Banning phones in school represents the intolerance of education
Tolerance for intolerance creates intolerant systems
The four-century status quo of adding rules and mandates — inhibiting fun —in the education system is still going strong. Even though most parents and educators disagree about the specifics when it comes to the best way for students to learn, I think they’re all generally on the same page when it comes to the ideal of education: providing a safe environment that enables more creative problem solving using the best resources available.
That ideal can be realized, but we must learn from our mistakes. We must start living up to the values we teach our children: tolerance of dissent and respect for differing interests and opinions. A ban on phones in school is contrary to those values.
Cell phones are the new “distraction”
Phones are not the first emerging “distraction” schools are trying to restrict. In 1954, child psychologist Fredric Wertham wrote a bestseller “Seduction of the Innocent,” and testified before a Senate subcommittee where he launched a crusade against the comics industry. 14 states passed laws restricting the sale of comics within a year after the hearing. In 1986, at a protest against the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics calculator use policy, picketers said elementary school use of calculators would leave students with no reason to learn computational skills. In 2007, the Liverpool Central School District in New York decided to phase out laptops, although reversing the decision in 2015.
I wonder how many students from that district graduated, went into the job market or college, and had to figure out how to use computers effectively for the first time. The anti-computer ban prevented dissenters —those who correctly knew the value of the technology— from exploring their knowledge and abilities. That also kept them from correcting mistakes they had about computers. That means the policy banning computers in hopes of fostering more learning ended up impeding the students from learning practical, useful, and interesting things.
Counterarguments to the intolerant system
I’m going to focus on North Carolina’s current push to ban screens in schools not only because it is my home state but because they’re still in the process of actually passing it: the big mistake has yet to be implemented. Nevertheless, the arguments I present are universal and apply to any similar coercive measure in education.
According to the N&O, NC’s phone ban bills are “coming amid concerns that students have become addicted to social media and that having their phones on in class is disrupting their ability to learn.”
The underlying problem adults have with students’ technology usage isn’t that it's addictive— that’s more of an excuse. The problem they really have is that it forces them to compete with students’ other interests— like social media, friends, and games. But you should be competing with students’ interests! And the opportunity costs of compulsion will only get worse as new technologies’ usefulness is enhanced. NC’s sense of absolute, unchallengeable entitlement of students' attention does not come from the consent of the subjects, which means they’re ignoring their desires and being intolerant of dissent—in other words, authoritarian.
“It removes distractions from the kids,” Rep. Neal Jackson, a Moore County Republican, said of the policy during the House K-12 Education Committee. “It keeps them from playing games on their phones. It keeps them from cheating and it keeps them from being addicted to their phone.”
Are students actually addicted to screens? No. Like the “distractions” argument, when the state says students are “addicted” to phones and devices, what they really mean is that students are more interested in those things than the ideas they are trying to impose into students' minds.
Secondly, the state, like many in society, doesn’t articulate the distinction between addiction and obsession. Was Jeff Bezos addicted to books and commerce, or was he just really interested, persistent, and proficient? If what the state means is that students love being on their phones all the time, that’s a fine point to make. But it doesn’t confer addiction nor does it make the interests of the student bad. Screens are quite useful for exploring interests— including those mandated in school. The state knows this because both the House and State bills allow for devices to be used for in-class assignments. Again, it’s not that they think devices are addictive, or else they’d likely include themselves in the policy; it’s that they don’t want students using their devices for reasons other than what the state deems important— it’s a battle for the individual's attention and they’re losing.
Rep. Jackson also states, “The legislation doesn’t mandate how restrictive schools should be,” implying NC isn’t telling school boards they have to do it a certain way.
But they necessarily are doing that. The House bill restricts exclusively cell phones in the classroom, and the Senate bill restricts all devices everywhere on campus, except when instructed by the teacher. If a student, parent, school, or district wanted to allow screens to students at all times, even in an effort to foster creativity and learning, they would face harsh consequences from the state—once again suppressing dissent and showing no tolerance for differing values or desires.
After discussing the impropriety of students snapping photos of friends in class and cyberbullying online during school hours, local papers reported, “Lawmakers and committee members talked about how restricting phones during class will make it a safer space for students.”
The state is so concerned with privacy and bullying online that they’re going to start stealing students’ property and punishing them for using it in person—sounds like an invasion of privacy and bullying to me. According to a 2024 poll by the National Parents Union, parents say children use cell phones to call or text family members more than any other function. That is to say, it sounds like even most parents understand that the problems phones solve — safety and communication —are better than the ones they create— cyberbullying and privacy violations. The latter can and will happen anywhere, not just online. Therefore banning screens isn’t actually solving the underlying problem; namely, interpersonal conflict between confined students. And much of these conflicts, whether privacy or bullying, arise when one person attempts to suppress, shame, or steal another person's ideas and property. The state is doing the same thing to students by banning screens.
“Yes of course we too teach our values to our young, and those must include our most serious misconceptions as well as our deepest wisdom. Yet our values include being open to suggestions, tolerant of dissent, and critical of both dissent and received opinion.”
—David Deutsch, Co-Founder of Taking Children Seriously
NC has enough problems
It’s a severe mistake to ban screens in schools, especially as your state's school system — public and charter — runs dry in funding for new, more, and improved technologies. The NC General Assembly passed half a billion dollars for private school vouchers as schools with fewer resources suffer. The state's solution isn’t to expand funding for technology, especially to low-income students, but to ban them altogether.
Like those students in New York who graduated less knowledgeable of how to utilize computers productively and efficiently, more NC students will graduate into a world full of screens, codes, and algorithms with less proficiency. Many may think that students will get plenty of screen time at home to perfect their skills, but for many in the world, in the country, and North Carolina, that simply isn’t true.
The goal of banning all devices for students, at all times except for class instruction, will lead to resentment, manipulation, distrust, and disinterest on the part of students. Most importantly, it will leave them confused! Why are they only allowed to think about things they find interesting when they receive permission from an authority, just for the freedom to have so many constraints that you never make it to the interesting bit? The students’ suffering will be more impactful than any attempts of instruction or “discipline”.
“So, we’re not saying there is one-size-fits-all,” Rep. Neal Jackson said.
Yes, you are saying exactly that. A ban on devices except for emergencies and instruction is a one-size-fits-all mandate; it does not allow for dissent nor unique interests of the student to be explored. And therefore, there is no way it is solving problems for the students. People think if we just add enough rules, the systemization will usher in unprecedented progress in students' test scores, as though we haven’t tried it before. Rules and systemization are the status quo; let’s try a new approach.
