Gavin Newsom Jumps On Moral Panic Bandwagon To Ban Phones In School Despite Evidence Suggesting It Doesn’t Work
from the ban-grandstanding dept
We live in the age of performative lawmaking. Something must be done! This is something. We will do it. Who cares about the tradeoffs, nuances, or the evidence? Throw all that out the window and DO SOMETHING. And if you’re going to DO SOMETHING why not make it big, bold, and already proven ineffective? At least it will get you headlines.
The underlying concerns about kids and technology are often quite legitimate. It’s reasonable to worry about kids being distracted or spending too much time on phones or social media. But just because there are concerns, it doesn’t mean that an outright ban is an effective policy or necessary. It would be nice if policy making involved actually looking at the evidence rather than making calls based on gut decisions.
But apparently, that’s not how it works.
Last month, we had an article about California Governor Gavin Newsom’s wife pushing an evidence-free moral panic about kids and social media. The very next day, we had a story by two Australian professors who had looked at all research on the question of whether or not banning phones in school was effective. They found that the evidence simply did not support banning phones in school. They concluded “the evidence for banning mobile phones in schools is weak and inconclusive.”
Certainly, some studies showed small positive benefits to removing phones, but many also showed negative effects. As we discussed on our most recent podcast with another researcher in the field, such bans can cause other problems as well.
And, so, of course, California Governor Gavin Newsom has fully jumped on board with the idea of banning phones entirely in schools.
Gov. Gavin Newsom called on Tuesday for a statewide ban on smartphone use in California schools, joining a growing national effort to curb cyberbullying and classroom distraction by limiting access to the devices.
Mr. Newsom, who has four school-age children, said he would work this summer with state lawmakers to dramatically restrict phone use during the school day in the nation’s most populous state.
Again, the actual evidence has shown that it’s not at all clear that an outright ban is effective, and it has failed in many places. New York City tried to ban phones in schools a decade ago and it failed, miserably. It was enforced unequally, often targeting kids in low-income communities, and parents wanted to know that in an emergency, their kids could call. At the time, NYC’s school chancellor said “lifting the cell phone ban is about common sense.”
Apparently, here in California, we no longer believe in common sense. Or evidence. We believe in the “feels” of the governor and his wife.
Of course, New York seems to be backsliding as well. Just a few weeks ago, New York’s Governor Kathy Hochul… also called for banning phones in schools, as if there wasn’t already evidence as to why such bans don’t work in her own state.
Again, I don’t think anyone believes that kids should be on their phones all day. But an outright ban is a blunt instrument that hasn’t worked all that well. Instead, it seems like there should be room for variability. Let parents, teachers, and school principals figure these things out on a more micro level, rather than implementing a flat out statewide ban.
But, alas, when we’re living in an age of moral panics, apparently such nuances and more focused approaches aren’t allowed.
Filed Under: california, data, evidence, gavin newsom, kathy hochul, kids, new york, phones in schools, schools


Comments on “Gavin Newsom Jumps On Moral Panic Bandwagon To Ban Phones In School Despite Evidence Suggesting It Doesn’t Work”
It’s just going to be this same shit forever, isn’t it?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Leading off the week with another screed arguing that children should be tormented throughout the school day with these horrible devices that none of us needed at any point during our studies. Very on-brand for TD!! 😀
Re:
Boomer and a luddite… Quite a combo there…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I got top marks throughout high school, college, and graduate school without ever having to carry a smart phone with me. Kids today should be able to achieve no less whilst unencumbered by such devices.
Re: Re: Re:
Uphill both ways, no less.
Re: Re: Re:
Good for you. Not everyone is like you. Also, this isn’t just about grades.
Why should they? You don’t even represent all the people who went to the same schools at the same time you did, let alone all kids in all schools. There is no good reason to assume that everyone should be able to get the same results under the same conditions, and you assume that everyone in school would be experiencing the same conditions you did if they didn’t have smartphones, and assumption which is even less justified.
Some people got top marks without internet or even computers, either. Does that mean everyone ought to be able to? Of course not!
Seriously, you’re only confirming that they were right to call you a boomer and a Luddite.
Re: Re: Re:
How’s that Trump U degree treating you bro?
Still working the fry station hoping to get that big promotion to assistant manager yeah?
Re: Re: Boomer and a luddite…
While I sort of resemble that remark, access to the internet can be an incredible learning tool. It is to me, anyway, and I wish I could have had access to when I was in school. I am a boomer, and, if I have to get another vehicle, it’ll be a ’63 Falcon without all of the digital BS that gets in the way of driving for me. Oh, yeah, and you’ll pry my vacuum tubes from my cold dead hands 😀
This attitude is what bothers me, and Masnick expressed it well:
These “we have to do SOMETHING” people drive me crazy. If the choice is between doing nothing and doing something epically stupid, I favor doing nothing.
Regards
Re:
You couldn’t be a bigger idiot if you tried, and you’re already trying to be the biggest idiot here.
Re: Re:
― Jean-Paul Sartre regarding fascism’s original rise
Re:
I didn’t need to be bullied as a kid, either.
And my childhood was in the age when the personal computer was a big grey/beige box, keyboards weighed at least a kilogram, the most portable communications device was a pager, AND the moral panics were TV and video games…
Re:
Your strawman is bad, and you should feel bad.
Also, speak for yourself. Just because you didn’t need them doesn’t mean no one needs them, let alone that no one would find it incredibly useful or beneficial.
Personally, I found having a cellphone was incredibly useful, ensuring that I could quickly and easily contact my parents or someone else (like my ride) about what’s going on in school or after school or to be told that there’s an emergency situation. And it makes it much easier to exchange contact information, like for a group project. I also used it to take notes as my handwriting is atrocious if I have to do it while listening, and to record lectures or photograph the whiteboard so I can make sure I didn’t miss anything later.
Also, how many get _cyber_bullied during school hours while still at school, specifically? At least compared to being cyberbullied outside of school or being bullied in other ways at school? And given how badly it failed the last time it was tried, why should anyone believe that it will work this time? Given those factors, I’m unconvinced that this would actually reduce how much children get tormented during school day, let alone substantially when looking at their entire childhood.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I don’t think that it’s helpful or appropriate to seek to cause emotional distress in other commenters.
Re:
Those ‘devices’ are actually human beings, dude. They’re the kids’ teachers.
I quite enjoy the same ends different means dichotomy happening on the left and the right.
“We have to let individual districts and parents groups pick what books go in libraries because we have to prevent our children from reading unauthorized things (when they should be reading what we say).”
And
“We need big government regulations to prevent our children from reading unauthorized things (when they should be reading what we say).”
They are of course, both wrong. Knowledge is power, trying to stop kids from gaining new knowledge (that they want) is a losing proposition.
Re:
I am unaware in any leftist (or any democrat, really) supporting a book ban. Care to provide some evidence?
Re: Re:
Not the AC to whom you replied, but I’m a leftist (according to Reich Wingers; I’m actually left of center), and I totally support a ban on Mein Kampf. Hitler definitely shouldn’t have the First Amendment extended to him, especially given the existence of fascists in the US from as early as 1924.
He tried to position himself as the anti-Trump and it didn’t work. Guess he’s going for Moonbeam v2.
Re:
That’s what grifters do, if the first grift doesn’t work they move on to the next one.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Another rightoid false equivalence. Yawn.
Re: Re: Re:
Not really. Grifters gon’ grift regardless of their political leanings. That grifters happen to be more public(ly celebrated) on the right side of the political aisle says more about the gullibility of conservatives than it does about grifters in general.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yeah, but Newsom as a “grifter” still does positive things overall for California. Whereas Republican grifters crank up the death rates for their domains.
That conflation of language is intentional. It’s the same thing we saw with “fake news.”
Re: Re: Re:3
And he’d still be a grifter regardless of the outcomes of his actions.
I don’t believe Newsom is a grifter. But if he is, his being a Democrat doesn’t (and shouldn’t) absolve him from being a grifter.
Re: Re: Re:4
I see most politicians as “grifters” to an extent, for certain definitions of the word. They all talk way too much shit, make way too many promises, lie through their teeth, and get paid in varying levels of shady ways while failing to deliver on promises.
In contemporary media, that word is used largely for a specific group of grifters whose grift has grown so large that they are trying to overthrow democracy and tip the pot into their pockets forever.
It’s the same thing they did with “fake news.”
Re: Re: Re:5
This is pretty much my point, but said smarter and shorter.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Stephen doesn’t have that high of an opinion of Newsom, from what I’ve seen. I remember the article where Techdirt compared Newsom to Ron DeSantis. Techdirt made this boneheaded comparison because Newsom was standing up for reproductive rights in an actual assertive way. Stephen was lockstep in thinking Newsom was behaving like DeSantis.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
take your meds Herman
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Stephen’s not gonna fuck you. You know that, right?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
hermen stephen isn’t on your side
Re: Re: Re:2
“Grifting” is an obligatory job skill for a politician — even the “good” ones. The political process and the voting public both make some level of grifting a practical necessity, for any politician seeking to get elected, or reelected.
The difference is how deeply and how willingly they participate in the grift. While some have a care for the concept of integrity and avoid grift as carefully as the political game will permit, others eagerly grasp the grift as a pillar of — even the foundation of and reason for — their entire political career.
And although grifters can be found in all sectors of political inclination, it’s very clear that in contemporary politics, the happy grifters, untroubled by concerns for personal integrity or care for their constituents, quite naturally and unmistakably gravitate towards the so-called “Right” wing of the political spectrum, to the point that “Right” wing is ballasted as much by grift, as by any interest in democracy or constructive public policy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Growing Evidence
Kids haven’t developed the willpower or discipline to resist the addictive effects of social media. The outright ban worked very well for trials in Florida, Connecticut, and Ontario.
It’s true, this was a problem. And that’s why it’s now a zero tolerance policy.
Between the 1940s and 2010s, parents couldn’t directly call or receive calls from their kids at school, and it worked out just fine. It will continue to work just fine with the cell phone stored in a locker outside of the classroom.
Re:
Back in the old days, we drank from lead pipes and garden hoses and our parents beat us with belts and garden hoses, and we turned out just fine.
Re: Re:
Or basically this Weird Al song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnAF2o5y63w
Re:
Between the 1940s and the year Columbine happened, school shootings weren’t a regular occurence. Now they are.
I’m not saying I want parents to have the last words they hear from their child be a panicked “I love you” before the child is shot. But given the choice between that and nothing, I’d prefer that parents have a chance to hear their child’s voice one more time.
Re: Re:
Do you want it enough to introduce distractions the other 99% of the time when there is no shooting, though? (Never mind that the direct solution is fixing the gun problem no other country has to deal with)
Re: Re: Re:
If a teacher/school can’t find ways to mitigate phone distractions in classrooms beyond “we’re banning all phones”, that seems like a failure on the part of the teacher/school. Parents have a role to play here as well, in that they could be teaching their kids to leave their phone alone while in class and whatnot. But if I had to choose between “distracted but able to call for help during a school shooting” and “not distracted but left with no way to call for help during a school shooting”, I’ll take the first option every time.
Re: Re: Re:
Like phone use during class can’t be banned, with strictly temporary confiscations (until the lesson is over) for any student who does anything with their phone except take an essential call?
Back in the old days, we drank from lead pipes and garden hoses and our parents beat us with belts, and we turned out just fine and garden hoses.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
ok copy paster troll
Re: Re:
They’re poking fun at the luddites.
Re: Re: Re:
oh thanks for explaining it to me i thought they were trolling for a second there
Re: Re: Re:2
i thought they were a garden house
I think teachers should be allowed to confiscate phones and return them at the end of the day if students are using them in the middle of class.
Teachers have enough stuff to deal with. They should be allowed to remove distractions from the classroom as needed.
Re:
Returning phones at the end of the lesson would be better and more equitable, though.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Jesus wept you made me agree with Newsom
It is very clear that phones are disruptive to learning in schools.
You can argue about whether banning phones is possible (of course it is, don’t be silly, and that it was done poorly before is not a reason not to try again) but that has nothing to do with whether it is a good idea. (It is, obviously)
Showing that not only do you not understand how the law works, but just basic reality.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
ok bratty matt
Re:
lmao you’re still on this?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
He literally spouts bullshit about law he’s completely wrong about (or quite possibly just gaslighting) daily, so of course I’m still on about that.
Re: Re: Re:
Projection, thy name is Matty B.
Re: Re: Re:
FTFY. YW.
Re:
Gosh, according to your own logic and own standards, Matty, this makes you a raging liberal Democrat party shill, because you seem to think that Mike agreeing with a Democrat on a single policy idea makes him a Democratic partisan.
But now we know the truth: Matty is really a Democrat partisan extremist. He just admitted it here.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
MM has *very clear biases he denies constantly.
Not sure what that has to do with me pointing out a broken clock is right twice a day.
Like seriously, what a fuucking odd thing to say.
Re: Re: Re:
Now come on Matty. You have repeatedly claimed that MM is biased because he has agreed with Democrats on things. You ignore the times he has agreed with Republicans or disagreed with Democrats (as he does all the time, if you actually could comprehend what’s written on this site).
But you insist that he’s a partisan hack or whatever, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Just because he disagrees with you, based on actual facts, on a few things.
So, here, you are supporting Newsom (and last week you supported Murthy).
Now we know MattyB is a shitlib! He supports the Newsom/Biden agenda!
Hey, if you can make such weak accusations, so can I.
Re: Re: Re:
The worst Mike has for biases is a rather mild liking for LLMs and has explicitly stated he has a low opinion of unions.
Unlike you, proud insurrectionist.
I’ll take informed biases over everything you represent.
Re:
Of course you agreed with Newsome. It’s an objectively bad plan, so it’s presumably a big favorite of yours.
Re:
Yeah, it’s clear to lots of people who don’t do actual studies or refer to them.
What is not understood about “how law works”, and how is it even relevant?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I agree with you completely. I wonder why your comment got flagged? Maybe against the narrative of the day huh?
The proper way to implement such a ban
Physically separate students from their phones, and if a student does not want to let go of his/her phone, the student should be suspended from school and sent home.
Re:
no
Re: No
How many students willingly attend school at all?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
I mean, if you’re trying to come up with a way to destroy the last vestiges of an intelligent society in this country, you really couldn’t come up with a better or easier option…
Re: Re:
I am confused if you were attempting to reply to the person who just put “no” in their reply, or if you meant to reply to David.
I don’t agree with fully physically separating them from their phones the whole day. I also don’t agree with the person who just went “no” because it contained nothing constructive. Teachers should be allowed to confiscate the phones of kids who are using them to mess around in class, and students should be allowed to use them in-between classes and such.
Re: Re: Re:
i said no cuase obviously you cant even login back to your account apparently
Re: Re: Re:2
Every accusation a blaring confession, ‘AC’.
Re: Re: Re:
Poster #2 here. I fully intended to reply to David as he seems to have forgotten that most kids don’t want to be in school. Sending them home is not the punishment he thinks it is.
Re: Re: Re:
David Nelson suggesteded suspensions for failure to give up a phone.
The AC is correct that giving kids a “get out of school” free card by refusing to surrender their property only exacerbates the issues facing public schools. AC did not claim that children must have phones. AC claimed suspending them for having them wasn’t a solution, it was a free pass to truancy.
Re: Re:
Why the hell should anyone attend school in the U.S. anymore?
The entire reason to do so, to be educated no longer means anything. No one listens to the educated, they just decide what they feeeeeeeeeeeel is correct and go with it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
I support this fully. The permissiveness that left!st progt@rds accept and encourage is ridiculous. The only worse profession to go into [unless at a wealthy private school btw] besides teaching would be policing [unless a federal job, like FBI, where you just harass the regime’s political opponents all week]!
Re: Re:
hermen your clown license
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know who Herman is and I also don’t know why you keep referencing them.
Please try to contribute constructively to the discussion.
Re: Re: Re:2
Why? You haven’t contributed much with you jibber jabber about “progtards,” to your your word. You get what you give. Maybe tend you own garden without being a douche and you’ll finally see flowers grow.
Pool. Pinball. Rock & Roll. Ouija Boards. Cable Television. Dragons & Dungeons. Satanic Cults. Computer Games. The Internet. Social Media…
You know what? I’m sensing a kind of… pattern here.
I think the real problem might be all the supposed adults, who apparently are disturbingly vulnerable to Moral Panics of all sorts — and can’t resist the urge to project their own insecurity, immaturity, and inability to think clearly, upon “the children”.
Re:
I feel like this encapsulates the mindsets of parents who think they need a near permanent method of contact with their children at all times and get mad when schools take away their kids’ phones because the kids can’t stop using them in class.
Re:
Don’t forget city living AND Carthage.
Brought to you by the ancient Greeks. Carthage, in particular, was a particular bugbear of Cato the Elder.
Re:
The incredible irony is that many of those adults causing or participating in moral panics will have experienced the former generation’s stupidity of them directly as children.
Re: Re:
Most resisted devices until the pandemic sat them on their ass for a spell. Guess they are back at it, those young people ask too many questions.
And what happens if an earthquake happens or other disasters occur?
While these events are rare, in 2009, Japan did something similar and when an earthquake happened on 2018, the Osaka Government lifted the ban. Phones can have essential uses in unlikely situations like this.
I seem to have been unusually fortunate, in that the schools I attended while growing up were very much run on the principle that students are young people in an educational institution, learning to become responsible adults and encouraged to act accordingly… rather than prisoners in some sort of penal institution, irredeemably irresponsible and untrustworthy, that need to be subjected to strict authoritarian control.
Re:
There’s a subset of parents that seem to want a lot of surveillance and control via their kids being connected to them at all times. What are teachers and school admin allowed to do about it?
Re: Re:
That’s really quite awful.
Stephen King could probably write a best-seller horror novel based on that.
Re: Re: Re:
He did.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Kids can still bypass the school firewall to access social media
When I ran my VPN alongside my online radio station, while I keot no permanent logs, I could see where people were going while logged in and I did see connections from high schools bypassing filtering to get to social media
After users logged off.they went poof
Bypassing school or workplace filtering does not break any laws so students were not competing any felony doing that
Re:
the “internet bad ass” has returned
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Just get some signal blocking paint and degrade the signal
While it will not totally block the signal it will degrade it enough where cellular internet will be very slow, but normal phone calls will still work because they do not need as much bandwidth to work
Home Depot sells it so it is legal, so do not tell me it is illegal
Re:
go back to 4 chan “internet bad ass”
Re:
Passively lowering the signal is legal. Actively jamming it is not.
The reason you don’t see it more often is that doing it passively is harder than it sounds though, especially with things like windows. It takes a lot to degrade modern cell signals enough. Companies advertise it as if you can just slap on a layer of paint, but that usually isn’t enough.
The stuff is also expensive as hell. It’s like ~$200 a bucket.
Re:
The answer to cellphones being used in class ISN’T corruption and kickbacks.
It’s to start making school less like a fucking prison and more a welcoming place to LEARN.
If caught texting during class, does the teacher then display the texts to the entire class?
Politicians pulling the same crap with each generation, surefire way to make the young voters hate their guts enough to boot them out of office.
Tempest meet teapot, on both sides of this thing.
The kids aren't the problem in that equation
Pretty sure you could accomplish a lot more for society by taking away the phones from the likes of Gavin Newsom, his wife, and any other ‘Won’t Someone Think of the Children?!’ politicians.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
No research needed. Phones weren’t allowed in school when I was in school. You simply had to pay attention in class. I don’t understand why anyone would think kids having phones in school is a good idea in any way. If your family has an emergency, the kid gets pulled out of class, simple as that.