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.
