New York City is expected to release its school policy for artificial intelligence on Wednesday, with a ban on student-facing AI tools for 2-K through eighth grade, according to four people briefed on the plans and Education Department documents obtained by Chalkbeat.

Under the new rules, the youngest children in the nation鈥檚 largest school system 鈥� those in its early childhood programs, elementary schools, and middle schools 鈥� would not have access to generative AI, including chatbots and AI tutors, sources said.

The guidelines bar schools from giving individual devices to students in preschools through second grade, though classrooms will be allowed to have smart boards, sources said. For students in grades 3 to 5, the policy recommends limiting screen time on individual devices to 30 minutes and 45 minutes for middle school students.

High schoolers are expected to have restricted access to AI, but might be able to use it for literacy, career readiness programs, and in five pilot programs at an unspecified number of schools, according to the Daily News, . Screen time recommendations depend on subject matter and school approach.

The restrictions would represent a significantly more aggressive stance against AI and screen time in schools than the city had taken. Education leaders across the country are likely to be watching as they also grapple with how students should interact with the fast-changing technology.

鈥淵ounger students need hands-on learning, social interaction, play, and teacher-guided instruction,鈥� Education Department officials wrote in a presentation outlining the policy obtained by Chalkbeat. 鈥淩outine individual screen use can crowd out those experiences.鈥�

In high school, the presentation continued, 鈥渟tudents need guided preparation for a world and economy increasingly driven by AI and new technologies -paired with instruction on how AI works, its biases and risks, and how to evaluate its outputs.鈥�

Teachers will be allowed to use approved AI tools for such instructional tasks as lesson planning, translation, and drafting communications, according to the presentation. They will not be allowed to use the technology for grading, behavior monitoring, counseling, or developing special education plans.

City officials are in the process of creating a task force that will offer input on the policy鈥檚 implementation going forward, multiple people briefed on the Education Department鈥檚 plans said.

An Education Department spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

Multiple people said there would be some exceptions to the policy to account for regular assessments in reading and math that students typically complete on computers, as well as for some student groups, including English language learners and students with disabilities.

When the city unveiled its preliminary AI guidelines in March, forcing the city to rethink its approach and delay its timeline for a comprehensive policy by about two months, leaving little time for schools to prepare for the change before the first day on Sept. 10. It鈥檚 unclear how the Education Department plans to enforce the policy.

The initial guidance used a traffic-light framework to delineate risk levels of different AI uses in the classroom, mainly by teachers. Student AI use 鈥� one of the thorniest issues educators and families are currently confronting 鈥� got little attention.

The city seemed caught off guard by the momentum of grassroots parent groups calling for an AI moratorium, with thousands of people signing a petition to stop the use of generative AI in schools and scores voicing their concerns at school board meetings.

More than half of City Council members use in schools, citing concerns about learning and mental health. Samuels acknowledged in May that indicating that the final version would have more stringent rules on AI use, especially for younger students.

In July, as the city hashed out its new guidance, until officials released the new policy, who worried they would not have access to key software programs, such as electronic gradebooks and platforms to communicate with families, when welcoming students back to school next week.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) 鈥�  has agreed to pay $17 billion and add stronger child-safety measures to its Facebook and Instagram platforms to end  over teen social media addiction and settle claims filed by 47 states, state attorneys general announced Wednesday.

The settlement resolves a pivotal legal case years in the making that sought to hold the tech giant accountable for the role its platforms played in undermining children鈥檚 mental health. The effort targeted features designed to hook young people鈥檚 attention.

鈥淔or years, Meta intentionally deceived the public about the addictive and harmful design features that have wreaked havoc on youth mental health,鈥� Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said. The settlement 鈥渨ill put an end to these dangerous practices and deliver meaningful relief that will protect children from online harm.鈥�

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the money would be paid out over 10 years, with the state getting at least $1.5 billion if the settlement is approved by the court. New Jersey expects to receive at least $525 million. Massachusetts said it was in line for at least $366 million. Virginia鈥檚 share is worth $353 million.

Meta urges rivals to adopt similar safety measures

Meta said in a blog post that it was 鈥渂uilding on our longstanding efforts to empower parents and support teens.鈥�

鈥淓nsuring teens have a safe and productive experience on our platforms is an absolute imperative for Meta,鈥� the company said. 鈥淲e want to get this right for parents and teens, and that鈥檚 why we partnered with state attorneys general to set a new industry standard.鈥�

The company urged rivals TikTok and YouTube to adopt similar safety measures.

The $17 billion settlement is a fraction of Meta鈥檚 2025 revenue of $201 billion.

The agreement cuts short an ongoing court case involving California, Colorado, Kentucky and New Jersey, which were among 29 states that  in 2023. CEO Mark Zuckerberg was among those expected to  before a jury in federal court in California.

The lawsuit accused Meta of contributing to the youth mental health crisis by deliberately designing features that聽聽to its platforms and hiding them from the public. The case also argued that Meta violated federal laws by routinely collecting data on children under 13 without their parents鈥� consent.

The trial  in Oakland, California, with U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers overseeing the proceedings. Adam Mosseri, the head of Instagram, began his testimony late Tuesday and defended Meta鈥檚 record and progress on child safety and privacy.

The cases in other states had been expected to go to trial later. In addition, nine attorneys general filed lawsuits in their respective states.

New features to include time limits and curbs on push notifications

Under the proposed settlement, Meta agreed to adopt a series of safety features, including a 鈥渉ard cap鈥� on daily time limits and pauses for children using Instagram and Facebook.

It will eliminate push notifications during weekday school hours and bring in 鈥渞obust鈥� age-assurance measures and 鈥渁ge-appropriate鈥� content controls to prevent bullying and harmful material about eating disorders and self-harm.

There will be stronger and more user-friendly parental controls and limits on social comparison features such as 鈥渓ike鈥� counts.

An independent auditor will assess how Meta is implementing the safety features and how effective they are.

Meta put the settlement at $18 billion, a figure that apparently includes a large award for Texas.

The money is to be paid out annually over 10 years, to fund youth online safety initiatives. However, the company said 30% of that amount 鈥� about $5.3 billion 鈥� will only be released to states if rivals YouTube and TikTok meet two conditions: implementing similar safety features, including a one-hour daily time limit, a nighttime block and age-assurance measures; and paying the same amount, split between the two companies.

Neither YouTube owner Google nor TikTok responded immediately to requests for comments.

Investigation was led by bipartisan coalition

The federal lawsuit was the result of an investigation led by a bipartisan coalition of attorneys general from California, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Vermont. It followed newspaper reports, first by聽聽in 2021, that found that the company knew about the harm Instagram can cause teenagers 鈥� especially teen girls 鈥� when it comes to mental health and body image issues.

Meta has since added a  to Instagram, including separate accounts for teenagers with stronger protections around messaging and privacy, along with content restrictions.

But child safety experts, along with some , have long contended that the features are little more than window dressing.

, a former Meta engineering director, said during his testimony last week that Meta consistently prioritized profits over safety in designing its products, focusing on how often and for how long people used them, even if it was detrimental to their mental well-being.

鈥淚f you step away from the product, they are not going to make any money,鈥� he said.

While the four states in the Oakland trial did not officially say how much they had been seeking, Meta said in a court filing that financial penalties in the case could amount to as much as $1.4 trillion 鈥� a figure legal experts said was unlikely, if not impossible.

As superintendent of Desert Sands Unified in California鈥檚 Coachella Valley, Kelly May-Vollmar has a hard time naming a system that鈥檚 not somehow connected to the district鈥檚 broadband network.

Parents can check a school bus tracking app to make sure their child arrived on time. Cafeteria staff don鈥檛 use cash registers; kids鈥� meal accounts are linked to the cloud. Even grounds crews depend on external wireless access points to maintain the fields and landscaping at the district鈥檚 34 schools.

鈥淭hey’re running our sprinkler systems off iPads,鈥� May-Vollmar said.

Her district is like the across the country that apply each year for discounts on broadband service through a federal program called E-Rate. High-poverty districts like Desert Sands save up to 90% of the cost of connecting their schools and classrooms to the internet.

But the Federal Communications Commission, which oversees the program Congress created 30 years ago, has launched a 鈥渢op-to-bottom鈥� evaluation that has leaders of the nation鈥檚 school districts on edge. The FCC is collecting views on how the program should be reformed or even whether it should be abandoned altogether because it 鈥渉as fulfilled鈥� its mission. In addition to asking whether the benefit should be restricted to rural districts, the agency links E-Rate to present-day concerns over screen time. Oct. 13 and replies are due Nov. 12.

The proposal is 鈥渁imed at empowering parents and ensuring that our E-Rate program produces the great educational outcomes stakeholders have intended,鈥� FCC Chairman in early June when he announced the review. In , the far-right Heritage Foundation鈥檚 blueprint for the Trump administration, Carr said because of advancements in technology, decisions about the program 鈥渟hould be made with an eye to right-sizing the federal government鈥檚 existing broadband initiatives.鈥�

The review process has left ed tech leaders both confused and ready to fight.

鈥淭hey’re asking us to comment on a potential rulemaking and they haven’t told us what the rules would be,鈥� said Keith Krueger, CEO of the Consortium for School Networking, a leading ed tech professional organization. He called the initial the FCC released 鈥渟o extraordinarily broad and comprehensive鈥� that they鈥檙e too overwhelming for the average district leader to address. 鈥淲e’re going to have to be very loud and noisy as a community to our members of Congress and to governors to say 鈥楬ands off the E-Rate.鈥� 鈥澛�

As in Desert Sands, districts depend on internet access for a lot more than classroom instruction, including taking attendance and managing payroll. But it鈥檚 how students use the internet at school that has taken over the discussion about updating the program.

鈥淗istorically, underserved students lacked access to computers and technology, and efforts were made to 鈥榗lose the digital divide,鈥� 鈥� said Emily Cherkin, a Seattle-based consultant and leading figure in the battle against 鈥渂ig tech.鈥� In 2026, she said, 鈥渢he pendulum has swung too far.鈥�

In January, she , saying that children鈥檚 access to the internet has led to 鈥渃atastrophic鈥� impacts on their mental health, learning and development. In response to those concerns, some states are . Parents are demanding the chance to of apps and learning platforms, and others, including Cherkin, are suing and publishers, accusing them of and .  

鈥楢 connectivity program鈥�

Groups like the Consortium for School Networking have called for a balanced approach before the valid concerns over kids鈥� time online threatens the loss of a program that saves schools and libraries over $2.5 billion each year. 

The discounts apply to high-speed internet service as well as Wi-Fi access points, routers and switches. Desert Sands, for example, is currently upgrading such equipment district-wide 鈥� a $1 million project that is only costing the district $200,000 because of the discount. But E-Rate benefits don鈥檛 extend to devices for students, digital content or software licenses. 

E-Rate 鈥渋s a connectivity program,鈥� Krueger said. 鈥淚t’s not an education program.鈥� 

Last week, CoSN released highlighting examples of 鈥減urposeful鈥� technology use and stressed that there鈥檚 a difference between a student scrolling social media during the school day and another working with a classmate on a multimedia project. 

鈥淭he goal is not simply to reduce or increase screen time,鈥� the report says. 鈥淭he goal is to ensure that every use of technology has a clear instructional purpose.鈥�

But Cherkin is skeptical of what she calls the industry鈥檚 鈥�.鈥� As long as students are spending time on a device, she wrote that it doesn鈥檛 matter whether they have high-quality materials. Her years as a former middle school English teacher in Seattle private schools, from 2003 to 2015, helped to shape her views on technology. Schools had computer labs and a dedicated technology teacher, a model she鈥檇 like to see reinstated. That arrangement evolved into reserving a cart with laptops that she would bring to her classroom when needed.

The turning point, she said, was when she started uploading grades into a digital portal.

鈥淚nstead of coming to talk to me directly and having a conversation about what they might need to do to improve 鈥� they were instead directed to a digital platform that had a number or letter grade, which told them very little overall,鈥� she said. 鈥淚 saw it devaluing the experience of learning to be a student who could self-advocate.鈥�

Parents, whom she described as 鈥渉ighly anxious,鈥� constantly checked the portal and emailed her about why their children didn鈥檛 get an A or were missing a grade. Despite her concerns over the internet鈥檚 impact on students, she still supports the argument that access should be universally available. 

鈥楶ulling out the rug鈥�

For Krueger and others who fought to increase access for students in schools and homes, this moment feels like a giant step backward. As founder of EducationSuperhighway, a nonprofit, Evan Marwell advocated for a fiber connection to every school in the nation, reaching . 

鈥淭here are a lot of good uses of technology in classrooms,鈥� he said. 鈥淧ulling out the rug from teachers and students on all those good uses would be, in my opinion, a big mistake.鈥� 

During the pandemic, his organization pivoted to signing up low-income families for discounted high-speed service at home so students wouldn鈥檛 have to sit in McDonalds鈥� parking lots to pick up Wi-Fi to do homework.

Last fall, in its first move toward rolling back federal broadband initiatives, the FCC at-home and school bus Wi-Fi access from the program, features that were added during the Biden administration. The move, Carr said in , would end what he called 鈥渋llegal funding鈥� of young kids鈥� unsupervised screen time.

Sen. Edward Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who wrote the E-Rate program as part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act said in that the decision would 鈥渓eave low-income, rural and marginalized communities disconnected.鈥� 

The FCC asks whether E-Rate should be 鈥渓imited or sunset,鈥� considering the nearly universal access in schools. But Kevin Taglang, an executive editor with the Benton Institute for Broadband and Society, a nonprofit, that high-poverty districts receiving the largest discounts serve more than 16 million students. In Desert Sands, those kids have parents who work at the resorts, golf courses and restaurants across Palm Springs.

鈥淎ny eligibility change that removes these schools from the program, or substantially reduces their discount levels, would fall hardest on the students and districts least able to absorb the loss,鈥� he wrote.

Preventing fraud

Conservatives first tried to end E-Rate through a 2023 lawsuit. Consumers Research, a nonprofit, argued that the FCC鈥檚 arrangement with the Universal Service Administrative Company, the private entity that , was illegal and gave too much power to a federal agency. But in a 6-3 decision last year, the U.S. Supreme Court .

The Government Accountability Office, a federal watchdog agency, highlighted E-Rate in a , saying that out of five government programs evaluated, it was the only one following all nine recommended practices for preventing fraud, waste and abuse. That was a big improvement over a , which flagged the program for 鈥渟everal key fraud risks.鈥� 

Krueger, with CoSN, said some improvements to E-Rate are needed, like more 鈥渟erious funding鈥� for cybersecurity. 

鈥淗aving broadband that is at risk for cyber attacks isn’t helpful,鈥� he said. 

Between July 2023 and December 2024, 82% of schools experienced some type of cyber incident, such as a ransomware attack, a data breach or a phishing attempt, according to last year from the nonprofit Center for Internet Security. When the FCC opened up a $200 million E-Rate cybersecurity pilot program in 2024, the demand was huge. The agency totaling $3.7 billion. 

Krueger, however, questions whether the FCC is the right agency to determine whether Wi-Fi access is harming students鈥� learning. That, he said, should be the responsibility of the Office of Educational Technology, which the Trump administration gutted last year when it eliminated roughly half of the Department of Education鈥檚 staff.

At a late July gathering in Washington, Amber Davis, chief of staff in the Department of Education鈥檚 Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, told advocates from about 22 states that there is still an ed tech office at the agency, according to CoSN Chair Stacy Hawthorne. The attendees, Hawthorne said, joked that it may only exist on paper. 

The department did not respond to questions about the makeup of the office. But on Thursday it issued that tries to redirect the debate over ed tech away from screen time. Ed tech 鈥渟hould not be evaluated solely by the amount of time students spend using it,鈥� it said, adding that district spending on technology should be 鈥済uided by evidence of effectiveness.鈥�

The July event was one of several likely to occur over the next couple months as leaders advocate to preserve E-Rate. With this year鈥檚 application period already complete, the FCC on July 29 that the program still exists and that its 鈥渘otice of potential rulemaking鈥� won鈥檛 immediately result in a loss of funding. 

If the administration scales back or discontinues E-Rate, district leaders say they鈥檒l have to make up the difference somehow. LaTonya Goffney, superintendent of the Aldine Independent School District, near Houston, said with 86% of her district鈥檚 budget tied up in personnel, she would have to cut staff or programs to replace the more than $2 million saved each year from discounts.

鈥淭he utilities, the transportation 鈥� all of those things we can’t eliminate,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e still have to provide those for our students.鈥�

In Desert Sands, May-Vollmar added that because E-Rate requires聽, the cost of broadband service for schools would likely increase if the program is gone. For her, unlimited Wi-Fi in the classroom replicates the real-world for students.聽

鈥淵ou and I don’t schedule time to go to a computer lab,鈥� she said. 鈥淎t work, if I say 鈥楨verybody, go get your computer,鈥� we have that ability. I want that ability in the classroom, too.鈥�

Screen time limits for Los Angeles Unified School District鈥檚 youngest students begin in August.

鈥淢y hope and expectation is that most families will see a dramatic reduction in screen time during the school day, but also in the evenings, as mandated by school,鈥� said Nick Melvoin, who represents the Westside鈥檚 Board District 4.

While LAUSD was the , the policy, along with , is part of a nationwide trend toward limiting young people鈥檚 exposure to tech during the school day.

Many parents have embraced 鈥� and advocated for鈥� less technology in the classroom, but questions remain about how LAUSD will enforce the screen time limits and the potential for unintended consequences for students who have less access to devices outside of school.

What part of the screen time limits start in August?

The  eliminates digital device usage for students in early education (preschool), transitional kindergarten (TK), kindergarten and first grade.

There are several exceptions, including:

Students will not be automatically issued devices to take home. However, there is still a process for families to request one.

The policy also requires the district to block all students from accessing YouTube, social media and streaming platforms without teacher approval.

The type of work students bring home may change, too. The policy encourages educators to provide off-screen assignments.

鈥淗omework should prioritize reading, writing, problem-solving, hands-on activities, observation, and other learning experiences that can be completed without the use of a device,鈥� .

Andr茅s Chait, the district鈥檚 superintendent, said at a July 21 news conference that implementing the new policy will take time.

鈥淥n Aug. 12, you may not necessarily see in the immediate all of the changes that the policy calls for, but they will be implemented methodically and transparently,鈥� Chait said.

Where did the screen time policy come from?

A group of Los Angeles parents organized a group called  in 2025 and started , collecting petition signatures and .

Melvoin brought forward the resolution that ultimately led to the new policy .

鈥淲e had not recalibrated or reset our relationship with technology post-COVID,鈥� said Melvoin, at the time. 鈥淪ix years ago, we sent every kid in L.A. home with a device, which was a lifeline. 鈥� But when they came back, I’m still seeing kids as young as preschool on devices all day.鈥�

The board adopted the policy  after staff conducted research and outreach to parents, educators and community members.

How much does it cost to limit screen time?

District staff  up to $4 million in one-time funds to purchase carts to store laptops in elementary school classrooms and an annual $1 million to pay for software to track screen time and block content.

The district has yet to spend this money, according to a statement from a Los Angeles Unified spokesperson.

鈥淐onversations with schools will take place in the early part of the upcoming school year to assess needs on a school-by-school basis,鈥� the statement read.

Was there any pushback to the new policy?

The board voted unanimously to adopt the screen time policy with the exception of Board President Scott Schmerelson, who recused himself from the vote.

However, there was some discussion about whether the limitations would have unintended consequences for teachers and students.

Board Vice President Roc铆o Rivas cautioned that the minute limits may discourage teachers from assigning multimedia projects, and adds the burden of monitoring student technology use.

鈥淪chools may end up focusing on counting minutes, documenting usage, auditing classrooms instead of evaluating learning outcomes,鈥� Rivas said.

LAUSD staff鈥檚  noted a 鈥渞isk of slowing access to technology and its advancement for students to compete with the world.鈥�

During public comment in June, Mireya Garcia, a mother and grandmother, told the board that her family shares a single computer at home.

鈥淚 don鈥檛 want them to lose access to tools that can help them read, to learn and to be successful,鈥� Garcia said.

How are teachers preparing for the changes?

LAUSD adopted the screen time policy when most teachers and students were off-campus for the summer.

A Los Angeles Unified spokesperson wrote in a statement that training has started with 鈥渄edicated sessions鈥� for principals and administrators and that more resources will be available to educators before Aug.12 and throughout the school year.

鈥淭his approach allows us to be respectful of educators鈥� time while ensuring schools are prepared and supported for a successful rollout,鈥� the spokesperson wrote.

The first opportunity for most teachers to return to their classroom is on Monday, Aug. 10, two days before school starts.

Stephanie Levinson, who鈥檚 taught at San Fernando Elementary for 28 years, said she has not received any additional guidance from the district since the policy was passed this summer.

This year, she鈥檒l teach a combined first- and second-grade class. Under the new policy, first graders do not have access to digital devices and second graders can use them for up to 20 minutes per day this year.

鈥淚t’s stressful because we don’t know,鈥� Levinson said. 鈥淚t’s hard to plan a school day when we’re not sure what’s gonna be mandated, how things are gonna work.鈥�

Levinson said that, in the past, she鈥檇 assign students to use interactive learning programs like ABCmouse while she worked with their peers in small groups. She also fundraised to bring laptops and tablets to her classroom, where most students come from low-income families, before the devices were widespread in the district.

鈥淚f a kid hasn’t learned how to even use a computer or type, how are they going to鈥ot be disadvantaged against kids that have computers?鈥� Levinson said.

How can families get access to a digital device?

Parents and guardians can request a take-home device  or through the district鈥檚 .

The Los Angeles Public Library has a for adults.

What鈥檚 next for screen time in LAUSD?

The policy requires the board to review the screen time rules at least once a year during a public meeting.

鈥淥ne of the reasons we crafted this policy is because we didn’t see a policy that we could just adopt nationally,鈥� Melvoin said. 鈥淏ut that also means that it’ll be iterative and that we’re working out the kinks.鈥�

The district has also created an ad hoc committee to provide recommendations on how the district is using AI.

• District- and state-mandated assessments.聽
• Students enrolled in the LAUSD Virtual Academy program.聽
• To help students with disabilities learn, as mandated by their Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 Plan.聽

This was originally published by .

But when she saw an announcement at her high school for a camping trip in Michigan鈥檚 Upper Peninsula, she was intrigued.

鈥淚 couldn鈥檛 help but wonder why anyone would drive nine hours just to sleep in the woods,鈥� said Begum, who went on to co-found an outdoor adventure club at her high school. 鈥淏ut as I lay in my tent that night, I realized that the fresh air and peacefulness of being by the lake were unlike anything I have ever experienced.鈥�

The trip opened up a new world of friendships and ignited a love of nature, said Begum, who will begin her sophomore year at the University of Michigan this fall. 

But experiences like Begum鈥檚 are in shorter supply this summer, outdoor education advocates said, after cuts to federal grants led to the abrupt cancellation of hiking and camping trips for tens of thousands of children and teens.  

鈥淲e’re worried there鈥檚 going to be a domino effect of losing a whole generation of kids who don’t have early access to nature,鈥� said Julia Hurwit, campaign manager of the Sierra Club鈥檚 Outdoor Alliance for Kids (OAK). 鈥淲e know that early access to nature is what creates lifelong advocates and environmental stewards who then grow up to lead outings like this.鈥� 

It may also be an antidote for excessive time spent in front of a phone or computer, Hurwit said. Studies show on average, kids between the ages of 8 and 18 spend more than watching or using screens, which can lead to sleep problems and mental health issues.

鈥淭his generation is spending the least amount of time outside of any generation in history,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e seeing the mental and physical impacts of that.鈥�

Founded in 2010, OAK includes more than 100 organizations that provide outdoor experiences like Nazma Begum鈥檚 camping trip. Under past presidential administrations, OAK and its members received relatively abundant support, including President Obama鈥檚in 2015 to make it easier for kids in cities to get to trails and President Biden鈥檚 2025 to increase outdoor access for youth and veterans. 

But this summer, camping programs in Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota and California were canceled in the wake of funding cuts, according to Sierra Club data, scaling back summer activities for thousands of children, many of whom are from underserved communities. 

In February 2025, President Trump鈥檚 administration cut in AmeriCorps grant funding, forcing the cancellation of outdoor education programs across the country. Even after some funds were restored later in the year, many programs had already been called off,聽 including trips for nearly 24,000 students in and 3,000 youth in Wisconsin, where the Girl Scouts of the Northwestern Great Lakes its Reaching Out program.

Federal workforce reductions also forced some programs to call off educational experiences. In Alaska, some Denali Discovery Camp youth trips for youth were canceled last summer after an education program manager was laid off.  

In spite of the cancellations, the Sierra Club increased its goal for the number of kids that participate in outdoor education this summer and beyond. The initiative, launched in June, aims to create more opportunities for students to learn outside and get more kids outside by next summer. So far more than 150 organizations have joined the initiative, helping 50,000 children connect with nature.

鈥淲e鈥檙e trying to engage our members to bring joy back into this work and grow the base,鈥� Hurwit says, 鈥渟o that if in a few years we have the chance to make moves on the policy front, we’re able to do that in a much more effective way.鈥�

Hurwit hopes the initiative will mobilize member organizations so that it will be easier to successfully lobby for legislation that benefits outdoor education. The , for example, was introduced in March but has not advanced during this congressional session. 

She said the Million Kids Outdoors initiative is also intended to raise the visibility of organizations that continue to lead camping, hiking, canoeing and other outdoor trips even as federal support decreases. Detroit Outdoors, a partnership between the Sierra Club and the Detroit Department of Parks and Recreation, took eight teenagers to Yosemite National Park in July for a week of climbing, photography, poetry, painting and swimming in the chilly Merced River. 

Detroit Outdoors also offers overnight camping trips in Michigan to train teachers to bring their students to Scout Hollow, a campground in Detroit鈥檚 Rouge Park.

鈥淲e support the teachers so they can take their lessons outside and be able to do it where the kids are going to be safe, warm and dry and have the equipment they need,鈥� says Garrett Dempsey, lead Sierra Club staff with Detroit Outdoors. 鈥淲e really believe that time outside offers so much for a classroom environment, when it comes to learning larger academic concepts or about yourself.鈥�

Research backs up the arguments that . Especially since COVID, outdoor education is seen in different states as a way to boost mental health and academic outcomes. Initiatives to reduce screen time and develop green spaces to cool urban 鈥渉eat islands鈥� often go hand-in-hand with efforts to get kids outside for instruction. 

When federal grant money isn鈥檛 available, some organizations are able to step up their fundraising efforts. Sausalito-based NatureBridge leads overnight environmental science trips in national parks for students in grades 4 through 12. The organization raises more than $1 million annually to fund scholarships so that students who qualify for free and reduced-lunch can participate.

“Students need time away from screens, meaningful science learning and opportunities to connect with each other and the natural world,鈥� says NatureBridge President and CEO Phillip Kilbridge. 鈥淭he challenge isn’t demand, it’s that many schools are making decisions in an environment of increasing financial uncertainty.”

When the COVID-19 pandemic forced in-person classroom instruction to go virtual, students to have their own laptops or tablets and complete assignments.

to address . This between students and families who had their own tablets, computers and high-speed internet, and those who did not.

While most schools resumed in-person classes by 2021, on online platforms and apps to help their students do their work.

Today, however, more and more schools are reconsidering how technology fits into teaching and learning, with many districts establishing clearer expectations about when technology should be used, for what purpose and .

So far, as of late July 2026, had introduced or debated legislation addressing classroom screen time or student use of digital devices. Six states had already enacted new laws, while others had considered or failed to pass similar measures.

Iowa, for example, passed a law that for elementary students. Maine鈥檚 legislation did not put specific screen time limits in place but on the impact of classroom technology.

Instead of treating screens as the default tool for instruction, some schools are directing teachers to use laptops only when the technology adds clear instructional value.

Passive consumption or purposeful use?

The Los Angeles Unified School District is one example of a school district that is shifting away from technology in the classrooms.

In June 2026, Los Angeles approved that eliminates in-school screen use for students in preschool through first grade. It also established screen time .

Los Angeles is also moving away from sending school-issued devices home with every student. Instead, elementary students can use shared classroom devices, and families can then opt in for take-home devices in older grades.

The Marietta City Schools district in Georgia is another example. The district adopted a policy in July 2026 that calls for device screens to be 鈥渃losed by default鈥� and used only when they serve .

At the state level, a July 2026 prohibits 1-1 device-per-student ratios for students in kindergarten to third grade. There are some exceptions to this policy, such as when students are taking state standardized tests.

In other states, lawmakers are considering similar laws that would restrict or limit the use of school-issued devices during the school day.

How students use screens matters

What makes these developments notable is not any single policy but how quickly the conversation around education and technology has changed.

The American Academy of Pediatrics children spend on screens each day. Instead, parents and educators could consider the quality of digital experiences and what screen use may be displacing.

Technology can support learning when it is , while excessive or passive screen use that displaces sleep, physical activity, play or may .

This distinction between is increasingly shaping school policy. Updated policies also reflect an emerging emphasis on age-appropriate screen use, student well-being and ensuring that technology can support, rather than replace, .

vary, a common through line is that students鈥� ages matter when it comes to using technology.

For older students, technology may remain central to learning, particularly when students are using it to program, analyze data, model complex systems and critically evaluate information. Younger children, meanwhile, should have sufficient opportunities for play, conversation, writing, movement and hands-on, .

Teachers can still prepare students for a digital world

of the National Academies consensus committee examining the future of data and computing education in K-12 schools, asking a simple question: What do today鈥檚 students need to know about the technologies that increasingly shape their lives?

Our shows that students need to learn more than how to use a laptop or an artificial intelligence chatbot. Our research found that they should also understand how data is collected and used, how AI and other computing systems work, how technology affects people and society, and how to use these tools to solve real problems.

The issue, according to our findings, is not whether students spend more or less time using technology. It is whether the time they spend with technology helps them build understanding, solve problems, think critically and make informed decisions.

arrives at the same : Students learn the most when they actively use technology to investigate questions, analyze information and solve problems 鈥� consume digital content.

that technology was most valuable when students used it to investigate scientific questions, test ideas, create models, work with classmates and explain their reasoning.

The technology itself was not what improved learning. What mattered was how teachers used it to .

The next critical question

For decades, there was a race to get classrooms hooked up to the latest educational technology.

Now, some schools are doing the opposite. This reversal may represent an overdue correction after years of assuming that more technology automatically equated to better learning.

But I think the next chapter should not be defined by counting minutes of screen time. Instead, policymakers, educators and technology developers should consider the more critical question of what kinds of digital experiences are actually worth students鈥� time.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

Students in all Illinois public schools will soon have to abide by rules barring them from using cellphones or other personal electronic communication devices during school hours unless they have been given specific permission to use them.

Although many districts already have similar policies in place, Gov. JB Pritzker signed  Tuesday that will require all districts to have 鈥渂ell-to-bell鈥� device bans in place before the start of the 2027-2028 school year.

The goal, Pritzker said, is to eliminate the distractions that cellphones and other devices can create so students and teachers can focus their attention on learning.

鈥淲e want to make sure that every hour of school time can have the greatest possible positive impact,鈥� Pritzker said at a bill signing ceremony at Elgin High School. 鈥淲e鈥檙e allowing every child to fully learn, participate, ask questions, and build the skills and interpersonal relationships that they need to thrive.鈥�

 requires districts to adopt policies that broadly restrict the use of 鈥渨ireless communication devices鈥� during school hours. Those include cellphones, laptops, tablets, gaming devices and 鈥渨earable鈥� devices such as smartwatches. But they do not include devices that schools or teachers issue to students for educational purposes.

The law requires districts to make exceptions for devices that are needed for medical reasons, for special education purposes or for language translation if a student is an English language learner. Districts may also make exceptions on a case-by-case basis for students who are also caregivers for family members at home.

It also permits districts to exclude a high school student鈥檚 lunch and passing periods from the definition of 鈥渟chool time.鈥�

The law also prohibits schools from using fines, fees, suspensions or expulsions to enforce the policies unless a student uses a regulated device to engage in some other type of gross disobedience or misconduct that would warrant such discipline.

鈥淭he reason we made the difference in high school is because you have a lot of students who do dual (high school and college) credit,鈥� Sen. Cristina Castro, D-Elgin, the lead Senate sponsor of the bill, said during the ceremony. 鈥淪ometimes (they) go part of the day and then go to work. And also, you鈥檙e giving them a little bit more responsibility.鈥�

Suzanne Johnson, superintendent of the U-46 School District in Elgin, said her district implemented a cellphone ban last year. She said it requires elementary school students to leave their devices at home while middle school students have to place them in foam pouches during the school day and high school students are not allowed to use them during instructional time.

鈥淲hile we did this to help students stay more focused in the classroom, we were pleased to see all the other benefits that followed,鈥� she said. 鈥淲hile at first our students were probably hesitant and maybe not so pleased, they quickly adjusted to the new learning environment, and without the distraction of cellphones, students were more engaged, built stronger connections with one another, and once again, laughter and chatter filled our hallways, our cafeterias, and our classrooms.鈥�

The law requires school districts to review their policies at least once every three years and to consult with teachers unions, administrators, parents and community members in making revisions.

This was originally published by , a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service that distributes state government coverage to hundreds of news outlets statewide. It is funded primarily by the Illinois Press Foundation and the Robert R. McCormick Foundation.聽

But while screen time limits are one solution, they still treat the screen itself as the problem, when a screen is simply another opportunity for communication and exploration, just like a book, game or toy. With this in mind, what if the real question isn鈥檛, 鈥淗ow much screen time is okay for kids?鈥� but, 鈥淗ow can we make children鈥檚 screen time more meaningful?鈥�

At Pittsburgh鈥檚 PBS station WQED, we believe literacy starts long before a child can decode words on a page. It starts with conversation, curiosity, stories, songs, play and trusted characters who help children make meaning of the world. Instead of asking whether screens are good or bad, we should be asking: What kind of on-screen media are children engaging with, and how is that shaping their relationship with reading? 

When content is intentionally designed to build literacy skills through storytelling, vocabulary exposure and narrative comprehension, it can complement and encourage reading behaviors. from The Ohio State University found that first graders who engaged more frequently with educational media not only spent more time reading but also spent less overall time on screens. This emerging research complicates the long-held assumption that all screen time displaces reading and may even help shift the narrative toward seeing meaningful screen use as a gateway to developing healthy reading habits.

Educational media can also introduce children to characters, story arcs, vocabulary and language structures that mirror the foundations of books. in the American Educational Research Journal that reviewed evaluations involving more than 24,000 children, educational media developed through the Ready to Learn initiative was found to have positive effects on early literacy skills, including comprehension, vocabulary and phonological awareness.

The point is not that all screen time is equal; it is that trusted, intentionally designed media can help open the door to reading.

The interactivity and engagement of screen time can also be beneficial. One of the most consistent findings across early childhood research When used thoughtfully, highly engaging and interactive educational media can help caregivers and educators create everyday literacy moments, especially in communities where access to books, time, and resources can vary.聽

That鈥檚 why, in Pittsburgh, WQED has joined the 鈥溾�� campaign 鈥� a collaborative effort among libraries, literacy organizations, and The Grable Foundation to not only put more books in young people鈥檚 hands, but also to support the region鈥檚 adults as allies in children鈥檚 literacy.

Parents and early childhood educators can further support this approach by asking children open-ended questions, connecting media to children鈥檚 own experiences and turning screen time into a shared literacy experience. I鈥檝e personally watched a child become absorbed in an episode of Daniel Tiger鈥檚 Neighborhood, then walk across the room to find a similar idea waiting in a book. That moment of recognition 鈥� that connection 鈥� is how a love of reading starts to blossom. And when children move from consuming stories to creating them through drawing and writing, it further strengthens their confidence and their identity as readers and storytellers.

We are raising children in a media-rich world. The answer is not to pretend screens will disappear or to leave families to navigate them alone. The answer is to surround children with meaningful stories 鈥� on the page, on the screen, in classrooms, in libraries and at home 鈥� and help caring adults turn those stories into conversation, curiosity and confidence. If we want to raise a generation of readers, we should see the educational media that children engage with on screens not being in competition with books but as another pathway to discover the joy of reading.

But from where I sit in Birmingham, Alabama, the focus in Washington and in many statehouses misses a crisis just as deep and consequential as the one over whether kids spend too much time on TikTok. 

The more urgent issue for millions of families is that too many children and adults lack the digital skills employers now require. That gap is not driven by overexposure to technology but by uneven access to it. Alabama is far from the only state facing this challenge. Roughly one-third of U.S. workers , even as 92% of jobs now require them. 

Concerns about technology overuse deserve attention, but they shouldn鈥檛 crowd out the work of building stronger pathways into the digital economy. That means ensuring students and adults have the tools they need, along with access to the instruction and hands-on training that lead to employment. Policymakers and state leaders should be just as focused on helping communities build the workforce pipelines the economy depends on as they are on mitigating screen time. 

As a parent, I understand concerns around screen time on a personal level. My wife and I think about it constantly with our 13-year-old son. Like many families, we have set limits. We decided early not to give him a smartphone until he turns 14. We would rather he spend time outdoors, read real books and experience the world away from a screen.

At the same time, I lead a nonprofit organization whose mission is to prepare young people for the future of work. From that vantage point, I know something else is true: My son鈥檚 comfort with technology will play a major role in the opportunities available to him as an adult. Those two realities must coexist, but only one seems to be driving magazine cover stories and congressional hearings.

For many students, school is the only place where they can reliably access a laptop, high-speed internet, or guidance from someone who understands how these tools actually work. In Alabama, lack adequate internet access at home. Nationwide, lack access. Unfortunately, even inside schools, opportunities to develop meaningful technology skills remain uneven. Only of U.S. high schools offer computer science courses at all, and of elementary students are enrolled in computer science learning experiences. As a result, many students never get the chance to learn how technology actually works.

The stakes around this gap are rising quickly. According to the World Economic Forum鈥檚 , technological skills are expected to grow in importance faster than any other skill category in the next five years. Artificial intelligence and big data top the list, followed by networks and cybersecurity, and technological literacy more broadly.

Students cannot easily gain these skills from worksheets. They cannot learn to code on paper alone. Educators cannot prepare students for careers in cybersecurity, robotics or digital design without placing technology directly in their hands. And students cannot meaningfully understand artificial intelligence without interacting with it. Yet many policy conversations treat technology in schools primarily as a distraction to be managed rather than a skill set to be developed.

Every school should have dedicated learning spaces where students can experiment with coding, explore AI and develop creative skills. These spaces should be guided by educators who can teach not only the technical skills, but also the ethics and responsibility required to use these tools wisely. Across the country, some schools are showing what that hands-on approach can look like.

At outside Birmingham, for example, a newly built learning lab provides students with access to a podcast studio, music production equipment and video editing tools. Students use the space to produce original music and record podcasts. Meanwhile, at Robert C. Hatch High School in Perry County, a tech-forward space 鈥� which was developed through a partnership with the State of Alabama and Ed Farm 鈥� combines in-person and remote instruction to expand learning opportunities for students in a rural district.

These schools remain the exception, not the norm, with many districts lacking funding, infrastructure and training. State and federal policymakers should treat that gap as an urgent priority. Digital fluency is now as foundational as reading, writing and math.

Parents, educators and policymakers all play a role in setting healthy boundaries around technology use. Students should not spend every hour of the school day staring at a screen, and devices should not replace teachers or human connection. But schools that lack meaningful access to technology leave students just as unprepared. If the national conversation continues to focus only on keeping technology out of students鈥� hands rather than putting it within their reach, too many young people will be locked out of the opportunities that define the modern workforce.

Much of the conversation about how much and what type of screen time is appropriate for young kids is focused on the use of digital technology at home, under the purview of a child鈥檚 parents and primary caregivers. But the reality is that a of children age 5 and under spend at least part of their week in an early care and education setting, where screen time may be less visible, but is often present in some form. And when communication between parents and early educators falls short, young children may end up spending more time with screens than experts recommend 鈥� and their parents intend. 

In early learning environments, screen use varies widely, said Rebecca Parlakian, senior director of programs at Zero to Three, a nonprofit focused on early childhood development. Some settings are screen-free, while others set parameters like time limits or restricting screens for educational use only, and others allow children to watch movies or short videos for entertainment. 

鈥淒epending on who cares for your child and what the practices are, it could go the whole range,鈥� Parlakian said.

Although expert guidance around screen time has begun to move away from offering clear duration-based limits, there is still a large body of research informing best practices around children and digital media 鈥� and that research emphasizes the importance of in-person, hands-on and relational interactions for young children. But often, program staff and parents are not communicating with one another about how much or what kind of screen time a child is getting in each environment, said Kate Blocker, director of research and programs at Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. 

鈥淲e have to acknowledge that has to apply across the contexts they鈥檙e in and is not repeated,鈥� Blocker said. 鈥淭he communication gaps are really real, I think.鈥�

Although some states are beginning to whether and how screens can be used in early care and education settings, a program鈥檚 approach to screen time is more often driven by the philosophy and preferences of its owner or director. In the absence of clear, cohesive guidelines for the field, that can be a daunting task, said LaTonya Richardson, owner and director of The Academy of Learning and Early Care, a licensed, nationally accredited family child care program in Jacksonville, Florida. 

鈥淭echnology in early childhood is not a black-and-white thing,鈥� Richardson said. 鈥淲e need clearer guidance, and we need realistic goals.鈥�

Many of the best-known early childhood advocacy and membership organizations do offer some recommendations for programs around screen use. The National Association for Family Child Care, for example, includes guidelines for 鈥渢elevision and computers鈥� in its , including limits of 30 minutes of screen time per day for children over age 2 and none for those who are under 2. But the field lacks a set of go-to guidelines that all program leaders and staff can reference, much the way that many families view the from the American Academy of Pediatrics. 

Instead, Richardson said, her approach has evolved over the years as she鈥檚 learned in real-time what works well for children and what doesn鈥檛. 

Today, she and the other two teachers in her program use some technology with the 12 children they serve 鈥� who range in age from 7 months old to 5 years old 鈥� but they keep it brief and reserve it for times when a screen can add something to the learning experience. 

鈥淭echnology is used as a tool, not as a replacement for teaching,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e believe children learn best through play, conversations and movement.鈥�

When screens come out, Richardson said, they are used with intention. 

Earlier that week, one of the program鈥檚 teachers used a tablet during circle time to play short videos of a few nursery rhymes the group had recently read together. It was intended to recap the lesson and deepen the children鈥檚 understanding of the stories, Richardson said. 

One video was of Humpty Dumpty. In it, the kids could see Humpty Dumpty falling, in motion. They could watch as he cracked into several pieces. Another video was of Jack and Jill. The children were able to see Jack and Jill tumbling down the hill. 

鈥淚t鈥檚 to give them something else than we鈥檙e already doing so they can see and feel and interact in different ways when we鈥檙e using the tablet,鈥� Richardson explained. 

The older kids can also access a tablet to practice concepts like counting or the alphabet. Her staff limits this activity to five minutes at a time. 

鈥淚f a child wants to see the tablet, they know now, when they see the hourglass, 鈥楳y time is up.鈥� There鈥檚 no getting upset. They put it down and move on to the next thing,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 all about guidance, support and making sure everyone鈥檚 clear on what the role is when it comes to using those devices.鈥�

It helps when those messages are communicated consistently across both home and school settings, Richardson added. 

At one point, she held a workshop for families to help them understand what healthy technology use looks like for young children, and to understand the trade-offs of granting their kids screen time at home. Some parents expressed that their children were getting into the car after pickup demanding a tablet, and they didn鈥檛 know how to set boundaries. 

鈥淚t鈥檚 not to shame any parents,鈥� Richardson said of the workshops and resources her program provides to families. 鈥淚t鈥檚 to work with them so they can work with us.鈥�

At the Primrose School of Evergreen, a private early learning program located in the heart of Silicon Valley, parents overwhelmingly view technology as a positive, said owner Bejal Patel. 

The preschool is part of Primrose Schools, a national chain of more than 500 early care and education centers. Patel鈥檚 center is piloting a new learning app from Primrose Schools called Balanced Learning that will be made available to all programs this fall. The app was designed for children ages 3, 4 and 5 and is intended to complement the hands-on activities and lessons that children are working on in the classroom. 

鈥淭here鈥檚 so much external content that might be fun and flashy … but we鈥檙e trying to get kids to think critically, solve a real-world problem,鈥� said April Poindexter, head of curriculum and innovation at Primrose Schools, about the new learning app. 鈥淪o it requires active engagement.鈥�

One experience children may have on the app, she said, would reinforce a learning unit on gardening and pollinators. In the classroom, children may learn about gardening and taking care of the earth. Outside, they may plant seeds and tend to the school鈥檚 real garden. In the app, they can read further about pollinators or design their own pollinator garden based on information found in the app. 

Another app experience, Poindexter said, offers children an opportunity to view short videos about age-appropriate social challenges, such as starting a new school, and then use a handheld mirror to observe their own facial expressions. 

鈥淚t鈥檚 all designed to be short, sweet, brief and very purposeful to what they鈥檙e learning,鈥� Poindexter said. 

Primrose centers, she added, do not use any digital media for entertainment and do not introduce any children under age 3 to screens. 

Patel, the owner of the Primrose location in Silicon Valley, said that aligns with her school鈥檚 approach. 

鈥淪creens don鈥檛 enter classrooms until preschool,鈥� she said. 鈥淚nfants and toddlers 鈥� that鈥檚 non-negotiable. At this age, we know there鈥檚 no app that can replicate what a caring adult and a sensory bin can do for a 2-year-old鈥檚 development. When children reach preschool age, that鈥檚 where technology enters, but very carefully.鈥�

Children may use the Balanced Learning app up to twice a week, for no more than 15 minutes, Poindexter noted. 

Patel acknowledged that the transition away from the app can be a challenge for children and staff, but noted that, 鈥渨e鈥檙e fighting neurochemistry, not kids.鈥� 

Children get a two-minute wrap-up cue on the app. Patel鈥檚 staff also offer verbal reminders and try to empower the children by letting them turn the tablet off and put it away themselves. Sometimes the kids try to bargain for more, Patel said. They鈥檒l say, 鈥淚 just want to finish this,鈥� Patel said. 

鈥淲e鈥檝e given our teachers certain things to say, like, 鈥業 know it鈥檚 hard to stop,鈥欌�� she said. 鈥淲e always try to positively redirect a child into doing something else.鈥�

Sometimes there is a disconnect between that approach and what happens at home. Some parents, Patel said, may give their child an hour or two to watch whatever they want. 

鈥淲e do sometimes get worried that we have to start all over again [when] Monday hits,鈥� Patel said. 

Still, despite these challenges, Patel feels strongly that children in the program benefit from having some exposure to technology, rather than none at all. 

鈥淭he best thing is to not pretend that this thing doesn鈥檛 exist,鈥� she said. 

She offered an analogy. If a child is not allowed to have any cake on his birthday for the first 10 years of his life, and then is given a cake on his 10th birthday, he might be inclined to eat the whole thing. Whereas if he鈥檇 had one slice of cake each year on his birthday, he may have learned how to consume the sugar in moderation.

鈥淵ou鈥檙e teaching the kid to learn things in small quantities,鈥� she said. 鈥淯sing the iPad or screen time for smaller chunks is better than not having limits.鈥�

Blocker, of Children and Screens, offered a counterpoint. 

鈥淚 think it鈥檚 important to acknowledge there鈥檚 no evidence that a lack of technology is bad,鈥� she said. 鈥淭here鈥檚 no research to indicate that not having it in there is a problem.鈥�

Blocker and other child development experts pointed out that screens are not the primary risk here. It鈥檚 actually what screens are replacing 鈥� hands-on learning, real-world experiences, free play and close caregiver interactions 鈥� that is the bigger concern. 

鈥淓very minute a child is spending on a device isn鈥檛 spent on serve-and-return or physical development,鈥� Blocker said. 鈥淩esearch is pretty clear young kids don鈥檛 learn as well from screens. What is the screen taking away? That鈥檚 one primary challenge: making sure it鈥檚 not displacing vital developmental inputs.鈥�

Parlakian, at Zero to Three, would not necessarily suggest that technology should be absent from early care and education programs altogether, but noted that when it is present, it must be used thoughtfully and intentionally. That kind of approach, though, places the burden on already-overextended program leaders and teachers. 

There may be value in children seeing a concept they’re learning about come to life in a video. Children may understand the book 鈥淭he Very Hungry Caterpillar鈥� better if they get to pair it with a video of a butterfly emerging from its chrysalis, she said. But there is no place, Parlakian feels, for screen use that is strictly for entertainment in early care and education programs. 

鈥淟ife is entertainment for young children,鈥� she said. 鈥淭here should be plenty to explore, experiment and solve in their setting.鈥�

The Los Angeles Unified School District unanimously voted to curb classroom screen time, directing staff to develop a policy by June ahead of the upcoming school year.

aims to set clear limits on how screens are used in classrooms across grade levels. It was championed by Schools Beyond Screens, a group of parents that has spent months pressuring the district to is impacting student learning, especially in the earlier grades.

The move signals a shift in how the nation鈥檚 second-largest school district approaches classroom technology, as officials respond to concerns about excessive use.

鈥淲hat we don鈥檛 have is equity of resource to protect students from the harms of excessive or passive screen time. Today鈥檚 screens can be a barrier to instruction,鈥� said a parent at the board meeting immediately before the board鈥檚 vote. The proposal coming to the board for approval in June is expected to include:

• Daily and weekly screen time limits by grade level 鈥� the example provided in the proposed resolution was no more than one hour per day or five hours per week for third through fifth graders, though no specifics have been provided on actual time limits
• Elimination of student digital device use in early education through first grade, with exceptions made for students enrolled in the district鈥檚 virtual learning program and for certain district-mandated assessments
• Prohibition of student access to YouTube
• Considerations to block video games that are not instructional in nature, such as Roblox and Fortnite
• Promoting the use of computer labs and reducing use of individual devices for students in second through fifth grade, while still allowing families to opt in to using district-issued devices at home as a way of ensuring equitable digital access

With the exception of board President Scott Schmerelson, who recused himself, every board member commented on the resolution before listening to public comments and voted in support of the resolution.

鈥淲e know that tech is not going away and can be a powerful tool in the classroom. This is not about going backwards. This is about rethinking school time and screen time in schools to ensure we are doing what actually helps students learn best,鈥� said board member Nick Melvoin while discussing the resolution, which he co-authored.

Board member Kelly Gonez amended the resolution to include an assessment of the use of i-Ready, a district-mandated assessment implemented in 2023. This amendment appeared to be popular among some of those in the audience, who could be heard clapping and cheering on two separate occasions when board members mentioned reviewing i-Ready.

鈥淚 know our families and educators are actively trying to navigate that balance between technology as a learning tool while avoiding excessive, poorly structured screen time that has real consequences for our children,鈥� said Gonez during the board meeting.

鈥淚 hope that with this new policy, we鈥檙e able to prioritize the uses of technology that have actual, real educational value, like coding, robotics, video production, editing and intervention for targeted students, while de-emphasizing rote tasks like reading text on screens, unlimited video streaming and other passive activities.鈥�

Board member Sherlett Hendy Newbill supported the resolution but questioned whether the timeline was feasible. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 want us to rush this because this means coming back in June. It鈥檚 a couple of weeks to be able to do this,鈥� she said, though the board ultimately decided to maintain the June deadline.

While parents and public speakers were largely supportive, some thought the resolution could have gone even further by limiting screen use.

After thanking the board for introducing the resolution, one parent described it as a 鈥渂aby-step resolution.鈥� The parent continued, stating: 鈥淚t鈥檚 better than nothing, but it has no teeth.鈥�

Among the items this parent was pushing for was the prohibition of screen time through second grade and eliminating requirements for one-to-one device use.

This story was originally published by . Sign up for their .

He co-sponsored this year that would give parents an ed-tech 鈥渞ight of refusal.鈥� A former English teacher, he was never a fan of the shift toward every student having their own laptop. Technology, he said, isn鈥檛 making students any smarter.

鈥淚n fact, we know it鈥檚 making them dumber,鈥� he said, expressing a view shared by parents across the country, especially those with students in the elementary grades. 

When his fellow lawmaker Rep. Leanne Harple read the bill, she imagined how tough it might be for teachers to accommodate such requests. An English teacher herself, she also speaks from experience. Her students do research online, where the information is more up to date than in books and academic journals. A 2024 American Federation of Teachers showed 83% of teachers use technology in the classroom daily.

The bill 鈥渨ould create, in some cases, a lot more work,鈥� she said. For every assignment, teachers would 鈥渉ave to create an alternative that鈥檚 completely analog.鈥�

Their opposing views on the topic reflect a growing national debate. Parents who advocated for bell-to-bell cellphone bans are now targeting Chromebooks and other ed tech. Influenced by researchers like Jonathan Haidt and Jared Cooney Horvath, who argue that cellphones and classroom technology have harmed students鈥� development, they鈥檝e mobilized in Facebook groups. They鈥檙e demanding pencil-and-paper assignments and asking teachers to excuse their kids from computer-based math and reading apps. Their pleas have sparked pushback from districts that for years have relied on technology for everything from curriculum to testing.

鈥淚n August, almost no one was talking about this, and now I’m having no other conversations,鈥� said Kelly Clancy, a mom of three in South Brooklyn, New York, who also serves on her local community education council. 鈥淭here’s a sea change in parents realizing that they don’t want their kids in front of screens.鈥�

She鈥檚 among those challenging the New York City schools鈥� use of digital programs. She refused to let teachers enter her kids鈥� work into , an AI tool from the curriculum company HMH that generates feedback on student writing. But when she tried to opt her children out of i-Ready, a widely used testing program from the company Curriculum Associates, she met resistance. The tests are a 鈥渂aseline component鈥� of the district鈥檚 assessment system, David Pretto, superintendent of District 20, wrote in an email. Her school鈥檚 principal, he said, 鈥渋s not in the position to exclude your child from universal screening.鈥�

Clancy didn鈥檛 take no for an answer. 

鈥淲e will get legal advice if necessary, but my children will not complete these,鈥� she wrote back.

In a statement, the district said any tool using student data 鈥渕ust undergo a rigorous 鈥� review process to meet strict privacy, security and compliance standards before it is approved for use.鈥� Officials urged parents to contact local schools with their concerns.

Across the country, the Seattle Public Schools has advised staff that 鈥渇amilies may not opt out of district-adopted digital curriculum,鈥� but a spokesperson for the district told 社区黑料 that 鈥渢his is an evolving landscape,鈥� and 鈥渨e will continue to review and update the guidance as needed.鈥�

Parents in Pennsylvania鈥檚 Lower Merion School District are also determined to keep their students off Chromebooks at school. 

鈥淭hey鈥檙e saying we can鈥檛, but we鈥檒l find a way,鈥� Yair Lev, a parent of two, said after a last month in which Superintendent Frank Ranelli said opting out wasn鈥檛 possible because the curriculum is computer-based.

Teachers, Lev said, are caught in the middle. He collected from five teachers, who said students often access gaming sites and YouTube during class, and even make video calls to students in other classrooms.

鈥淭here should be clear districtwide policies and parameters for when laptops should and should not be used, rather than leaving major decisions to classroom-by-classroom discretion,鈥� one wrote.

Not 鈥榦ur best moment鈥�

Lev, a cardiologist and professor at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, said he鈥檚 not opposed to technology. He consults for cardiology startups using AI and has taken the lead on AI use in his division at the hospital. But he and his wife realized that 鈥渒ids are being exposed to a lot of screens, and we decided to try to reduce it at home.鈥�

In some ways, he represents many of the parents pushing for tech opt outs. His children are young, and they鈥檙e starting school at a time when Haidt, a social psychologist, that cellphones and social media have harmed children鈥檚 mental health. Lev鈥檚 kids are also beginning their education after the pandemic, when parents are demanding more say over what鈥檚 taking place in the classroom and data breaches have compromised student privacy.

鈥淭he image of technology in schools that鈥檚 seared into every parent’s mind is the lockdown version of technology. It wasn’t our best moment,鈥� said Joseph South, chief innovation officer at the International Society for Technology in Education, which merged in 2023 with ASCD, a major curriculum organization. 

Until the pandemic, Elyssa East, a New York City mom, was raising her son screen-free. That became impossible during school closures. Around the same time, she learned that he had some learning difficulties and would 鈥渞eally fall apart when it came to any instruction on the screen.鈥�

Online math programs like Zearn and IXL made him feel 鈥渄efeated,鈥� she said, because they were assigned for remediation. 

鈥淗ere is this technology that’s supposed to help him, but it makes him feel even worse than a human teacher would,鈥� East said. 

She eventually switched him to a private school. She has opted him out of math apps and he writes on an old electric typewriter.

鈥嬧�嬧�滺e likes that a lot,鈥� she said. Compared to a laptop, 鈥渋t’s a totally different experience.鈥�

鈥楥aught in the crossfire鈥�

Some teachers have no problem with .

Dylan Kane, a seventh grade math teacher in Lake County, Colorado, near Aspen, went . Students, he wrote, are more focused, are completing more work and spend less time 鈥渇ussing with logistics,鈥� like connecting to the internet or forgetting their Chromebook at home.

Like many parents, he was influenced by Horvath鈥檚 . In his 2025 book, the cognitive neuroscientist argues that the widespread use of classroom technology has left students distracted and unable to retain information.  

But prior to January, Kane never had a parent request to opt their child out of using computers or specific software. Even during parent-teacher conferences this spring, his decision to ditch Chromebooks in class never came up.

鈥淚 work in a small, rural town that’s relatively low-income, not a lot of college-educated parents. I think much of the tech backlash from parents is coming from the more-online, higher-educated folks,鈥� he said. He thinks trying to accommodate individual parents鈥� objections would be tricky. 鈥淭eachers could be caught in the crossfire because they have to deal with district-mandated online programs and then potentially parent opt-outs.鈥� 

South at ISTE+ASCD said he鈥檚 heard plenty of 鈥渉orror stories鈥� about technology, like apps dominated by advertising and students spending class time 鈥渟hooting aliens鈥� on the screen. But those examples are often due to teachers using a program that was never vetted by their district or 鈥渟ome random kid who found a workaround,鈥� he said.

He and Richard Culatta, the organization鈥檚 CEO, added that moving through state legislatures that limit screen time don鈥檛 necessarily address parents鈥� other concerns like cyberbullying, protecting student data or improving the overall quality of instruction. 

Many of the bills require paper worksheets to be used instead of technology, said Culatta, who quipped that he often feels like he鈥檚 in a 鈥渢ime warp.鈥� 

鈥淭here鈥檚 no quality indicator,鈥� he said. 鈥淵ou could literally take any garbage worksheet and it would be fine.鈥�

鈥楻apid innovation鈥�

Opt-out requests have forced districts to be more thoughtful about how they use technology. 

The Worcester Public Schools in central Massachusetts is like a lot of districts. It went through 鈥渁 period of rapid innovation and tech acquisition鈥� prior to the pandemic to make sure 鈥渢eachers and students had the tools needed to be future-ready,鈥� said Sarah Kyriazis, director of the district鈥檚 Office of Innovation. 

Schools added even more ed tech tools during COVID lockdowns for remote and hybrid learning. Now some parents are questioning those decisions at a time of 鈥渘ational concern about data, privacy, security and screen time,鈥� she said. 

The district鈥檚 school committee has so far to allow parents to opt out of ed tech programs. But Kyriazis is collecting feedback from teachers on the apps they feel are most important for instruction. The goal, she said, is to whittle down the amount of data sent through online platforms to third-party vendors. Principals and teachers, she said, should be able to 鈥渟peak with parents about each app and its purpose in the classroom.鈥� 

Further west, the Northampton, Massachusetts, district is accommodating opt-out requests from about 12 parents. To do so, teachers must come up with activities that allow students to learn from the same curriculum as their peers 鈥渨ithout using the disputed programs,鈥� said Superintendent Portia Bonner. 

Laura Carney Erny, who has a second grader in the district, hasn鈥檛 tried to opt her son out of tech yet, but she鈥檚 thinking about it for third grade. Even learning which programs the school used took 鈥渕onths of back-and-forth emails鈥� with teachers and administrators, she said.

Parents say they don鈥檛 want to further complicate the lives of teachers, especially those who lack classroom aides. Northampton lost in 2024 who were paid with temporary COVID relief funds. 

鈥淚 don’t blame teachers for relying on tech because it’s an easy thing to do,鈥� she said. 鈥淪ome of these programs help keep the kids in their seats.鈥�

In the Los Angeles Unified School District, former teacher Kate Brody is among those who have opted their children out of practice sessions on i-Ready, now the subject of a over student privacy. She decided the program was a problem when her first grader couldn鈥檛 tear himself away from the screen to use the bathroom and started having accidents. 

鈥淚 used to teach full time,鈥� she said. 鈥淚 definitely don’t want to create a world where we’re asking teachers to do multiple lesson plans and monitor half the class on the computer and do analog lessons for the other half.鈥� 

It鈥檚 unfair to teachers to field opt-out requests every year, she said. That鈥檚 why, as a board member for Schools Beyond Screens, an advocacy group of parents and educators, she backs a that calls for limits on the use of technology for all students, especially in the early grades. The board will vote on the plan April 21.

鈥淩ight now,鈥� she said, 鈥渋t鈥檚 the Wild West.鈥�

Compared to a , they鈥檙e less excited and hopeful about the change it could bring and more angry at its existence, citing concerns about AI鈥檚 impact on their cognitive abilities and professional opportunities.

Respondents said they used AI at nearly the same rate they did before 鈥� they reported only a slight increase in daily and weekly exposure 鈥� but when asked how it makes them feel, the answers revealed growing misgivings. 

Thirty-one percent said it made them angry, up 9 percentage points from 2025. And just 22% said it made them feel excited, down 14 percentage points from last year. Only 18% of respondents said it made them feel hopeful, marking a nine-point drop. Forty-two percent said it made them feel anxious, roughly the same as last year. 

Zach Hrynowski, senior education researcher at Gallup, said the switch was swift. 

鈥淥ne of my working theories is that (it鈥檚) the high schoolers, who are in their senior year, or especially those college students, who are maybe thinking, 鈥楢I is taking my job. I just went to college for four years: I spent all this money and now it’s turning my industry upside down,鈥� he said. 

Only 46% of respondents believed AI would help them learn faster, down from 53% the prior year, Gallup found. Fifty-six percent of respondents said it would help them to expedite their work compared to 66% last year. 

Hrynowski notes, too, that users’ unease wasn鈥檛 entirely tied to the amount of time they spend engaging with AI. 

鈥淵ear over year, among that super user group, they’re much less excited, they are much less hopeful 鈥� and they are more angry,鈥� he said. 鈥淪o this is not a case of some people who are adopting it and loving it and some people who are just avoiding it and feel negatively about it.鈥�

Nearly half of respondents said the risk of the technology outweighs the benefits in the workforce. Just 37% believed it would help them find accurate information, down from 43% the prior year and only 31% believed it would help them come up with new ideas compared to 42% in 2025. 

The survey also notes some disparities by age and race. For example, older Gen Zers are more likely than younger ones to voice concerns about AI鈥檚 impact on learning in general. 

Asked how likely is it that AI designed to mainly complete tasks faster will make learning more difficult in the future, 74% of K-12 respondents said it was 鈥渧ery likely鈥� or 鈥渟omewhat likely鈥� compared to 83% of Gen Z adults who said the same. Men and Black respondents were also less concerned about learning impact than their peers overall.

Results are based on a survey of 1,572 people spread throughout every state and Washington, D.C., conducted between Feb. 24 and March 4, 2026. It was commissioned by the Walton Family Foundation and , Global Silicon Valley. Together, Walton Family Foundation and Gallup are conducting ongoing research into Gen Z’s attitudes toward AI.

Hrynowski believes there might be a link between recent revelations about the harmful nature of social media and AI-related distrust: Many of the respondents came of age, he notes, just as former surgeon general Vivek H. Murthy called for a about its use. 

shapes the user experience in social media. Just last month, a California jury found social media company Meta 鈥� owner of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger and Threads 鈥� and YouTube injured a young woman鈥檚 mental health by design in that could encourage untold others. 

This was the second of two critical decisions: Just a day earlier, a New Mexico jury found Meta 鈥� and hid what it knew about child sexual exploitation on its platforms.

鈥�I’ve always been very impressed from the start of this work with Gen Z that across the board, not just with AI, they are keenly aware of the risks of technology, whether it’s social media, whether it’s AI or screen time,鈥� Hrynowski said. 

They are not the only generation to harbor these worries. A growing number of parents of K-12 students are pushing back on their screen time, not just , but  

Despite respondents鈥� skepticism about AI, they鈥檙e also readily aware that the technology won鈥檛 be walked back: 52% acknowledge that they will need to know how to use AI if they go to college or take classes after high school, while 48% think they will need to know how to use AI in the workplace.

An earlier Gallup study, released just last week, shows 42% of bachelor’s degree students have reconsidered their major because of AI.

Gen Z, in its reluctant acceptance of the technology, wants help in how to navigate it, both in an academic setting and in the workplace. Schools are stepping up, the survey revealed: The share of K-12 students who say their school has AI rules moved from 51% in 2025 to 74% this year.聽

Disclosure: Walton Family Foundation provides financial support to 社区黑料.

After nine days of deliberation, a Los Angeles jury found Google and Meta liable for harms stemming from the design of their social media products on Wednesday and ordered them to pay $3 million in compensatory damages to a plaintiff who said that Instagram and YouTube caused depression, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts.

Meta was 70 percent of damages and YouTube the rest. The amount owed the plaintiff may rise, and the jury will over potential punitive damages for egregious conduct, per The New York Times.

This is the tackling the legal question of whether features of social media, like autoplay, infinite scroll and beauty filters can cause harm to users.

“This momentous verdict shows that tech companies will be held accountable for the harm they cause. These companies have spent years choosing profit over people’s well-being, and now a jury has decided they must pay the price for their actions,鈥� said Maddy Batt, a legal fellow at Tech Justice Project, a law firm specializing in suits against AI chatbots.

The plaintiff, KGM, filed her lawsuit using a pseudonym in 2023. KGM, now 20, says she has been addicted to social media since she was a child. It was one of three cases selected out of thousands as 鈥渂ellwether trials鈥� to test out a new theory of liability.

Batt cautioned that the outcome of this trial doesn鈥檛 mean 鈥渁n automatic legal win鈥� for the thousands of pending cases, as determining causation varies greatly given the circumstances. 鈥淓ach individual plaintiff still does have to show, if they go to trial, that any negative mental health outcomes they personally experienced were linked to social media,鈥� she said.

It is a huge boon to tech accountability advocates to see this success though, Batt said, and could lead to tech companies changing their products because of the amount of money in play to settle cases or pay damages. This jury decision, coupled with a $375 million verdict against Meta announced yesterday, is the first step to achieving that goal.

The New Mexico Attorney General Ra煤l Torrez sued Meta in 2023, alleging the company misled constituents over how safe its platforms are for children. State prosecutors focused specifically on Instagram鈥檚 potential to facilitate the sexual exploitation of kids.

On Tuesday, a jury sided with New Mexico, saying the company also engaged in deceptive trade practices. Meta was ordered to pay $5,000 per violation 鈥� $375 million total. Torrez at a future bench trial, and hopes to compel changes to the platform. Meta said it plans to appeal.

Batt pointed out that this trial is the first time tech leaders like Mark Zuckerberg have had to make a case and submit to questioning in front of a jury of their peers. (The CEO did not take the stand in the New Mexico case.) Large tech companies have faced a public backlash over the past decade, and much of it has revolved around their products鈥� impact on the mental health of young people.

Frances Haugen, a whistleblower, leaked internal research documents from the company previously known as Facebook showing girls reported their eating disorders worsening after using Instagram. Social media use can prompt girls to compare and criticize their own bodies, and many companies struggle to moderate on their platforms.

Over two-thirds of teenage girls reported using Instagram, more than boys. A quarter each of Black and Latinx teens said they use Instagram and YouTube 鈥渃onstantly鈥� according to a by Pew Research Center.

Google argued that YouTube was not social media, while Meta of KGM鈥檚 anxiety, depression and body dysmorphia. Meta鈥檚 lawyers deconstructed KGM鈥檚 home environment, alleging her parents鈥� divorce and treatment by her mother were the root cause of her emotional pain. The companies also argued that it wasn鈥檛 the way their products were designed that caused problems, but rather the specific content seen.

KGM originally named the companies behind Snapchat and Tiktok in the lawsuit, but those parties settled for an undisclosed sum before the trial started. The trial focused on Instagram and Facebook, both Meta products, and YouTube, which is owned by Google.

The burden was on KGM鈥檚 lawyers to prove that Meta and Google were negligent in their design of social media products and show that those same products caused the plaintiff鈥檚 mental health issues. The jury agreed with those arguments.

KGM testified that features like notifications , and she was unable to stop whenever she tried to limit her usage. She said she started her first Instagram account at age 9 and joined YouTube at age 10, even though legally kids aren鈥檛 supposed to have online accounts before they鈥檙e 13. Almost all of her Instagram posts had image filters on them, and KGM said she didn鈥檛 feel bad about her body until she began using the platform.

The tech accountability watchdogs who rallied behind KGM are ecstatic over this win. 鈥淭he era of Big Tech invincibility is over,鈥� said Sacha Haworth, executive director of The Tech Oversight Project, in a statement.

For parents who have lost their kids to what many describe as social media-related harms, this is a moment of vindication.

鈥淔or years, families have been told this was a parenting issue, but the jury saw the truth: these companies made deliberate decisions to prioritize growth and profit over kids鈥� safety,鈥� said Shelby Knox, director of online safety campaigns at nonprofit ParentsTogether.

Social media companies have been battling allegations of harm, particularly to kids, for years. Most of the claims are easily dismissed under Section 230, the law that says a platform isn鈥檛 held liable for third-party content it hosts. But these bellwether cases are testing whether the design of products like YouTube, Facebook and Instagram are inherently harmful. Plaintiffs have pointed to the impacts of features such as infinite scroll and face filters as harmful regardless of the content being shared.

The case concludes as Congress works to pass a package of internet bills that is but that critics say may lead to the removal of digital and 鈥� a particular concern given the Trump administration鈥檚 policy positions.

In her statement, Haworth at The Tech Oversight Project called on lawmakers to pass the Kids Online Safety Act, one of the most hotly debated pieces of tech legislation in recent years. It has failed to pass the House since its first was introduced in 2022, but now is being considered as part of the aforementioned package.

鈥淚t’s good that people are suing these companies and winning in court to reduce their power and force them to change their policies,鈥� said Evan Greer, director of digital rights nonprofit Fight For The Future, to The 19th. But she鈥檚 concerned how the verdict in KGM鈥檚 case will be used to advocate for laws that she says could threaten free speech online.

Greer pointed to the way activists are using social platforms to monitor abuses by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, advocate for human rights and discuss accustations of sexual abuse against people like Jeffery Epstein. 鈥淲e need policies that address corporate abuse without kneecapping the ability of front-line activists to use social media to change the world,鈥� she said.

Jess Miers, associate professor of law at the University of Akron School of Law, is concerned about the long-term consequences of the verdict. While these cases focus on the way platforms are designed, said in practice, there isn鈥檛 a strong delineation between content and feature design.

鈥淎utoplay is only engaging because of what it plays,鈥� she told The 19th. 鈥淚nfinite scroll only retains users because of what it surfaces.鈥� She pointed out many apps use these kinds of features, but those aren鈥檛 the ones being sued.

Thus, liability tied to design will inevitably trickle down to judgements about content. 鈥淭he only practical way to reduce the risks alleged in these suits is to restrict or suppress categories of content that might later be characterized as harmful or 鈥榓ddictive,鈥欌�� she noted.

And what鈥檚 the content most likely to be labeled as harmful? 鈥淗istory shows they expand to cover disfavored speech鈥攚hether that鈥檚 reproductive health information, gender-affirming care, or speech about policing and immigration enforcement,鈥� she said.

鈥淭he people most likely to be affected are those who already rely on the Internet as a primary space for connection and support,鈥� Miers said 鈥� like disabled people, LGBTQ+ youth or people looking for accurate information on contraception.

was originally reported by Jasmine Mithani of . .

Just weeks after approving limits on screen time for preschoolers, Alabama lawmakers are mounting a last minute push to set screen time limits for all public school students. 

The House Education Policy Committee Thursday approved , sponsored by Rep. Jeana Ross, R-Guntersville and filed on March 5.  The bill is an extension of the signed by Gov. Kay Ivey earlier this month. 

鈥淲hat I鈥檓 hoping this will accomplish is that these two acts will work together to create a continuous research based framework for developmentally appropriate technology you see from from early childhood to 12th grade,鈥� Ross said in an interview Friday.

Among other features, 搁辞蝉蝉鈥� bill would limit total screen time instruction in schools to two hours a day and mandate regular vision breaks after screen use.

搁辞蝉蝉鈥� limited screen time for children from birth until kindergarten in licensed child-care facilities, public kindergarten classrooms and specific Pre-K classes. Under the law, the Department of Early Childhood Education, Alabama State Department of Education and Department of Human Resources would collaborate on creative guidelines for appropriate screen time usage.

During committee, Reps. Alan Baker, R-Brewton, and Marcus Paramore, R-Troy, brought extending the limit to 12th grade and requiring students to follow the 鈥�20-20-20 rule鈥� during scheduled screen breaks. The 20-20-20 rule states every 20 minutes students must look at an object at least 20 feet away from them for at least 20 seconds. The method has been recommended by the to reduce and prevent eye strain.

Mark Dixon, president of A+ Education Partnership, a education nonprofit, said in an interview Friday the organization supported the bill. 

鈥淲e鈥檝e seen the benefits of the cell phone ban that legislature and Gov. Ivey passed last year; we were already seeing the benefits in classes this year, and A+ is support of limiting screen time in an age-appropriate manner,鈥� he said.

Messages seeking comment were left with School Superintendents of Alabama and Alabama Association of School Boards Friday.

During the meeting, Rep. Terri Collins, R-Decatur, who chairs the committee, said Rep. Chris Blackshear, R-Smiths Station, brought the idea of expanding the limit to 12th grade. Attempts to reach Blackshear were not immediately successful.

Under HB 584, a 17-member task force composed of educators; vision specialists and national experts in child development, digital media research or cognitive science will work in collaboration with the Alabama State Department of Education to develop guidelines for best practices for screen-based instruction.

鈥淲e want it to be high quality and to be used intentionally, again, just avoiding that passive use of technology, just like with the birth to age five kindergarten, but on up through 12th grade, our technology is intentional,鈥� Ross said.

Ross said after her original bill passed she heard concerns from parents about whether or not the bill would dictate what goes on in their homes. She said both bills only relate to instructional time in classrooms.

鈥淚t has nothing to do with what parents choose to do in their homes, but all to do with what happens in public schools and in places that receive public funds,鈥� she said.

The bill was not on Tuesday鈥檚 House agenda as of Friday afternoon. There are seven legislative days left in the 2026 regular session. 

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Brian Lyman for questions: info@alabamareflector.com.

But as surveys of parents have revealed that young children are increasingly exposed to digital media, it鈥檚 become clear there鈥檚 a disconnect: Families aren鈥檛 following the guidance.

Not only do the youngest children in the U.S. have some exposure to screens, many of them are getting   鈥� and for an average of about . 

鈥淭here鈥檚 a huge gap between what the experts say should be happening and what parents report is happening,鈥� noted Kris Perry, executive director of the nonprofit Children and Screens: Institute of Digital Media and Child Development. 

Survey data tells us this is true at all ages, but the divide is easiest to measure for babies and toddlers under age 2, for whom any amount of screen time deviates from evidence-based recommendations.

For years, leading organizations focused on child well-being have cautioned that excess could impede . Research has shown that children under age 2 do not benefit from most types of digital media use, and in some cases, can actually be harmed. Studies have found possible links between screen time and , ,, , and more. 

Screen time also high-quality, engaging, in-person interactions, which babies and young children need to thrive. 

鈥淓very hour a child spends watching a show or an app comes at the expense of time spent doing something else 鈥� being physically active, being cared for and played with by a loved one,鈥� said Dr. Dimitri Christakis, professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington and of numerous research publications on screen time in early childhood. 鈥淭here are developmental costs associated with that. Children that age need laps, not apps, to develop appropriately.鈥�

There is no shortage of anecdotal evidence that very young children are getting screen time. It鈥檚 often on display in public spaces, such as restaurants and airplanes. 

Common Sense Media, an education nonprofit focused on children鈥檚 technology and media use, in 2024 that children under age 2 were getting an average of 1:03 hours of daily screen time, with more than half of that time spent watching television or videos. By age 2, the group found, 40% of children had their own tablet.  

Supreet Mann, director of research at Common Sense, pointed out that 鈥渦nder 2鈥� is a very wide age band; there are massive developmental differences between a 3-month-old baby and a 23-month-old toddler, for example. 

Mann believes that the era of personal devices, such as tablets and smartphones, has made short-form videos (think TikTok and YouTube Shorts) more accessible to children, even as these devices are less conducive to co-viewing with a parent or caregiver, a practice that has been woven into expert guidance for years. It鈥檚 also harder for caregivers to monitor what a child is seeing and whether autoplay serves them something developmentally inappropriate. 

Still, she thinks parents should not live in fear of being scrutinized about how they use screen time with their children. 

鈥淲e talk about the 鈥榙igital babysitter鈥� in a way that鈥檚 demeaning to parents who need that extra bit of help,鈥� Mann said, noting that some families may turn on a device for a child when they need to make dinner, take a shower or focus on that child鈥檚 sibling. 鈥淚 certainly do think we need to give grace to parents who are using media for adaptive reasons.鈥�

In May 2025, Pew Research Center conducted a to understand how parents of children under age 13 approach technology use and screen time with their kids. About 82% of parents with children under age 2 said their child ever uses TV, while 38% said that about smartphones. 

Another 62% of the same population said their child ever watches videos on YouTube, while 35% said their infants and toddlers watch it every day. 

鈥淥ne of the most striking things from this study is the finding that screens start young for children today,鈥� said Colleen McClain, senior researcher at Pew and author of the report on family screen time. 鈥淎nd it鈥檚 not just occasional use. For some, it鈥檚 daily use.鈥� 

In focus groups, McClain said, parents expressed a variety of feelings about their use of screens with their children. Some felt judged. Some felt guilty. Others said it was a tool they used to get through the day, to get everything done. Others didn鈥檛 think much of it.

鈥淭hey have other kids. They鈥檙e working. They need to keep their sanity,鈥� McClain said, summarizing what she heard in focus groups. 鈥淭he human element really comes through. These parents are trying to do the best for their kids.鈥�

Both researchers noted that families have to navigate an extremely complex technology environment today, and with minimal guidance or guardrails. 

Perry, the executive director of Children and Screens, believes the biggest problem with children鈥檚 digital media use has little to do with family dynamics. The real culprit, she said, is the companies creating content for 鈥� and marketing to 鈥� children. Many parents are almost defenseless against the addictive qualities embedded in children鈥檚 media, driven by a business model that profits off children鈥檚 time and attention. 

For children under age 5, Perry said, 鈥淭heir brains are under construction.鈥� They cannot resist short-form video, compelling characters, infinite scrolling, unnatural colors and high frame rates (measured by the number of still images that appear in a frame each second). 

鈥淭heir ability to stop is almost nonexistent,鈥� she said of early learners on devices. 

For children age 2 and older, it鈥檚 important to reduce time on screens, and to choose high-quality programming if possible, Perry added. She identified four quality markers for children鈥檚 media. 

First, it should promote active engagement. Second, it should avoid distracting ads and gaming features. Third, it needs to connect the child鈥檚 learning with real-world experiences. And finally, it should encourage social interaction. 

Mister Rogers鈥� Neighborhood was an excellent example of that, Perry said. But for the most part, the shows and apps families are turning to today are not hitting any of those criteria, she said. And some advocates fear that cuts to public media funding could make it harder to produce quality children鈥檚 programming with those characteristics.

鈥淲hat鈥檚 being pushed out there is fast-paced, loud, stimulating, full of ads and not educational,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e know what the standard is, but it鈥檚 often not being met.鈥�

For the last decade, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has been the 鈥済old standard鈥� for families on how to use screens with their children, Perry said. 

In 2016, the AAP released a policy advising that children under age 2 avoid screens altogether, with the exception of video chatting with family members. The World Health Organization and other groups have a similar approach. 

But the AAP, just last month, released around 鈥渄igital ecosystems,鈥� which encompasses all digital media a child may encounter, from smartphones, tablets and TVs to apps, video games and AI. The new policy statement, which replaces prior recommendations, does not include duration-based screen time limits. 

Dr. Tiffany Munzer, a developmental behavioral pediatrician at the University of Michigan and lead author of the new AAP policy, said the guidance reflects a more comprehensive body of research and evidence that looks at not just how digital media affects children, but also at factors such as the design embedded into those technologies and a family鈥檚 psychosocial context. 

For example, if a child lives in a neighborhood where they cannot safely play outside, the use of digital media for entertainment is perhaps a safer alternative. If a family cannot access child care, 鈥渟ome families may need to use digital media to just get some work done at home,鈥� Munzer said. 

鈥淚nstead of thinking of it as a screen time limit, per se, we thought about it as boundaries for families to set,鈥� Munzer said, referring to the group that drafted the policy. 鈥淓very family is different.鈥� 

The new policy statement contains nuances and gray areas, putting the onus on families 鈥� many of whom are giving their children screens because they already feel overwhelmed 鈥� to sit down, read it, digest it and decide how they want to apply it to their own lives. It鈥檚 impractical to expect most caregivers to do that. 

鈥淚 think when you give a clear, black-and-white recommendation, it鈥檚 so much easier to file that away in your brain, instead of having all these messages,鈥� Munzer said. She recommended that families who are seeking specific, actionable guidance around screen time talk to their child鈥檚 pediatrician about it or reference the AAP鈥檚 .

As for the use of digital media with children under 2, even though the new AAP policy statement doesn鈥檛 explicitly state that it should be avoided, that鈥檚 still the underlying message. 

鈥淚nfants under 18 months struggle to transfer information from a screen to the real world because of immature cognitive processing,鈥� one part of the statement reads. Asked to elaborate, Munzer acknowledged that research is still pretty clear about infants and screens. 

鈥淜ids who are under 2, it鈥檚 just harder 鈥� from a cognitive processing standpoint 鈥� for them to get a lot out of digital media,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a lot of flashing lights to them. It鈥檚 hard to transfer to real life.鈥�

No one disputes that parents and caregivers today are juggling many responsibilities. And screens are so easy to turn to, always right there in a parent鈥檚 pocket, with an engrossing video just a few taps away. 

In interviews, researchers and early educators alike urged parents to find alternatives. Even if the result is less screen time, rather than none, that鈥檚 a win, they said. 

The use of digital tools to distract children when they鈥檙e bored or to calm them down when they鈥檙e upset is denying them an opportunity to build essential life skills, said Dr. Carol Wilkinson, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School who was involved in a about the effects of screen time during infancy.  

鈥淎 lot of the skills kids need 鈥� come out of the practice of kids being frustrated,鈥� Wilkinson said, noting the way many parents will pull out a device when a child is throwing a tantrum. 鈥淯nfortunately, it鈥檚 something parents don鈥檛 always know how to handle or have time and space to support. We now have this thing that is easy and available that somehow seems to miraculously work every time. In many ways, it鈥檚 a missed opportunity for kids practicing things like behavioral regulation.鈥�

Perry, of Children and Screens, made a similar point: 鈥淭hat very phenomenon of learning to be calm and learning to distract yourself are such foundational pieces of our development that parents choosing a screen for that reason are postponing or even delaying their ability to do that.鈥�

Wilkinson also wondered if maybe young parents today have forgotten how to play 鈥� or at least have lost sight of the magic of play. 

鈥淚f parents don鈥檛 know the value of a giggle, the value of peek-a-boo, the value of singing, the value of raspberries 鈥� if they don鈥檛 know that鈥檚 going to grow their child鈥檚 brain more than Bluey does,鈥� Wilkinson said, then they may not realize what they鈥檙e missing out on when they hand their child a phone or tablet or place them in front of a TV. 

Robyn Zapien, director of Livermore Playschool in Livermore, California, said she doesn鈥檛 want to shame families who use screens with their young children at home, but she knows enough not to use them in her early learning program.

鈥淵oung children under 5 years old really need the interaction of their parents, siblings, friends and peers. They don鈥檛 need the interaction of something digital on a screen,鈥� Zapien shared. 鈥淭hey need to know how to make real connections, how to express real feelings, and what it鈥檚 like in the real world 鈥� not just the virtual world they鈥檙e watching.鈥�

]]> /article/bernstein-theres-a-window-of-opportunity-to-create-change-in-ai-chatbots/ Tue, 18 Nov 2025 13:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1023580 The chatbot developer has said it will ban users under 18 years old from using its virtual companions, an unprecedented move that comes after the mother of a 14-year-old user sued the company in last year, saying the boy talked to a Character.AI chatbot almost constantly in the months before he killed himself in February 2024. 

The 鈥渄angerous and untested鈥� chatbot, the mother said, 鈥渁bused and preyed on my son, manipulating him into taking his own life.鈥� It essentially assisted his suicide, the mother alleges, prompting him to isolate from friends and family and at one point even asking if he had a suicide plan, according to the lawsuit.

---

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

---

In its Oct. 29 , the company said the change will go into effect no later than Nov. 25. Character.AI will limit teen users to two hours per day with chatbots before then, ramping it down in the coming weeks.

It also said it will establish its own AI Safety Lab, an independent non-profit 鈥渄edicated to innovating safety alignment for next-generation AI entertainment features.鈥�

To offer perspective on the move and on issues surrounding AI safety, privacy and digital addiction, 社区黑料鈥檚 Greg Toppo spoke with , a Seton Hall University law professor and director of its . Bernstein has also created a school outreach program for students and parents, introducing many for the first time to the idea of 鈥渢echnology overuse.鈥� 

An intellectual property lawyer, Bernstein noticed around 2015 or 2016 that 鈥渢hings were changing around me鈥� when it came to technology. 鈥淚 had three small kids, and I realized that I would go to birthday parties 鈥� the kids are not talking to each other. They’re looking at their phones! I’d go to see school plays, and I couldn’t see my kids on the stage because everybody was holding their phones in front of them.鈥�

Likewise, she felt less productive 鈥渂ecause I was constantly texting and emailing instead of focusing.鈥�

But it wasn鈥檛 until whistleblowers began revealing the hidden designs behind so many social media tools that Bernstein considered how she could help herself and others limit their use.

In 2021, the whistleblower , the primary source for The Wall Street Journal鈥檚 series, told congressional lawmakers that her employer鈥檚 products 鈥渉arm children, stoke division, and weaken our democracy.鈥� Creating better, safer social media was possible, Haugen said, but Facebook 鈥渋s clearly not going to do so on its own.鈥�

In her testimony, Haugen zeroed in on the social media giant鈥檚 algorithm and designs. In her writing and speaking, Bernstein maintains that tech companies like Facebook 鈥� rebranded as Meta 鈥� manipulate us to keep us online as long as possible, with invisible designs that 鈥渢arget our deepest human vulnerabilities.鈥� For instance, they use a tool called , prominently on display on Facebook and Instagram, in which the page never ends. 鈥淲e just keep scrolling,鈥� she wrote recently. 鈥淭hey took away our stopping cues.鈥�

Similarly, video apps such as YouTube and TikTok rely on , in which one video automatically follows another indefinitely.

In 2023, Bernstein put her findings into a book, . Since then, dozens of state attorneys general and school districts have sued to force social media companies to reform 鈥� and Bernstein says this approach may also help parents and schools battle the growing threat of AI companion bots. 

Late last month, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators to make AI companions off-limits to minors. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo, a co-sponsor, said more than 70% of kids now use them. 鈥淐hatbots develop relationships with kids using fake empathy and are encouraging suicide,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淲e in Congress have a moral duty to enact bright-line rules to prevent further harm from this new technology.鈥�

The move comes weeks after the said it was investigating seven chatbot developers, saying it was looking into 鈥渉ow these firms measure, test and monitor potentially negative impacts of this technology on children and teens.鈥�

In her conversation with 社区黑料, Bernstein said the FTC probe amounts to 鈥渁nother pressure point鈥� that may help change how tech companies operate. 鈥淏ut it’s not just the FTC. It’s the lawsuits, and it’s bad PR that comes from the lawsuits, and hopefully there’ll be regulation. Litigation is expensive. Investors might not want to invest in these new products because there’s risk.鈥�

This conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

The obvious interest we have in this is that we’re seeing Character.AI鈥檚 new policy, which limits access to its chatbot companions to users 18 or older. I imagine folks like you would say it’s only the first step.

Just the fact that they are taking some precautions means hopefully some kids will not be exposed to what’s been happening 鈥� convincing them to kill themselves, convincing them to not talk to their parents, to stay away from their friends. That’s a good thing. 

On the other hand?

I’ve researched how tech companies, especially Meta and other companies, have been behaving for years. So I’m a bit suspicious, because we tend to see these kinds of moves when they’re threatened legally. So it’s not so surprising that it’s happening. They’re under pressure.

In my mind, there are two questions: First of all, what will this look like exactly? In the past, for example, you would see Meta, every time there’s a big privacy breach, they would apologize and say, “We’re fixing it,” and they’ll fix something small and not fix the big thing. So what are they really doing? What kind of age verification mechanisms are they going to use? Secondly, they said they’re creating some space for teens. What is this going to look like? We don’t know. And I believe that until there’s real regulation at stake, we can’t be sure that they will take real precautions. 

I read a earlier this year in which you used the phrase “collective legal action,” saying that this is what’s needed to exert pressure on tech companies to change their designs, which trap users into 鈥渙veruse.鈥� That’s a fairly recent development, correct?

At the beginning, the people who were writing on this were mostly psychologists. Parents thought it was their own fault. The idea was, “Let me just fix my habits.” It’s self-help. The books that came before me were mostly talking about self-help methods. And when I was thinking about collective action, I realized: Parents can鈥檛 really change things by themselves, because you can’t isolate your kid and not give them a cell phone, not give them social media. It becomes an endless fight. And so I thought this has to be changed through collective action, through pressure 鈥� through governmental pressure, litigation. 

Jonathan Haidt’s book talks about collective action through parents doing things together in order to not have your kid be the only one who does not have social media or a phone. The idea is that it’s not our fault. It has to be done differently.

And to your point, a lot of this is by design, whether it’s social media or games or AI companions. By design, they’re meant to keep you there, keep you in place, keep you engaged. That’s something that, until recently, was not on a lot of people’s radar.

It took after to come out and explain how it works, to understand it as a business model. There’s no accident. We’re getting these products for free: Gmail for free, Facebook for free. We are paying with our time and our data. They collect data on us in order to target advertising 鈥� that’s how they make money. And they need us online for as long as possible so they can collect the data 鈥� and also so we will see the ads. So they need to find ways to keep us online. And there are different mechanisms like the infinite scroll. And they come up with new ones. AI companions have new addictive mechanisms: the way that they , they always flatter you. For kids it’s even more addictive, but even for adults it鈥檚, “You’re always doing a great job.”

It’s meant to keep you talking, meant to keep you engaged. You focus a lot on games and social media, but it strikes me that AI companions make those things seem quaint in terms of their addictive qualities, or the potential for real peril.

I agree with you. If you have a spectrum where social media is addictive 鈥� people spend many hours online, and they’re not interacting face-to-face 鈥� that’s an issue. And you see this with AI companions too. But what’s concerning about AI companions is that it’s much worse for kids. If you think about it, if you’re a kid and you go to middle school, kids are not nice. It’s much nicer to chat with somebody who’s always nice to you. Falling in love and getting your heart broken is not fun. There are many websites that just offer girlfriends that cater to you. So for me, the scariest thing is that kids will just never really develop the skills to have these relationships. And some adults may also stop preferring them.

About a year ago, I wrote a piece in which I talked to a college student, maybe 19 or 20 years old, who admitted that essentially he had outsourced advice about his romantic life to ChatGPT 鈥� he had a girlfriend, and whenever they had a fight or disagreement, he would excuse himself, go into the bathroom and ask ChatGPT what he should be doing. I can see that both ways: On the one hand, it just seems incredible. On the other hand, I can see where he’s basically looking for good advice. He’s looking for guidance. What do you make of that?

People say you can get advice, and you can practice your dating skills. I’ll give you something that happened to me, which is on a different scale: I was traveling abroad, and I was in this restaurant, and the menu was in a different language. So what did I do? I took a picture of the menu and uploaded it to ChatGPT and got it translated to English. While I was doing it, a young man came up to my partner and asked to translate. So what happened? I was already busy looking at my phone because I had a translation. My partner was speaking to this young man who was very happy to speak, and they were having a great conversation. 

That’s an example of the kind of things we’re giving up. This guy you wrote about, instead of going to the bathroom, maybe could have asked a friend, developed a deeper relationship with a friend. Maybe they would share experiences. But he gets used to getting the immediate answer from somebody else, and you didn’t develop these relationships. 

We miss out on the possibility of having a human interaction. 

Yes.

In its announcement, Character.AI actually apologized to its younger users, saying that many of them had told the company how important these characters had become to them. And I’ve heard that before. I wonder: How do we as adults start to think about the flip side of this, that it’s difficult for young people to tear themselves away from these things they’ve created? Do you have any sympathy for that?

I have concern, actually, because these kids, sometimes they kill themselves for these bots. So I am concerned about what will happen to kids who are very attached when these bots are suddenly gone. And you hear news stories even of adults who suddenly lost characters they were attached to. It’s a bit like how do you get people who are addicted off the addiction when you suddenly cut them off? These are things we’ve never even thought of.

Is there anything I haven’t asked you that you think is an important piece of this?

An important piece of this is that you don’t yet have every teen, every kid, attached to an AI companion. So there’s a window of opportunity to create change. Social media is much more difficult, because by the time we realized how bad it was, everybody was on social media. The money interests were so big that they would fight every law in court. So it’s really important to move fast and also understand that Character.AI is a small part of the problem. Because it’s not just these specialized websites like Character.AI. It’s ChatGPT 鈥� one of the last lawsuits was . The AI bots in ChatGPT are becoming more human, so it’s important that any action is against these bots, against the type of characteristics they have and to regulate how they behave. Just getting rid of Character.AI is not going to solve the problem.

]]> /article/this-school-banned-phones-6-years-ago-teachers-and-many-kids-are-loving-it/ Tue, 23 Sep 2025 18:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1021030 This article was originally published in

SAN MATEO, Calif. 鈥� On a cool Friday morning in April, the halls of California鈥檚 San Mateo High School were full of students chatting, running to class or trying to find their friends.

But one common sight in high schools across the country was and always is absent from the halls of San Mateo: cellphones.

鈥淲hen you look at the crowd, kids are not buried in their phone,鈥� said Yvonne Shiu, the school鈥檚 principal. 鈥淭hey have grown to value being in the moment.鈥�

---

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

---

Students at the public high school about 20 minutes south of San Francisco have been prohibited since 2019 from using their cellphones while in school 鈥� from bell to bell. Schools nationwide, including some in Maryland, are now increasingly imposing such bans, but San Mateo was one of the earliest and largest schools in the country to implement a complete ban on cellphones during school hours.

At the start of each day, each of the 1,600 students lock their phone in a magnetically sealed pouch, created by the San Francisco-based company Yondr, that won鈥檛 be opened until the school day ends.

The decision to introduce Yondr pouches was the school鈥檚 attempt to tackle the increasingly pervasive effects of cellphone and social media overuse on its student body: cyberbullying, loss of sleep, self-esteem issues and endless distractions in class.

Teachers and administrators quickly embraced the program, saying it restored their grasp on students鈥� attention in class. Some even said if the school were to end the program, they鈥檇 leave.

As schools around the country implement similar cellphone bans, San Mateo offers a six-year track record of how a cellphone ban can force young people to focus and, in many cases, feel better.

鈥淚f schools can help alleviate some of those expectations and pressures about appearance and performance and embarrassment, and take away some of those elements that a lot of kids really struggle with and are confronted with, that is a benefit to them and to the school community and the school culture,鈥� said Casey Teague, a longtime world history teacher at the school.

A slow start

The decision to implement the Yondr program at San Mateo began with observation and a trial run.

One of its faculty members, Alicia Gorgani, observed a similar cellphone ban at San Lorenzo High School, a smaller school in the area, and brought the idea to San Mateo鈥檚 teachers and administrators.

Adam Gelb, San Mateo鈥檚 assistant principal at the time, said seeing the cellphone ban in action at San Lorenzo 鈥渂lew [his] mind.鈥�

鈥淪tudents were engaged with one another,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hey were interacting. They were playing card games. They were playing out on the yard. They were goofing around. They were in circles, talking to each other.鈥�

Gelb helped bring the program to San Mateo, which tested Yondr pouches in a few classrooms in spring 2019.

Teague, who鈥檚 worked at the school for more than 20 years, was one of those first instructors to pilot the program. He said he decided to try out the Yondr pouches in his class after noticing students鈥� smartphones were constantly bombarding them with notifications.

鈥淏y 2018, every kid had a phone. That wasn鈥檛 anything new,鈥� Teague said. 鈥淏ut the distracting nature of the phone was becoming more and more obvious.鈥�

Health education teacher Brittany Dybdahl said leading up to the ban, the school was seeing an increase in cyberbullying and drama stemming from online activities.

Embarrassing moments or conflicts among students had the risk of getting captured on video and being immortalized online.

鈥淚t basically created way more opportunities for students to be emotionally impacted throughout the school day,鈥� Dybdahl said. 鈥淎nd that would, of course, affect their academics and learning.鈥�

After the pilot program, and many discussions with students and their parents, San Mateo implemented the program schoolwide beginning in the 2019-20 academic year.

Some teachers were apprehensive about the cellphone ban, thinking it would create more work for first-period teachers to check that each student had their phones sealed away.

But those checks quickly became part of the daily routine, said physics teacher Patrick Thrasher.

And after seeing the impact the program had on their students, most faculty members got on board, Thrasher said.

鈥淭here was such a pretty clear, drastic difference in the classroom,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t was just night and day.鈥�

San Mateo鈥檚 cellphone ban was not even a year old when the COVID-19 pandemic moved all learning online for a year starting in March 2020. But the school decided to continue the cellphone ban when students returned to the classroom in 2021.

鈥淭hey do spend enough time already on screens that, you know, seven hours a day here at school [without screen time] is not going to kill them,鈥� Shiu said.

The student reaction

Enforcement of the ban hasn鈥檛 been entirely without issues.

San Mateo faculty members said some students 鈥� albeit a small percentage 鈥� are determined to bypass the Yondr pouches and keep their phones on them. Some put calculators, hard drives or other phone-shaped objects in their Yondr pouches. Others put old, unused 鈥渂urner phones鈥� in their pouches while keeping their personal phone on them.

But many San Mateo students, like junior Lulu Bertolina, embraced the program. She said the Yondr program was one of the reasons she enrolled at San Mateo.

鈥淗aving our phones [in Yondr pouches] made it easier to make friends, because I can鈥檛 go off on my phone and not make conversation with people,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t almost forced it 鈥� in a really good way.鈥�

For San Mateo senior Siddharth Gogi, the absence of phones made the school feel more welcoming. He said students aren鈥檛 glued to their phones playing video games at lunch or distracted on social media in class.

鈥淐onversations move past surface level when you have that time to talk to one another,鈥� said Gogi, San Mateo鈥檚 three-time class president who graduated this spring.

He acknowledged, though, that some students are concerned about not having quick access to their phones in case of an emergency.

In the early 2000s, many schools repealed their cellphone restrictions after the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado.

But Shiu said it鈥檚 better if students don鈥檛 have access to their phones during an emergency. The pouches prevent students and family members from sharing misinformation or flooding 911 with calls overwhelming first responders and the cellphone network.

鈥淚n any emergency, we want students to be focused on the adult giving the information,鈥� Shiu said.

The experts

To hear the experts tell it, there鈥檚 an overriding good reason for schools to ban cellphones. Cellphone use and social media sites can both have a serious impact on young peoples鈥� well-being.

Extensive cellphone use during the day has a 鈥渄irect correlation with a decline in mental health,鈥� said Annette Anderson, the deputy director of the Johns Hopkins University Center for Safe and Healthy Schools.

鈥淲e also know that cellphone use late into the evening has a disruptive factor in our young people getting enough sleep and then being attentive enough in the morning,鈥� Anderson said.

Young people are grappling with the reality that the phone in their hand could be doing them harm. A Pew Research Survey released in April found almost half of U.S. teens age 13 to 17 agreed social media sites have a mostly negative impact on kids their age.

San Mateo wellness counselor Helen Citrin said a cellphone ban can provide students a much-needed break from their phones.

For students who are highly anxious or struggle managing their emotions, Citrin said, not having access to a cellphone can help as it prevents them from constantly texting their parents.

鈥淭hat pouch offers a boundary,鈥� she said.

One recent study echoed this sentiment. Independent research on school cellphone bans is limited, but a 2024 study conducted by Yondr found that students saw a 15% increase in the likelihood they received a passing grade after their school implemented Yondr pouches. The report also found a 44% decrease in behavioral referrals after implementation.

Data from San Mateo paints a mixed picture of the school鈥檚 performance since implementation of the cellphone ban. Math and English test scores declined from 2019 through 2024, but both the graduation rate and preparedness for college and careers have inched upward. Meanwhile, the suspension rate increased.

Gelb offered an explanation for the rise: 鈥淓verybody was forced to communicate in person, so you had more people talking, and there鈥檚 more chance for someone to say the wrong thing or be in the wrong place.鈥�

But, he added, the premeditated incidents and cyberbullying disappeared from the school day.

A growing trend

Although San Mateo might have been early to the cellphone ban movement, it鈥檚 among growing company now.

State and local governments and school districts across the country are now considering 鈥� or have already passed 鈥� policies on cellphone use in school. Yondr boasts that millions of students from all 50 states are now using its pouches.

While there is no statewide ban in Maryland, more than a third of its public schools prohibit cellphone use, . Several school districts, including Howard and Baltimore counties, have passed a total ban.

About 30% of U.S. schools now have a ban on cellphone use throughout the school day, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

That percentage is likely to rise. In the nation鈥檚 largest state, Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed legislation last year requiring all public and charter schools in California to create a policy to reduce or ban cellphone use during school hours by July 1, 2026, but left each school or school district to decide the specifics of their policy.

And recently, New York joined the more than two dozen other states instituting a complete ban on cellphones during school hours.

Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said the decision comes as part of the state鈥檚 efforts to protect youth mental health.

鈥淥ur young people succeed when they鈥檙e learning and growing, not clicking and scrolling,鈥� Hochul said in a statement in May.

A model to follow?

San Mateo faculty and staff said the school鈥檚 careful implementation of the Yondr program and the conversations it had with families and educators led to its success.

But several San Mateo faculty members said Yondr alone can鈥檛 solve youth mental health issues stemming from social media and personal devices.

The second students leave school grounds, they once again have access to their phones and can browse as much as they want. Citrin, the school鈥檚 wellness counselor, said many of the students she deals with stay up late into the night doomscrolling, or texting or video chatting with friends.

That being the case, Gelb said schools should also teach students how to develop a healthy relationship with their phone and social media.

The pouches also carry a financial impact on schools.

Each student at San Mateo receives a free Yondr pouch at the beginning of the school year, but each replacement costs $15. In total, Shiu estimated the school spends about $20,000 a year on Yondr pouches.

However, San Mateo teachers and administrators said the program鈥檚 benefits outweigh its costs.

鈥淔rom a school perspective, it keeps kids off of their phone during class time,鈥� Citrin said. 鈥淏ecause the main focus here is education, that鈥檚 what the purpose is, and that鈥檚 what the use is benefiting.鈥�

Capital News Service is a student-staffed reporting service operated by the University of Maryland鈥檚 Phillip Merrill College of Journalism. Stories are available at the  and may be reprinted as long as credit is given to Capital News Service and, most importantly, to the students who produced the work.

]]> /article/4-tips-to-make-screen-time-good-for-your-kids-and-even-help-them-learn-to-talk/ Sat, 03 May 2025 10:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=1014677 This article was originally published in

Screen time permeates the lives of toddlers and preschoolers. For many young children, their exposure includes both direct viewing, such as watching a TV show, and indirect viewing, such as when media is on in the background during other daily activities.

As many parents will know, . As scholars who specialize in and , we are particularly interested in the recent finding that too much screen time is associated with less parent-child talk, such as .

As a result, the and suggest limiting screen time for children.

---

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

---

Beyond quantity, they also emphasize the quality of a child鈥檚 engagement with digital media. Used in moderation, certain kinds of media can 鈥� and even contribute to language development.

These tips may help parents structure and manage screen time more effectively.

No. 1: Choose high-quality content

Parents can enhance their children鈥檚 screen-time value by choosing high-quality media 鈥� that is, content with educational benefit. , from 鈥淣ature Cat鈥� to 鈥淪id the Science Kid,鈥� that would qualify as educational.

Two other elements contribute to the quality of screen time.

First, screen content should be age-appropriate 鈥� that is, parents should choose shows, apps and games that are specifically designed for young children. Using a resource such as allows parents to check recommended ages for television shows, movies and apps.

Second, parents can look for shows that use evidence-based educational techniques, such as participatory cues. That鈥檚 when characters in shows break the 鈥渇ourth wall鈥� by directly talking to their young audience to prompt reflection, action or response. that children learn new words better when a show has participatory cues 鈥� perhaps because it encourages active engagement rather than passive viewing.

Many classic, high-quality television shows for young children feature participatory cues, including 鈥�,鈥� 鈥�,鈥� 鈥溾�� and 鈥�.鈥�

No. 2: Join in on screen time

The that whenever possible.

This recommendation is based on the evidence that increased screen media use can reduce parent-child conversation. This, in turn, can affect . Intentionally discussing media content with children increases language exposure during screen time.

Parents may find the following joint media engagement strategies useful:

• Press pause and ask questions.
• Point out basic concepts, such as letters and colors.
• Model more advanced language using a 鈥渢hink aloud鈥� approach, such as, 鈥淭hat surprised me! I wonder what will happen next?鈥�

No. 3: Connect what鈥檚 on screen to real life

because their brains struggle to transfer information and ideas from screens to the real world. Children learn more from screen media, research shows, when the content connects to their real-life experiences.

To maximize the benefits of screen time, parents can help children connect what they are viewing with experiences they鈥檝e had. For example, while watching content together, a parent might say, 鈥淭hey鈥檙e going to the zoo. Do you remember what we saw when we went to the zoo?鈥�

This approach promotes language development and cognitive skills, including . Children learn better with repeated exposure to words, so selecting media that relates to a child鈥檚 real-life experiences can help reinforce new vocabulary.

No. 4: Enjoy screen-free times

Ensuring that a child鈥檚 day is filled with varied experiences, including periods that don鈥檛 involve screens, increases language exposure in children鈥檚 daily routines.

Two ideal screen-free times are mealtimes and bedtime. Mealtimes present opportunities for back-and-forth conversation with children, exposing them to a lot of language. Additionally, bedtime should be screen-free, as using screens near bedtime or having a TV in children鈥檚 bedrooms .

Alternatively, devoting bedtime to reading children鈥檚 books accomplishes the dual goals of helping children wind down and creating a .

Having additional screen-free, one-on-one, parent-child play for at least 10 minutes at some other point in the day is good for young children. Parents can maximize the benefits of one-on-one play by letting .

A parent鈥檚 role here is to follow their child鈥檚 lead, play along, give their child their full attention 鈥� so no phones for mom or dad, either 鈥� and provide language enrichment. They can do this by labeling toys, pointing out shapes, colors and sizes. It can also be done by describing activities 鈥� 鈥淵ou鈥檙e rolling the car across the floor鈥� 鈥� and responding when their child speaks.

Parent-child playtime is also a great opportunity to extend interests from screen time. Including toys of your child鈥檚 favorite characters from the shows or movies they love in playtime transforms that enjoyment from screen time into learning.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

]]> /article/a-better-understanding-of-what-people-do-on-their-devices-is-key-to-digital-well-being/ Tue, 24 Dec 2024 17:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=736576 This article was originally published in

In an era where digital devices are everywhere, the term 鈥渟creen time鈥� has become a buzz phrase in discussions about technology鈥檚 impact on people鈥檚 lives. Parents are . But what if this entire approach to screen time is fundamentally flawed?

While researchers have made advances in measuring screen use, a detailed critique of the research in 2020 in how screen time is conceptualized, measured and studied. how digital technology affects human cognition and emotions. My ongoing research with cognitive psychologist builds on that critique鈥檚 findings.

We categorized existing screen-time measures, mapping them to attributes like whether they are duration-based or context-specific, and are studying how they relate to health outcomes such as anxiety, stress, depression, loneliness, mood and sleep quality, creating a clearer framework for understanding screen time. We believe that grouping all digital activities together misses how different types of screen use affect people.

By applying this framework, researchers can better identify which digital activities are beneficial or potentially harmful, allowing people to adopt more intentional screen habits that support well-being and reduce negative mental and emotional health effects.

Screen time isn鈥檛 one thing

Screen time, at first glance, seems easy to understand: It鈥檚 simply the time spent on devices with screens such as smartphones, tablets, laptops and TVs. But this basic definition hides the variety within people鈥檚 digital activities. To truly understand screen time鈥檚 impact, you need to look closer at specific digital activities and how each affects cognitive function and mental health.

In our research, we divide screen time into four broad categories: educational use, work-related use, social interaction and entertainment.

For education, activities like online classes and reading articles can improve cognitive skills like problem-solving and critical thinking. Digital tools like mobile apps can by boosting motivation, self-regulation and self-control.

But these tools also , such as distracting learners and contributing to poorer recall compared with traditional learning methods. For young users, screen-based learning may even have on development and their social environment.

Screen time for work, like writing reports or attending virtual meetings, is a central part of modern life. It can improve productivity and enable remote work. However, may also lead to stress, anxiety and cognitive fatigue.

Screen use for social connection helps people interact with others through video chats, social media or online communities. These interactions can promote and even such as decreased depressive symptoms and improved glycemic control for people with chronic conditions. But passive screen use, like endless social media scrolling, can such as cyberbullying, social comparison and loneliness, especially for teens.

Screen use for entertainment . Mindfulness apps or meditation tools, for example, can . Creative digital activities, like graphic design and music production, can reduce stress and improve mental health. However, too much screen use may by limiting physical activity and time for other rewarding pursuits.

Context matters

Screen time affects people differently based on factors like mood, social setting, age and family environment. Your emotions before and during screen use can shape your experience. Positive interactions can lift your mood, while with certain online activities. For example, we found that affect how readily people become distracted on their devices. Alerts and other changes distract users, which makes it more challenging to focus on tasks.

The social context of screen use also matters. Watching a movie with family can strengthen bonds, while using screens alone can increase feelings of isolation, especially when it replaces face-to-face interactions.

Family influence plays a role, too. For example, parents鈥� screen habits , and structured parental involvement can help reduce excessive use. It highlights the positive effect of structured parental involvement, along with mindful social contexts, in managing screen time for healthier digital interactions.

Consistency and nuance

Technology now lets researchers track screen use accurately, but simply counting hours doesn鈥檛 give us the full picture. Even when we measure specific activities, like social media or gaming, studies don鈥檛 often capture engagement level or intent. For example, someone might use social media to stay informed or to procrastinate.

Studies on screen time often vary in how they define and categorize it. Some focus on total screen exposure without differentiating between activities. Others examine specific types of use but may not account for the content or context. This lack of consistency in defining screen time makes it hard to compare studies or generalize findings.

Understanding screen use requires a more nuanced approach than tracking the amount of time people spend on their screens. Recognizing the different effects of specific digital activities and distinguishing between active and passive use are crucial steps. Using standardized definitions and combining quantitative data with personal insights would provide a fuller picture. Researchers can also study how screen use affects people over time.

For policymakers, this means developing guidelines that move beyond one-size-fits-all limits by focusing on recommendations suited to specific activities and individual needs. For the rest of us, this awareness encourages a balanced digital diet that blends enriching online and offline activities for better well-being.

, Doctoral student in the College of Health and Human Development,

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

]]> /article/want-to-spur-your-childs-intellectual-development-use-audiobooks-instead-of-videos/ Fri, 02 Aug 2024 14:30:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=730705 This article was originally published in

It鈥檚 not uncommon today to see children glued to their screens. In fact, 80% of parents with children 11 or younger say their kids watch YouTube videos, according to a . Half of these parents say their kids watch videos every day 鈥� some even several times a day.

But staring at a screen for too long can negatively impact children鈥檚 well-being 鈥� . According to research, kids demonstrate when their screen time surpasses one hour a day. They are also more likely to experience anxiety and depression and suffer from . Even short, fast-paced videos have consequences, impacting the .

I believe it is essential to explore how to use technology in a way that can positively impact children鈥檚 ability to think and communicate. Audiobooks present a compelling case.

---

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

---

Starting around , most children can comprehend simple stories and fairy tales. Audiobooks can be particularly useful during car rides, bedtime routine and quiet playtime. For school-aged children, they can by providing an alternative way to experience books. And most importantly, they can 鈥� much more than videos.

Here are five ways that audiobooks can enhance children鈥檚 ability to learn:

Enhances imagination and intelligence

Unlike videos, which provide visual and auditory stimuli, audiobooks rely solely on listening. This encourages children to visualize the story in their minds, . In contrast, passive videos provide preformed images that require no voluntary imagination.

Unlike , which happens spontaneously and unintentionally, such as in a dream during sleep, is the deliberate effort to create new images in the mind. People are not born with this ability. Rather, it must be during childhood through conversations and engagement with stories and fairy tales.

Research indicates that voluntary imagination leads to . In fact, training voluntary imagination is .

Develops listening skills and attention span

Listening to audiobooks requires children to focus and pay attention to the spoken word, promoting the . Unlike the passive consumption of videos, where the visual component dominates a child鈥檚 attention, comprehending an audiobook demands active listening. This can improve a child鈥檚 ability to concentrate and maintain attention for longer periods.

Expands vocabulary and language skills

Audiobooks are a valuable tool for expanding a child鈥檚 . Exposure to rich and varied language allows children to encounter new words and phrases in context, which aids in .

Compared with print books, audiobooks feature expressive narration, which can model proper pronunciation, intonation and rhythm.

Encourages independent learning

Audiobooks can foster a sense of independence in young children as they create their own unique vision of the scenes and events described in a book. This can cultivate a habit of independent learning as children follow complex narratives, infer meaning and make connections between different parts of the story. This self-directed learning approach can and lay a strong foundation for future academic success.

Preserves eyesight

Excessive screen time can strain children鈥檚 eyes, leading to discomfort and potential , including nearsightedness. Audiobooks, on the other hand, eliminate the need for screens, giving children鈥檚 eyes a much-needed break.

Audiobooks are a powerful tool for enhancing a child鈥檚 cognitive and linguistic development, and many are available for free at local libraries or on apps like . As parents and educators seek to nurture smarter and more well-rounded children, audiobooks can play a significant role.

This article is republished from under a Creative Commons license. Read the .

]]> /zero2eight/5-top-takeaways-from-the-hunt-institutes-technology-in-early-childhood-discussion/ Wed, 23 Aug 2023 11:00:26 +0000 https://the74million.org/?p=8346 This summer, the Hunt Institute hosted a panel discussion on the risks and opportunities that technology presents in the lives of young children. Experts shared their insights on how caregivers can best approach digital media consumption and tools for children in an increasingly digital world.

Here are our top five takeaways:

1. We all rely on screens. For better and worse, 鈥淧eople use screens because it鈥檚 an easy way to keep kids occupied and safe when they need to get other things done,鈥� Dr. Deborah Rosenfeld of the explained. Speaking from personal experience, she emphasized that this 鈥渋s not a unique problem of income that leads to people using screens as babysitters.鈥�

While technology became ubiquitous during the Covid pandemic, using digital media to distract and entertain young children is not ideal, especially if it interferes with play and learning opportunities.

2. Consider the timing and type of digital media exposure. Kris Perry, executive director of , said, 鈥淔or all young children, high amounts of screen time, especially without adult guidance or as a passive pursuit, is unambiguously detrimental to their learning and development. It鈥檚 not until the second year of life that there is any evidence that children benefit from media for learning, and even that requires direct facilitation and reteaching from an adult.鈥�

Fundamental skills and abilities develop during early childhood. Greater screen time in infancy, Perry said, can lead to lower attention and executive function at nine years old.鈥� Research shows physical and social-emotional impacts as well.

3. Technology should not displace playful learning. Screen time correlates with poorer social and language development. 鈥淲e came into being with optimization for being around other people and with this physical world,鈥� explained Dr. Victor Lee of Stanford University鈥檚 . 鈥淥ur hardware is best treated and fine-tuned within that space.鈥�

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends children ages one to five get at least 60 minutes a day of moderate to vigorous physical activity, and panelists agree that screen time should not interfere. 鈥淪creen time displacement for peer play relates to worse fine and gross motor skills for one- to three-year-olds,鈥� Perry said, endorsing the AAP guidelines.

4. High-quality educational digital resources are scarce. Parents and caregivers must use caution in the media that children consume. Lee compared the prevalence of new technology to the processed food revolution, which made cheap, easily distributed foods widely available. 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 mean that it is as healthy, desirable or should be replacing what we have elsewhere,鈥� he argued.

Rosenfeld recommended and as reputable resources for finding developmentally appropriate content for children. Perry recommends that caregivers refer to (from Kathy Hirsh-Pasek and others) when discerning if a digital media resource has the potential to promote learning.

Even with high-quality digital-based content, Lee said, 鈥淚t is not there to, nor is it ever going to be capable of replacing what humans do, especially concerning how we support the development, growth and autonomy of our kids.鈥�

5. Synchronous learning and healthy modeling should be prioritized. 鈥淪ynchronicity is a caregiver sitting beside a child watching a show, playing a game,鈥� Rosenfeld explained. That is not the typical situation. She suggests incorporating methods to mediate learning, like discussing key concepts, ideas and character interactions, which are critical when incorporating digital media and resources asynchronously.

Perry stressed that caregivers should 鈥渞emember what the long-term effects are on children, not only directly when they鈥檙e on devices, but watching adults be on devices are also interrupting their opportunities to develop.鈥�

]]> /zero2eight/resetting-expectations-5-takeaways-from-a-webinar-on-screen-time-in-the-age-of-covid-19/ Tue, 07 Apr 2020 14:54:54 +0000 http://the74million.org/?p=3659 A recent webinar on screen time, part of the presented by the New America Foundation, Slate and Arizona State University offered a discussion that paired Dan Kois (author of and host of Slate鈥檚 鈥淢om and Dad Are Fighting鈥� podcast) with Lisa Guernsey (co-author of and director of teaching, learning, and tech program at ).

Here are five takeaways:聽

1. Focus on content, not time. Many parents are told to impose strict rules about screen time, but Guernsey argued that in these extraordinary times, 鈥淲e can relax those limits and be forgiving.鈥� She did note that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends zero solo screen time before 18 months, but they say joint media engagement鈥攚here parents and caregivers point out what they鈥檙e viewing and talk about it 鈥� has its place. The context matters too: viewing media with friends and family and talking about what you see on screen (or recounting those stories later, when the screen is off) is much better for learning than viewing alone.

2. Use tech as a means of connection. It鈥檚 a double-edged sword. While it sometimes feels like technology is turning us into a nation of zombies, it鈥檚 also something to appreciate when we can鈥檛 connect in person. The speakers mentioned Facetime and Zoom playdates, dance parties and book clubs. Guernsey described a 鈥渂ear hunt鈥� that took place in a Connecticut neighborhood鈥攆amilies drove or walked around town looking for teddy bears that had been placed in the windows of the houses. They recommended thinking of some online activities, such as Facetime with grandparents, in terms of how they can strengthen long-distance relationships. 鈥淢ake it about values,鈥� Guernsey said, rather than focusing so much on academics or getting things done.
3. Use screens as babysitters鈥攕ometimes. 鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to have little kids around 24/7,鈥� admitted Guernsey, and parents who are lucky enough to be able to work from home can get 鈥淶oomifried鈥濃�攁 term she credited to Kathy Hirsh-Pasek. While co-viewing is always ideal, TV shows for kids can benefit social and emotional development. She mentioned Daniel Tiger鈥檚 Neighborhood and other content, while a webinar participant recommended Discovery鈥檚 . 鈥淚t鈥檚 not the screen time I worry about,鈥� Gurensey said, 鈥淚t鈥檚 the mindlessness time.鈥�
4. Let online stuff lead to offline activities. Streaming video is an inherently passive pastime, but it can be a springboard for reading, physical activity and creative projects. You don鈥檛 need fancy art supplies to make a book about a movie you鈥檝e watched. A game you played online can lead to a scavenger hunt. Surfing the web can spark ideas for making a mess鈥攐r a snack鈥攊n the kitchen.
5. Recognize the differences between learning in a classroom and learning onscreen. Given the weeks and, possibly, months of closed schools, let鈥檚 all appreciate the teachers who are trying to do so much with so little, but face it: we鈥檒l never replicate what kids would be getting in school. Kois said he saw the pandemic as a chance to promote the idea that 鈥渓earning is a thing that鈥檚 worth doing鈥濃�攖hat is, not just for grades or stickers. He added, perhaps a tad wishfully, 鈥淜ids鈥� boredom threshold will plummet. They may become receptive to suggestions they would have rejected before.鈥�

]]>