Last week the Los Angeles Unified School District took a big step in favor of common sense: It voted to ban the use of mobile phones during school days. Other districts should follow its lead, starting with the largest one in the country: New York City.
Two decades ago, our administration banned mobile phones in all public schools, despite the storm of protests it generated. The ban was one of many policy changes that allowed us to transform the school system in ways that dramatically raised student achievement levels. Although it was undone by our successor, public support for mobile phone bans has grown nationally — and across party lines.
Teachers know all too well how disruptive phones are to learning, with 72 percent of high-school teachers nationwide calling phone use a “major problem.” No wonder: One study found that 97 percent of teenagers use their phones during school hours, receiving a median of 237 push notifications a day. Much of that screen time consists of playing video games, browsing social media and watching pornography — not exactly the three R’s.
Unsurprisingly, this can have devastating effects on learning. A large body of evidence has associated increased phone use with impaired academic performance, including lower test scores, worse grades, reduced long-term retention and wider achievement gaps. Phone-related anxiety is widespread: One study found that students who are glued to their screens can create a cascade of distraction among their peers, while another found that the “mere proximity” of a mobile device is enough to impede focus.
Phones in classrooms can contribute to serious harm outside of school, too. A growing body of evidence suggests a connection between increased use of smartphones and social media and threats to young people’s brains, including a higher risk of depression, poorer cognitive control, chronic sleep deprivation and worse socio-emotional functioning. A recent advisory from the US surgeon general warned that social media is creating a “profound risk of harm to the mental health and well-being of children and adolescents.” Although the data is not conclusive, ignoring it would be crazy.
About three-quarters of US schools report that they prohibit phone use for nonacademic reasons, but without a complete ban — including on flip phones that allow texting — students easily evade the rules. Plus, many schools allow exceptions that can vary from classroom to classroom. Such policies are hard to enforce, impose outsized burdens on teachers and often leave students just as distracted, as their phones buzz and beep in their backpacks all day. Districtwide bans, enforced uniformly throughout the school day, including during lunchtime and breaks, are far more likely to be effective.
Studies suggest that mobile phone bans can do a lot of good, as we saw in New York City. Analyses of previous prohibitions in Europe have found evidence of increased grades and test scores, less bullying, and reduced achievement gaps. That would come as no surprise to high-school teachers.
There is a bill in the US Congress, the focus on learning act, that would provide funds to study the issue, solicit feedback from parents and help schools pay for phone lockers and other equipment. It deserves support, but districts and states should not wait for its passage.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has signaled his support for a statewide ban, as has New York Governor Kathy Hochul. They should move quickly, and other governors should join them — but in the meantime, individual districts should take action on their own.
In New York City, where mobile phone policies vary from school to school, Mayor Eric Adams can help lead the way in adopting a comprehensive and uniform ban.
Of course, some children and parents would complain and argue. My advice to elected officials and school boards is simple: Do not buy it. There is too much at stake.
It is encouraging that more elected leaders are finally acknowledging what teachers have known for years: Mobile phones are a problem that children cannot be expected to manage. Let us do students the great service of taking that problem out of their hands.
Michael R. Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News, UN Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions and chair of the Defense Innovation Board.
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS