Teens spend more than a quarter of their time at school on phones, new study finds
The study, spearheaded by Seattle Children's Hospital, found that among the more than 115 eighth- through 12th-grade students that it tracked, 25% of them spent more than two hours on their phones during a typical six-and-a-half hour school day. The study found that the average time spent among all the students they tracked was roughly 1.5 hours, which contributed to 27% of their average daily use.
The study's findings come just several days after the state of Colorado introduced House Bill 1135, which would require school districts in the state to adopt policies that limit the use of cellphones by students during school hours. If passed, Colorado would join 19 other states that have adopted some type of cellphone restrictions for students, according to Democratic state Rep. Meghan Lukens.
Dc Council Proposes Bill To Ban Cell Phones In District's Public Schools
"I'm not a big fan of government controlling people's lives, but in this context, I'm all for it," psychotherapist Thomas Kersting told Fox News Digital. Kersting is a former school counselor who has lectured for 16 years about the adolescent impact of increased screen time. He wrote a bestselling book called "Disconnected," which posited that increased screen time for kids is re-wiring their brains.
"I started seeing an incredible influx of kids diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADHD) from when I was working as a high school counselor. It did not add up," Kersting said. "The chronic eight or nine hours a day of stimulation affects the executive functioning, executive functions of the brain, which is what you need to be able to concentrate, focus, retain, and all that stuff."
Read On The Fox News App
Kersting pointed out that schools and school districts are also taking the lead in implementing various ways to cut down on students using their cellphones during class time, but added that state and local legislation can have the power to push schools that may be afraid to act due to parental concerns.
Could Smartphone Use Cause Hallucinations?
"The phone has become the umbilical cord between parent and child," said Kersting. "So, the idea of a parent nowadays sending their kid to school is more terrifying and schools, I believe, are probably concerned about litigation, violation of rights and things of that nature."
But while parents may be apprehensive, taking phones out of school can help improve students' test scores, attention spans and socialization, while reducing the need for disciplinary intervention, Kersting said.
The study by Seattle Children's Hospital found that, excluding web browsers, the top five apps or categories used by school-aged students were messaging, Instagram, video streaming, audio apps and email.Original article source: Teens spend more than a quarter of their time at school on phones, new study finds
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets Trump admin cut off health grants it says advance DEI or ‘gender ideology extremism'
The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to cut off health research grants it contends advance diversity, equity and inclusion efforts or promote 'gender ideology extremism.' By a 5-4 vote, the justices lifted an order a federal court judge in Boston issued forcing the National Institutes of Health to restore funding for more than 1,700 grants focused on heart disease, HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, alcohol and substance abuse and mental health issues. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's liberals in dissent from the court's decision to permit the funding halt. While Barrett voted with most of the court's conservatives to let the administration stop the grant funding, she sided with Roberts and the liberals to form a majority that left in place the lower judge's order voiding several NIH policies aimed at enforcing Trump's anti-DEI edicts. Since the ruling leaves the grant recipients without federal funds for now, the Trump administration seems certain to claim it as yet another in a flurry of wins in emergency appeals it has filed with the Supreme Court. In a solo concurring opinion, Barrett indicated that the court's ruling Thursday signaled that the grant recipients should have brought their claims for lost funding not to a district judge in Boston but to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington, which hears disputes over federal contracts. U.S. District Judge William Young ordered the health-related grants restored in June, following lawsuits filed by impacted grant recipients and 16 Democratic-led states complaining of cuts to programs at their state universities. Young, a Reagan appointee, used unusually strident language to condemn the targeted cuts, many of which ended grants studying the impacts of disease on specific minority groups. 'This represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community,' the judge said of the cuts. 'I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.' However, in Thursday's ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch accused Young of defying the Supreme Court by not abiding by an emergency ruling it issued in April, allowing the Trump administration to cancel $64 million in teaching-related grants. (That 5-4 ruling also found Roberts in dissent along with the three liberal justices.) 'When this Court issues a decision, it constitutes a precedent that commands respect in lower courts,' Gorsuch declared, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned a blistering 21-page solo opinion calling the court's latest ruling 'bizarre' and complaining in particular about her colleagues 'sending plaintiffs on a likely futile, multivenue quest for complete relief.' She even declared that the court's decision will result in animals used in medical experiments being 'euthanized.' Jackson also repeated her past assertions that the high court is bending over backward to favor the Trump administration. 'Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,' she wrote. In filings with the high court over the NIH funding, the Trump administration complained that Young's order required the agency to 'pay out over $783 million in grants,' but grant recipients argued that 'figure appears to be invented out of whole cloth.' Solicitor General John Sauer ridiculed some of the grants shut down by the administration, pointing to funding for programs exploring 'intersectional, multilevel and multidimensional structural racism for English- and Spanish-speaking populations' and 'anti-racist healing in nature.' Sauer told the justices that a 'comprehensive internal review' found the grants ran afoul of one or more of three executive orders President Donald Trump issued shortly after he returned to office in January. Two of the directives targeted DEI-related programs and grants, while the third sought to affirm 'the immutable biological reality of sex' by ending policies and programs accommodating or benefiting transgender people. Sauer also put forward the argument that appeared to carry the day Thursday: Congress has mandated legal disputes over federal government grants and contracts be pursued only in the Court of Federal Claims. That court could eventually award financial damages to grantees if it determines their grants were illegally terminated, but is unlikely to provide immediate relief, according to legal experts. The Supreme Court's ruling on the NIH grants is not a final decision on the legality of the grant terminations. But it means the administration can withhold the funding while the legal fight plays out. The Trump administration has appealed Young's ruling to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month declined the administration's request to put his decision on hold as the appeal proceeds.
2 hours ago
Supreme Court lets Trump administration cut $783M of funding in anti-DEI push
WASHINGTON -- The Trump administration can slash hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of research funding in its push to cut federal diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, the Supreme Court decided Thursday. The high court majority lifted a judge's order blocking $783 million worth of cuts made by the National Institutes of Health to align with Republican President Donald Trump's priorities. The high court did keep Trump administration guidance on future funding blocked, however. The court split 5-4 on the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was along those who would have kept the cuts blocked, along with the court's three liberals. The order marks the latest Supreme Court win for Trump and allows the administration to forge ahead with canceling hundreds of grants while the lawsuit continues to unfold. The plaintiffs, including states and public-health advocacy groups, have argued that the cuts will inflict 'incalculable losses in public health and human life.' The Justice Department, meanwhile, has said funding decisions should not be 'subject to judicial second-guessing' and efforts to promote policies referred to as DEI can 'conceal insidious racial discrimination.' The lawsuit addresses only part of the estimated $12 billion of NIH research projects that have been cut, but in its emergency appeal, the Trump administration also took aim at nearly two dozen other times judges have stood in the way of its funding cuts. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said judges shouldn't be considering those cases under an earlier Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for teacher-training program cuts. He says they should go to federal claims court instead. But the plaintiffs, 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups, argued that research grants are fundamentally different from the teacher-training contracts and couldn't be sent to claims court. Halting studies midway can also ruin the data already collected and ultimately harm the country's potential for scientific breakthroughs by disrupting scientists' work in the middle of their careers, they argued. U.S. District Judge William Young judge in Massachusetts agreed, finding the abrupt cancellations were arbitrary and discriminatory. 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this,' Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing in June. He later added: 'Have we no shame.' An appeals court left Young's ruling in place. ___
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lets Trump administration cut $783 million of research funding in anti-DEI push
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration can slash hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of research funding in its push to cut federal diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, the Supreme Court decided Thursday. The high court majority lifted a judge's order blocking $783 million worth of cuts made by the National Institutes of Health to align with Republican President Donald Trump's priorities. The high court did keep Trump administration guidance on future funding blocked, however. The court split 5-4 on the decision. Chief Justice John Roberts was along those who would have kept the cuts blocked, along with the court's three liberals. The order marks the latest Supreme Court win for Trump and allows the administration to forge ahead with canceling hundreds of grants while the lawsuit continues to unfold. The plaintiffs, including states and public-health advocacy groups, have argued that the cuts will inflict 'incalculable losses in public health and human life.' The Justice Department, meanwhile, has said funding decisions should not be 'subject to judicial second-guessing' and efforts to promote policies referred to as DEI can 'conceal insidious racial discrimination.' The lawsuit addresses only part of the estimated $12 billion of NIH research projects that have been cut, but in its emergency appeal, the Trump administration also took aim at nearly two dozen other times judges have stood in the way of its funding cuts. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said judges shouldn't be considering those cases under an earlier Supreme Court decision that cleared the way for teacher-training program cuts. He says they should go to federal claims court instead. But the plaintiffs, 16 Democratic state attorneys general and public-health advocacy groups, argued that research grants are fundamentally different from the teacher-training contracts and couldn't be sent to claims court. Halting studies midway can also ruin the data already collected and ultimately harm the country's potential for scientific breakthroughs by disrupting scientists' work in the middle of their careers, they argued. U.S. District Judge William Young judge in Massachusetts agreed, finding the abrupt cancellations were arbitrary and discriminatory. 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this,' Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, said at a hearing in June. He later added: 'Have we no shame.' An appeals court left Young's ruling in place. ___
