked people with disabilities — to use an autism “registry” responsibly.
(An unnamed HHS official later walked back Bhattacharya’s comments, saying the department was not creating a “registry,” per se, just a “real-world data platform” that “will link existing datasets to support research into causes of autism and insights into improved treatment strategies.” Okay.)
These are hardly the administration’s only abuses of federal data. It has been deleting reams of statistical records, including demographic data on transgender Americans. It has also been exploiting other private administrative records for political purposes.
For example, the Internal Revenue Service — in an effort to persuade people to pay their taxes — spent decades assuring people that their records are confidential, regardless of immigration status. The agency is in fact legally prohibited from sharing tax records, even with other government agencies, except under very limited circumstances specified by Congress. Lawmakers set these limits in response to Richard M. Nixon’s abuse of private tax data to target personal enemies.
Trump torched these precedents and promises. After a series of top IRS officials resigned, the agency has now agreed to turn over confidential records to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement locate and deport some 7 million undocumented immigrants.
The move, which also has troubling historical echoes, is being challenged in court. But, in the meantime, tax collections will likely fall. Undocumented immigrant workers had been paying an estimated $66 billion in federal taxes annually, but they now have even more reason to stay off the books.
This and other DOGE infiltrations of confidential records are likely to discourage public cooperation on other sensitive government data collection efforts. Think research on mental health issues or public safety assessments on domestic violence.
But that might be a feature, not a bug, for this administration. Chilling federal survey participation and degrading data quality were arguably deliberate objectives in Trump’s first term, when he tried to cram a question about citizenship into the 2020 Census. The question was expected to depress response rates and help Republicans game the congressional redistricting process.
Courts ultimately blocked Trump’s plans. That’s what it will take to stop ongoing White House abuses, too: not scrapping critical government records, but championing the rule of law.
Ultimately, the government must be able to collect and integrate high-quality data — to administer social programs efficiently, help the economy function and understand the reality we live in so voters can hold public officials accountable. None of this is possible if Americans fear ending up on some vindictive commissar’s “list.”
As the number of Coronavirus cases rises in China, many schools are temporarily closed to prevent the disease from spreading. To preserve a sense of normalcy and keep students from falling behind, schools are using eLearning to continue students’ education. Schools from the Wuhan, Jinjiang, and Hexi districts, all part of the International Schools Consortium (iSC), are successfully using the Wowzers with their students.
Wowzers works with schools in the Sichuan Province that use NWEA’s MAP Growth assessments to customize a personalized learning path. By linking these assessments with Wowzers’ content, educators feel confident that students have the correct curriculum to meet their goals. Since the program is automatically individualized, educators find that remote learning through Wowzers is effective.
Principal John Ross Jones from Chengdu International reports that his students are continuing their learning through Wowzers. The students are engaged, and teachers can see their students’ progress in real-time, even adjusting their curriculum remotely and assigning homework and test prep work.
Wowzers has been very beneficial for us at this time as we are practicing home-based learning in our schools currently.
John Ross Jones, Principal of Chendu International
Many teachers use Wowzers’ dual-path system to create a new curriculum path for students as they learn from home. This way, the curriculum path they use in the classroom is undisturbed. SuJung Ham, of Tianjin International School, reports that his students are engaged and showing results.
It has been a real help during this time because not only are our students at home because of the virus but many of us teachers are also either at home or even in other countries. I personally came back to the States for a time and this has helped keep my students on track with Math remotely while they are in China, Korea, or one even in France.
Brandon Hoffman, Teacher of Tianjin International
The power of digital technology, combined with artificial intelligence, is invaluable during this time of crisis in China. As the threat of the virus spreads throughout the world, Wowzers has demonstrated that eLearning from home works.
If your students, families, and employees had more options, would they still choose you? Take a lesson from the districts who already know the answer to that question because of their powerful online identities.
By building your district’s online presence through technology, you encourage ongoing engagement from students, employees, and parents. You stand out to your community and communicate a strong culture. Dive in to a trove of examples in four core platforms.
District website
Your website is the first place the community turns to for finding information about the district. Make sure they like what they see by taking the following into account:
Clean, elegant designs: Using modular design, easily accessible information, and minimal color palettes makes navigation easy for every visitor, bumping up view time.
A lasting first impression: Your website is a reflection of your district. Attract prospective students and staff by keeping community culture front and center.
Information central: Add the district calendar, news updates, lunch menu, and all other need-to-know info to your front page to keep families in-the-know.
Social media
Building a social media presence keeps brand messaging in your own hands. Keep the focus on school culture with these in mind:
Consistent posting: News, shoutouts, and updates should be posted nearly every single day to boost engagement.
Community-driven content: Posts that regularly feature the successes and highlights of staff, students, and the surrounding community get more views.
Diverse points of interest: Parents, students, and teachers in the district want to see their unique clubs, cultures, and interests celebrated on social media.
Videos
Videos offer viewers a way to peek into your community’s day-to-day life and culture. Here’s how to put your district’s best image on display:
Organize for accessibility: Videos that are grouped into playlists for effortless access makes it easy to garner return viewership and audience captivation.
Quality content = quality district: Attention to detail and planning in content reflects positively on a district’s image of capability and expertise.
Student and staff engagement: Students and staff should be featured in videos, and their participation in the creation process increases buy-in.
Student Information System (SIS)
The district SIS provides a direct line between your staff, students, and families it serves. Here’s how an innovative SIS can support the entire community:
Family access, everywhere: SIS accessibility through both desktop and mobile can keep parents invested and open to communication.
Workloads, streamlined: When families use the SIS to communicate with teachers, pay fees, and register online, there is less work on the shoulders of your staff.
Involvement inspires improvement: Getting the entire district involved in the SIS improves overall culture and communication, which can lead to district growth.
While no two districts are alike, every district can improve their visibility, engagement, and community standing with a strong online presence without a major overhaul. Small improvements to your website, social media pages, and video library can energize interest in your district, making it the place to be for employees and families.
