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: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Gavin Newsom Jumps On Moral Panic Bandwagon To Ban Phones In School Despite Evidence Suggesting It Doesn’t Work”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
91 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I got top marks throughout high school, college, and graduate school without ever having to carry a smart phone with me.

Good for you. Not everyone is like you. Also, this isn’t just about grades.

Kids today should be able to achieve no less whilst unencumbered by such devices.

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.

mcinsand says:

Re: Re: Boomer and a luddite…

Boomer and a luddite… Quite a combo there…

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:

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.

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

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

― Jean-Paul Sartre regarding fascism’s original rise

bhull242 (profile) says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.”

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

BernardoVerda (profile) says:

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.

Koby (profile) says:

Growing Evidence

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.

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.

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

It’s true, this was a problem. And that’s why it’s now a zero tolerance policy.

and parents wanted to know that in an emergency, their kids could call.

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.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

Between the 1940s and 2010s, parents couldn’t directly call or receive calls from their kids at school, and it worked out just fine.

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.

Arianity says:

Re: Re:

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.

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)

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Do you want it enough to introduce distractions the other 99% of the time when there is no shooting, though?

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Do you want it enough to introduce distractions the other 99% of the time when there is no shooting, though?

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?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Matthew M Bennett says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

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]!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
BernardoVerda (profile) says:

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”.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

can’t resist the urge to project their own insecurity, immaturity, and inability to think clearly

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.

BernardoVerda (profile) says:

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

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

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

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

Arianity says:

Re:

Home Depot sells it so it is legal, so do not tell me it is illegal

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.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the Techdirt Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...