The Los Angeles school board on Tuesday launched a plan to ban cellphones all day on campus, saying the devices distract students from learning, cause anxiety and enable cyberbullying.
The ban would go into effect in January after the Board of Education approves details at a future meeting, with the goal of enforcing it throughout a student's time in school, including lunch and other breaks.
“Our students are glued to their cell phones, just like adults,” said board member Nick Melvoin, who spearheaded the resolution. “They are surreptitiously moving around the school, during class time, or with their heads in their hands, walking through the hallways. “They don’t talk to each other or play during lunch or recess because they have their AirPods on.”
The board's action adds momentum to growing campaigns in California to restrict or eliminate cellphone use in schools amid reports of how the devices, along with social media use, coincide with growing anxiety and other harm to children.
State leaders are moving in the same direction as LAUSD.
California Assembly Bill 3216, introduced in February, would require school districts to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit smartphone use by students while at school or under the supervision of a school employee. the school. The law would go into effect on July 1, 2026.
The measure has the support of Governor Gavin Newsom.
On Monday, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said social media use has become so prevalent and potentially harmful among young people that Congress should require warning labels on online platforms, similar to those They are found in cigarette boxes.
“As the Surgeon General stated, social media is harming the mental health of our young people,” Newsom said in a statement to the Times. “I look forward to working with the Legislature to restrict smartphone use during the school day. “When children and adolescents are at school, they should focus on their studies, not on their screens.”
The Los Angeles Board of Education, at the suggestion of the Superintendent. Alberto Carvalho, agreed to expand the resolution in an additional direction by targeting social media companies for potential litigation.
“I believe now is the time for Los Angeles Unified to take a legal position,” Carvalho said, “that may include litigation against these powerful giant social media entities that, for profit, are engaging in conduct and actions predatory actions to capture attention that will eventually victimize children through a well-documented deterioration in their mental health.”
The board's resolution was approved by a vote of 5 to 2.
All board members expressed concern about the harm that cell phone use and social media cause to students, as well as concern that any ban should be carried out with full consideration of the needs of students and their families. families.
Board President Jackie Goldberg, who co-sponsored the resolution, recounted a recent visit to a high school where she sat with students sitting together at a table during lunch.
“I thought we might have a chance to talk informally,” Goldberg said. “Everyone took out their cell phones.”
That was just the first surprise.
“I thought they were reaching out to other people,” Goldberg said. “They talked to each other on their cell phones, instead of with their voices and mouths. … This is an addiction that is serious.”
Another board co-sponsor, Tanya Ortiz Franklin, said her student advisory council has raised valid concerns.
“We've seen in classrooms that sometimes kids forget their Chromebook and use their iPhone instead,” Franklin said. “That's why we need to make sure we have enough Chromebooks so students don't rely on their personal iPhones to access school materials.
“The other thing I thought was interesting about [student] Leaders is that they use text messages to communicate about clubs and teams and events they are planning and things that need to change at the last minute,” Franklin said. “It made me wonder if there was an app that could be on their Chromebooks, where they could text and communicate” with proper supervision.
Board member George McKenna voted against it due to concerns about the entire ban, although he said he was open to continued discussion on the matter.
He said it was important to respect students' ownership of something that was important to them, especially for students from low-income families. He recalled that years ago, when he was principal, students were devastated at the thought of parting with the boomboxes they carried with them.
He also wondered whether a civil rights lawsuit would be filed over the matter.
Board member Rocío Rivas voted in favor, but was also concerned that the cell phone ban be carried out equitably, respecting the different living situations of families.
Melvoin said the conversation has evolved from ensuring everyone has access to technology to ensuring students are protected from it.
“Some of the most expensive schools in the city and in this country have [had] “Phone-free policies have been in place for years because they've seen those effects,” Melvoin said.
Board member Scott Schmerelson voted against it because he said it was important to make a distinction between instructional time and non-instructional time.
Elements to work on include different approaches for different age groups and a variety of technologies, such as smartwatches.
Board member Kelly Gonez, who voted in favor, noted that recent immigrants use smartphones to translate. She said such allocations would need to be considered.
Options for carrying out the ban being considered include providing cell phone lockers or bags that keep the devices locked and inaccessible until they are slammed against a magnetic device when leaving campus. The technology could also be used to block access to social media platforms.
Some parents, however, want their children to have cell phones for safety and communication, and school administrators say the ban could be difficult to enforce.
Among supporters who spoke Tuesday was the principal of a district high school, who said such a ban has improved the learning environment on his campus.
Also supporting the resolution was Venice High math teacher Jessica Quindel, who compared the struggle to control cell phone use to a grueling, non-stop marathon.
He joined Venice High School's phone-free focus group, a group of 10 teachers who successfully pressured school staff into establishing the campus as a largely phone-free zone.
“Law enforcement is the hardest because there aren't enough staff to constantly take the phones away and call home,” he said. A clear district-wide policy would help, she added.
Student objections to the ban are expected.
“Very angry,” is how Helen Ho, 16, a junior at Narbonne High in Harbor City, described her reaction. Students need phones for emergency situations and to maintain access to family, she said.
A ban, he added, would also infringe on students' right to express themselves: “Students are already very restricted in school environments.”
At school, he said, he uses his phone for educational purposes, such as applying to programs or accessing information from brochures that often only provide QR codes, for which “you can't use your laptop.”
For her, a phone is a source of connection and stability.
Neel Thakkar, 16, a senior at Reseda High, is receptive to the ban.
He recalled having a hard time focusing on studying for Advanced Placement exams because he was “addicted to Instagram” and couldn't “stop reading.” [his] phone… even if it's for two seconds.”
He deleted the app from his phone because “I had to get out of it.”
“At first it was very difficult,” he said.
In comments to the Board of Education, he suggested that the district create a platform where students can express their concerns and opinions about this policy.
The teachers union, United Teachers Los Angeles, took a wait-and-see attitude.
“UTLA looks forward to understanding how the proposed cell phone policy will differ from the current one,” said union vice president Alex Orozco. “More importantly, we want to know how all stakeholders will be included in the decision-making.”
The board resolution cited research in line with the policy, including a national survey on drug use and health by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration that found that among those born after 1995, anxiety increased 139% from 2010 to 2020, coinciding with the rise of smartphones and social media.
In addition to his support for warning labels, the Surgeon General Murthy wrote in a 2023 advisory that social media may be linked to a growing mental health crisis among teens.
The text added to the resolution is based on these concerns:
“The District will also evaluate the impact of youth social media use, including on their mental health, to formulate a strategy that includes, but is not limited to, litigation against social media entities that operate platforms that use algorithms.” that attract students. who develop addiction to such platforms with well-documented harmful physical and mental consequences for young people.”
The district resolution also cites a 2016 Common Sense Media survey that found half of teens feel “addicted” to their phones. A study conducted in 2023 among 200 students in the same group found that 97% of youth ages 11 to 17 used their phones during the school day.
The resolution also states that there is evidence that “limiting cell phone use and access to social media during the school day increases academic performance and has positive effects on students' mental health.”
Los Angeles Unified already has a social media policy that incorporates many elements of what Melvoin is pushing. This policy states that “approved social media should be used at school for educational purposes only and under the direction of a teacher or school leader. “Home use of social media on personal or district electronic devices is limited only to sites approved by the district’s web filtering system.”
The district's policies in this area have not been fully updated since 2011 and enforcement has been sporadic as smartphones have become commonplace.
