LAUSD Votes To Ban Cellphone Use During School
[guest post by Dana]
This is really good news. However, given that the horse is already out of the barn, enforcement may prove difficult:
The Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education on Tuesday voted to ban cellphone use during the school day.
The new rule will take effect in January 2025, though the Los Angeles Times notes the details still need to be “approved in a future meeting by the Board of Education.”
The prohibition for using cellphones includes during breaks and lunchtime.
Still to be worked out is how the policy will be enforced. Additionally, there will be exceptions: “use the devices for homework or translating English as non-native speakers”.
Several years ago, Patterico and I had the privilege of attending a lecture by psychologist Jonathan Haidt. He is a brilliant observer of youth today, their addiction to cell phones, and the incredible distraction from real life they provide, for better or worse. And it’s mostly worse. About young people and their phones, he made this observation:
Haidt blames the spike in teen-age depression and anxiety on the rise of smartphones and social media, and he offers a set of prescriptions: no smartphones before high school, no social media before age sixteen.
And about the problems resulting from students using their phones during the school day, Haidt wrote this last year:
I was invited to give a talk at Scarsdale Middle School. There, too, I met with the principal and her top administrators, and I heard the same thing: Mental- health problems had recently gotten much worse. Even when students arrived for sixth grade, coming out of elementary school, many of them were already anxious and depressed. And many, already, were addicted to their phones.
To the teachers and administrators I spoke with, this wasn’t merely a coincidence. They saw clear links between rising phone addiction and declining mental health, to say nothing of declining academic performance. A common theme in my conversations with them was: We all hate the phones. Keeping students off of them during class was a constant struggle. Getting students’ attention was harder because they seemed permanently distracted and congenitally distractible. Drama, conflict, bullying, and scandal played out continually during the school day on platforms to which the staff had no access. I asked why they couldn’t just ban phones during school hours. They said too many parents would be upset if they could not reach their children during the school day.
Haidt points out that these days school districts are much more open to the possibility of banning phones in schools. Of course, given the downward turn with the mental health of young people and their addiction to cell phones, this makes sense.
Ultimately, he hits the nail on the head:
All children deserve schools that will help them learn, cultivate deep friendships, and develop into mentally healthy young adults. All children deserve phone-free schools.
Good for LAUSD. I hope other school districts follow suit.
—Dana
Hello.
Dana (985852) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:02 pmThis is a good thing. I hope this helps spur others to do the same.
Nate (cfb326) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:14 pmI wonder how this will work. Detectors won’t work (kids will put them in airplane mode to get past detection). Will they take the phones away if used? The exceptions augur abuse.
If you wanted to be clear about the phones, give each teach a 30lb oak mallet and allow them to smash a phone they find in use. But they won’t. Instead there will be a warning, then another warning, then … another warning. In extreme cases they will warn some more.
Zero tolerance; no phones on campus. Learn English if that’s your problem and do your homework at home.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:24 pm*each teacher
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:24 pmNote also the Surgeon General proposed health warnings. How long until Facebook gets hit with a class-action suit? “They knew they were addicting kids; they knew it was harmful too them; they knew of the suicides. They ruined young lives. You, in the jury, can send them a message! …”
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:27 pmI just don’t know how this works practically. You require, or provide, laptops or tablets, there are watches, bluetooth connected devices, etc.
I guess it’s a good idea, but how does it work?
They’ve done it at our school district, but parents still want their kids to have phones and if they insist, there isn’t much of a recourse for the school. You can’t take the phone, that may be felony theft (greater than $100), so teachers have been told to tell them to put it away, but that’s the end of it from a practical perspective.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:30 pmGavin Newsom wants to ban cellphones in California’s public schools; and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy wants to require social media platforms to post warning labels (which would require Congressional action).
This panic over social media and teens reminds me of the fear mongering over comic books in the 1950s over their supposed contribution to juvenile delinquency. Aside from the anecdotal reports of teen depression, etc., what do scientific studies show about the impact of social media and cellphone use by teens?
As noted above, I can see parents opposing a ban, as it would make it impossible for them to communicate with their children in an emergency. And teens would find a way to get around any ban.
Rip Murdock (b10aa6) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:41 pmFor example, a co-worker is able to track her daughter’s location through her smartphone, ensuring that she has arrived home safely.
Rip Murdock (b10aa6) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:46 pmYou can’t take the phone, that may be felony theft (greater than $100)
If the school says it’s contraband they can, just as if it was marijuana. “Do not bring your phone to school” is pretty clear.
The problem is that they are ADDICTED. They have a compulsive obsession (that’s what addiction means) to check their feeds. You tell them to put it away and 5 minutes later it is out again. The teacher will be doing nothing else.
As far as laptops and pads, they can disallow any with cellular connections, then turn off the wifi or firewall it to prevent outside access.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:46 pmFor example, a co-worker is able to track her daughter’s location through her smartphone, ensuring that she has arrived home safely.
So what. There was a time she couldn’t and we all somehow survived.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:47 pmBanning cellphones in schools is nanny statism that both the left and the right can unite on.
Rip Murdock (b10aa6) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:52 pmThis panic over social media and teens reminds me of the fear mongering over comic books in the 1950s over their supposed contribution to juvenile delinquency.
1) Have you SEEN the comics of the early 50s?
2) This is about a widespread addiction. Think smoking, not comic books.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:54 pmBanning cellphones in schools is nanny statism that both the left and the right can unite on.
Just like they united on kids smoking cigarettes.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:55 pmWhat worries me is what the kids do when they have to go cold turkey for 6 hours a day.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:56 pmRip,
a) The phone doesn’t “ensure she arrives home safely” it ensures that the parent knows when they arrive home safely. Those aren’t the same thing. The phone isn’t keeping her safe, and if anything, probably makes her less safe. It does allay some of the parent’s fears (which is valuable, to be sure).
b) Using a phone on your way home from school is fine. I don’t see how having a phone off in your backpack is “having a phone at school.”
Nate (cfb326) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:58 pmKids have always grabbed a light during school underneath the bleachers, a cellphone ban would be equally successful.
Rip Murdock (b10aa6) — 6/19/2024 @ 8:59 pmLOL! They will probably have the same symptoms of depression and anxiety they have now.
Rip Murdock (b10aa6) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:01 pmLOL! The temptation to sneak a look at your phone in the bathroom, under the bleachers, or at lunch would be impossible to resist.
Rip Murdock (b10aa6) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:05 pmYou can’t just declare it contraband, it’s not weed. You do get 90+% compliance, but parents have rights.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:07 pmRip, if phone usage is relegated to sneaking it in the bathroom, as vaping is, then… that’s great.
I’m not sure you’re aware of the situation right now where kids are glued to their phones at lunch, in the halls, even in the classroom. No one is saying some kids won’t sneak it while in the bathroom.
Nate (cfb326) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:12 pmColonel, is there some legal precedent you’re claiming or hypothesizing that this might be the case? Because I don’t think you’re right (I’d be willing to be shown otherwise).
Nate (cfb326) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:14 pmThere will be hell to pay (and millions of dollars) if parents and police can’t communicate with students during the next mass school shooting because the school is a “cellphone free zone.”
Rip Murdock (b10aa6) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:22 pmOne more thing to turn students into scofflaws. At some point they would need to be disciplined. Maybe suspended after a third offense of looking at their feeds?
Rip Murdock (b10aa6) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:27 pmIt was specifically stated by our superintendent, but the statute is.
And then there are bunch of penalties depending on value or if it’s a gun or drug. I think he was confused on the value, they updated it from $100 to $1000 for the felony threshold, it had been $100 from the 70’s till 2 years ago.
Also.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:29 pmIt would be hard to convince a prosecutor, but the district doesn’t want that liability.
Unintended consequences and all that.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:31 pmand if anything, probably makes her less safe.
Like at crosswalks.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:33 pmYou can’t just declare it contraband, it’s not weed. You do get 90+% compliance, but parents have rights.
It depends on what the legislature says, no? Don’t like it? Try the private schools.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:34 pmThe best thing about this is it will teach kids about government in ways their teachers currently don’t. Rip’s nanny state comment is apt. Welcome to the world, kids.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:36 pmNote that the left-wing LAUSD board has banned their police force from regular campus patrols.
Rip Murdock (b10aa6) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:37 pmThere will be hell to pay (and millions of dollars) if parents and police can’t communicate with students during the next mass school shooting because the school is a “cellphone free zone.”
1) The next school shooting in any given district is “never.”
2) There are plenty of ways to communicate.
3) Parents will react poorly no matter what. Having their child tell them some madman is roaming the school with a gun will not allay their fears.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:39 pmNote that the left-wing LAUSD board has banned their police force from regular campus patrols.
A week after the superintendent asked for the patrols. And, I ask, why are they still paying the school police?
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:40 pmActually her mom pays for an Uber driver to take her home.
Rip Murdock (b10aa6) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:43 pmColonel, the word “unlawfully” seems to do a lot of work. No, a teacher cannot take a kids phone, then give it to their niece as a Christmas present. Yes, a teacher can take a kid’s cellphone and give it back to them at the end of the day.
I was shocked earlier this year to find out that teachers are fairly well (overly?) protected by the law. A student I talked to had their phone taken by a teacher, the teacher put their phone just outside of the classroom in the hall and asked the student to come talk to them outside the class. The student refused and went back to working on their assignment. The phone was left in the hall. The phone was then unsurprisingly stolen. The student had no recourse; the teacher had no consequences. The teacher could voluntarily reimburse the student if they felt like it.
I was shocked when I heard this, and looked up both the district policy and applicable case law, and was floored that this was in fact the legal situation.
Which is why I was skeptical about your claims. I think you’re misreading the statute.
Nate (cfb326) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:50 pm1) Two incidents that prompted LAUSD police to deploy (just to two schools) involved students (one a fourth grader) bringing handguns onto campus. No one (including Kevin M) knows when the next mass shooting will happen. Schools should operate as if it could happen today.
2) Like how-Morse code mirror flashing?
3) I’m sure parents would like to know their child is alive; and I’m sure the police would like to know where they are hiding.
Rip Murdock (b10aa6) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:53 pmThere will be another mass school shooting, 100%. The likelihood that it’s in your school is tiny, but it’s not zero, and LAUSD has 1300 schools, ours has 5, but we had one in 94.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 6/19/2024 @ 9:56 pmI’m assuming our super had a reason to say it. He proposed the rule, and backed out for a reason.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 6/19/2024 @ 10:04 pmNic should really weigh in on this one, but she’s probably using her summer break to travel the world.
norcal (43c48c) — 6/19/2024 @ 10:24 pmTheft by unlawful taking or disposition
Nothing there about lawful taking.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/20/2024 @ 10:17 amHe proposed the rule, and backed out for a reason.
It could have been political, not legal. Just like the LAUSD school board killed the superintendent’s school police plan almost immediately.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/20/2024 @ 10:19 amBecause you don’t have to define the offense of permissible taking, that’s called giving.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 6/20/2024 @ 11:57 amBecause you don’t have to define the offense of permissible taking, that’s called giving.
Like me and the IRS.
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/20/2024 @ 12:35 pmThere are all kinds of “lawful takings”: easements, eminent domain, taxes, fines, liens, contraband seizure, non-allowed item seizure (e.g. TSA), asset forfeiture, commandeering and the Draft.
I’m sure I’ve left some out. None of those are really “giving.”
Kevin M (a9545f) — 6/20/2024 @ 12:42 pmFrom the (paywalled) Los Angeles Times:
Rip Murdock (d2a2a8) — 6/20/2024 @ 1:27 pmYou miss about 500 years of common law.
I hope that there can be a way to convince butthole parents that they should require their kids to follow the rules, but, especially for smaller districts, a single case may cost them hundres of thousands of dollars, and teachers would only need to see a single case happening to bail on enforcement.
A law, or stipulation in legislation on regulation, would help. Barring that, and your examples are specifically those, it’s a rule that can is in a grey area, and there lies the risk.
I’m sure your hoping for Gavin Newsom’s success in passing a law allowing schools to regulate it.
It’s kind of odd that all the parent’s rights folks only care when the right is something they agree with. The historic problem with liberals that they pick and choose between items not rights, now the GOP is full of liberal nanny staters.
Colonel Klink (ret) (96f56a) — 6/20/2024 @ 1:36 pmIt’s all right to ban use of cellphones during school hours, but they seem to be talking about possession
It may be hard to get started, but this is just the same thing as banning passing notes or talking in class.
https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/06/13/a-cell-phone-ban-in-nyc-schools-is-bad
And the association with distress is probably not inherent but because if the way cell phones are used (also outside of school hours) It is not the phones themselves.
Sammy FInkelman (e4ef09) — 6/20/2024 @ 4:42 pmAnd of course the law that prohibits the disabling of cell phones should be repealed.
Sammy FInkelman (e4ef09) — 6/20/2024 @ 4:43 pmAs for exams what is done for notes or note books can be done for cellphones. If they can be hidden they can be hidden anyway.
Sammy FInkelman (e4ef09) — 6/20/2024 @ 4:44 pm