Cellphones in schools are a big problem. New Hampshire has a chance to lead on the solution.

Yahoo

13-02-2025

"To suggest that even moderate smartphone use is harmless is akin to arguing that a few cigarettes are acceptable." (Photo by Daniel de)
The legislative process is much like playing an accordion. At times the process is on a long, stretched-out timetable where institutional vigor hits a low note. Other times the process moves swiftly, screeching as if compressed in response to an urgent issue. It is in the later part of this metaphor that the New Hampshire General Court finds itself over the issue of cellphones in public schools.
The General Court and Gov. Kelly Ayotte appear poised to swiftly pass legislation to regulate student cellphone use in public schools.
Some may dismiss this as a flash-in-the-pan issue, political posturing, or a backdoor attempt to infringe upon freedom of speech. This may even appear to some as an issue that lies outside of the purview of government intervention, an issue of self-control.
These arguments are flat wrong. This issue is one of the most salient and concerning problems of the 21st century. A problem that has yet to bear the full fruit of its wide-ranging consequences.
At this point in the public debate, the brain-based science is quite clear about the harmful effects that cellphones have on young minds. To be clear, current research examines the novel effect smartphones, colloquially referred to as cellphones, have on developing minds.
This technological innovation sits at the heart of this issue.
Social psychologists Jean Twenge and John Haidt are at the forefront of this research. They have extensively documented the devastating effects of smartphone use on adolescent mental health, impulsivity, focus, and social development.
The tech environment in which Generations Z and Alpha have been raised has profoundly altered their cognitive and emotional landscapes, leaving them more anxious, distracted, and socially isolated than any previous generation.
Twenge's research further highlights how the rise of social media and smartphone accessibility have correlated with increased rates of depression, anxiety, and self-harm among adolescents. Haidt's work hints at broader civic implications. A generation raised on fleeting digital interactions will struggle with deeper, more meaningful engagement in both personal and political spheres.
Despite these startling conclusions, we have failed Generations Z and Alpha. Educators, parents, politicians, and community members have stood idly by as smartphones have eroded attention spans, exacerbated social toxicity, and reshaped childhood development.
To suggest that even moderate smartphone use is harmless is akin to arguing that a few cigarettes are acceptable – an outmoded and insidious mindset.
It is not enough to suggest that students simply need better impulse-control. The addictive design of social media apps exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of young minds, making self-regulation nearly impossible. Schools have increasingly become the frontline of this issue where educators struggle to maintain student focus in the face of an all-consuming digital presence.
Without intervention, the next generation will face even greater hurdles in focus, intellectual perseverance, and meaningful human connection.
The primary objection by those who oppose a regulatory response is that the process will act as an end run around free speech protections. Forcing tech and social media companies to develop products within a 'duty of care' framework to mitigate harms is considered a slippery slope. Critics argue that it could lead to stifling regulation and violations of creative rights.
This argument might have some validity when it comes to the general public's interaction with tech and social media. After all, an adult has the choice to consent to using specific pieces of technology. However, this is not what this issue is about.
This issue is about vulnerable minds having unregulated access to a developmentally harmful product within an environment that is supposed to be nurturing their intellectual growth.
Just like harmful substances and products have age and health restrictions, social media and smartphones should be held to the same standards.
The consequences of inaction extend far beyond academic performance. The erosion of deep focus and intellectual perseverance threatens not only individual success but also civic and economic stability. The ability to engage in sustained, reasoned discourse is essential to the health of a republic, yet we are raising a generation that struggles to sustain attention long enough to read a book, let alone deliberate on complex societal issues.
Moreover, the economic implications of a generation unable to sustain focus and persevere through challenges are staggering. Employers across industries already report difficulties in hiring young professionals who can engage in sustained critical thinking, manage complex work, and maintain professional interactions without digital distractions. If we do not address this crisis, we will see long-term damage to workforce productivity and innovation.
These generational harms might be inadvertently setting the table for an aggressive incursion of artificial intelligence within the workforce.
This is not an issue that can be left to individual schools, teachers, or even parents alone. It is a collective action problem that demands systemic solutions. A school-by-school or district-by-district approach is inadequate.
A true solution will include efforts to educate parents on digital well-being, a rating and age-gating system for addictive content, increased outdoor playtime for all grades, and policies that hold social media companies accountable for user harms.
If we acknowledge the full scope of this crisis, broader legislative action must follow – addressing digital harm and ensuring future generations develop healthy digital habits. Political leadership is desperately needed at the state and federal levels. It is time for the legislative accordion to compress and bring about vigorous and swift results.
The New Hampshire General Court must take a leadership role within the national movement to protect future generations from the harms of unregulated cellphone use in public schools.