A big frustration with policy is that it can feel far removed from the real work of schooling. Why is that? What can we do about it? Such questions seem well worth digging into today, and I can’t think of anyone better to dig with than Andy Rotherham, the author of the Eduwonk blog, a big-time education consultant, and a former special assistant for education to President Bill Clinton. Andy and I occasionally try to make sense of the twists in education politics and policy. Today, we discuss cellphone bans in schools.
–Rick

Rick: Andy, there’s been a LOT of conversation about cellphone bans in schools. I’m highly supportive of these. If anything, I think they’re just a starting point—that the real challenge is to unwind the degree to which children and teens are immersed in screens and social media in general.

My impression is that we’re on the same page here. In a recent Eduwonk column, you noted, “The bipartisan expansion of restrictions and bans is being hailed as a big victory by everyone from Jonathan Haidt to the NEA. It feels like a long-overdue pushback against toxic, addictive apps that Silicon Valley foisted on young people.”

What I found especially provocative, though, was what you wrote next. After calling the bans a sensible move, you added, “But in schools, we should also see these bans for what they are: surrender. We have nothing on offer to compete with phones, so we’re banning them.”

In fact, you argued, “You’ll always have some students checked out for various reasons, but overall good teachers don’t have boring classrooms. The problem is we don’t have enough of those classrooms. Phones didn’t create that problem, but they revealed—and then amplified—it.”

It’s a good point. But it also made me think that even adults doing things they enjoy—talking to friends or watching a ballgame—can have trouble setting their phones down and just paying attention. Are you posing an unrealistic bar for engaging students? You note that this all matters ever more with the emergence of AI, so I am curious to hear your take.

Andy: Rick, I think what you are getting at is something that is right in front of us: Many adults struggle to manage their relationships with technology, so why should we expect a 13- or 15-year-old to be able to? It may well be an unrealistic comparison point, but just because some adults struggle with their relationship with alcohol or drugs, we don’t say, “Well, screw it, not much we can do for kids.”

The real point I was trying to make was that we are having a hard time managing this right now as an addictive issue—and AI, which is coming fast, is far more intense in terms of what it can do to engage us. I share your view that the phone bans during instructional time make sense. Still, I’m also pretty leery of the government banning modes of communication or various technologies, especially right now.

So I think that means we need to talk about what we can offer that will be more compelling than an AI companion. What kind of youth sports, activities, or other face-to-face engagements are available and compelling enough to compete with screens? And what do we need to do in schools to make it more meaningful and engaging for young people than what AI can provide?

Rick: I think your allusion to drugs and alcohol is instructive. For me, that suggests the value of thinking about phones, social media, and AI as grown-up things that youth will encounter and must learn to use appropriately, rather than as unfettered goods that should be casually handed to them. In this, these new tools strike me as a lot closer to cars than to calculators.

But for decades, most advocates and educators have endorsed a “more is better” mindset regarding devices. There has been a sense that the more device-laden and online a school is, the more “future-ready” it is. Meanwhile, we’ve reached the point where 90% of 13- and 14-year-olds have their own device, and it’s unusual to spot a kid at a restaurant who’s NOT staring intently at a phone or a tablet.

The result is a collective action problem. If they’re not plugged in, kids risk being left out—because all their friends and peers are. It creates a lot of pressure on kids and parents alike. This makes a device-based childhood seem normal and means that parents who are standing firm on devices risk isolating their kids.

I’m all for more face-to-face activities and grass-touching. But I’m concerned that new norms, device addiction, and the faith that tech-heavy schools are more “future-ready” can make it difficult for parents and teachers to embrace that shift—even when they want to. Now, you’ve seen a lot of change efforts come and go over the years. Given that, any thoughts on how educators, parents, or policymakers might start to tackle this?

Andy: Well, it has to start with parents acting voluntarily and probably thinking about their own technology use and habits around their kids. It’s not easy, and most of us are implicated here. I also believe there is a lot of merit to the “wait until 8th” idea, so waiting to give them a cellphone until after 8th grade or later, and Jonathan Haidt’s concerns here about the impact of social media on mental health resonate with me. But it is, as you note, a collective action problem. You need a critical mass of parents to organize and plan around it, so that kids aren’t left out of the loop.

For their part, educators and policymakers might start by heeding your good caution that more is not necessarily better when it comes to tech. Schools can help ensure that parents are aware of the risks associated with smartphones and social media and their options in terms of delaying their kids’ access to them. Schools can’t tell parents what to do, but they can create opportunities for parents to come together and learn about these issues. AI and social media aren’t the only issues faced by young people. You and I have not talked about issues like porn or sports betting, where, often unbeknownst to parents, technology is bringing young people into contact with things they are unprepared for at that age.

We might also have a conversation about why so many students are disengaged from school. Chronic absenteeism is declining but is still far higher than pre-pandemic levels. And many students are present but nonetheless disengaged. This is not the case in all classrooms or schools, and that’s a good place to start—who is succeeding and why? But asking that question is a challenge in a field that’s still largely allergic to differentiation.

Still, the core issue is, as you note, that we meter risky things out to kids in various ways. You can’t ban tech forever; young people will have to learn to have a healthy relationship with it. We all need to learn how to do that and, as anyone who is paying attention knows, we’re falling short.