Why Take the Risk We’ve all been there – maybe it’s email or Facebook or another app, but each one of has at some point felt like we’re spending too much time on our smartphone. According to Psychology Today, some studies show that people can check their phones as much as 150 times per day. As adults, we know this can be a problem, and a growing body of research has shown that increased use of smartphones decreases focus – as a society, we are constantly bombarded by stimuli from the various apps on our phones. This decreased focus has been tied to reduced creativity, as the brain can’t develop deep, immersive thought if it’s being distracted. Do we really want to be leading our kids to reduce their creativity when our goal should be the opposite? In addition, researchers are just beginning to delve into the impact of smartphones and nearly constant stimuli on developing brains. While the data in this field is still developing and forthcoming, why take the risk and allow our children access to this technology at such a young age? I just don’t see the benefits outweighing the risk at this stage. The goal of education more generally, and in public schools even more so, should be to impart a curriculum developed with the highest standards in mind. Smartphones aren’t a medium or channel that is needed to impart that curriculum, despite reports I’ve heard recently about teachers doling out assignments that use smartphones. To that end, anything that distracts from helping our community educate our children should be stripped away. Smartphones are a distraction that can detract from the in-class learning experience. In their book, The Distracted Mind, two MIT researchers, the neuroscientist Adam Gazzaley and the psychologist Larry Rosen, argue that distraction occurs when we are pursuing a goal that really matters, and something blocks our efforts to achieve it. Clearly smartphones can become that distraction. Why take the risk of introducing a technology in the school setting that can distract our children’s focus from the curriculum? I just don’t see the benefits outweighing the risk at this stage. Finally -- and this is the most distressing aspect of the introduction of this technology in our society -- is the rising use of smartphones in cyberbullying and the consequent increased risk of suicide. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of examples of smartphones being used to facilitate the cyberbullying that pressures young people to make the tragic decision to take their lives. Why take the risk of introducing a technology in the school setting that can potentially increase the risk of a tragic and irreversible result for our children? I just don’t see the benefits outweighing the risk at this stage. In summary, I am not at all compelled by the arguments in support of this technology being introduced in the school setting – for example, increased convenience for young people and their parents, and that they will eventually be exposed later in life, so why wait? There is no real need for children to have access to a smartphone during school hours. In those rare cases, when families do really use this technology to be in contact, arrangements can be made so that the devices aren’t available during class time. If an emergency arises, schools are still equipped with telephones for important communication to take place with parents or other caregivers. If parents want to allow their children access to this technology out of school hours, that’s their prerogative, but during school hours it should be a joint decision, with the interests of the entire community considered. On balance, the benefits of making these technologies available do not outweigh the risks and I strongly urge the board and school administrators to limit access completely in elementary and middle school, and as much as possible in high school, as the risks are far greater than any potential benefits. I really do worry that we are on a slippery slope with more and more pervasive device usage taking place during MCPS school hours. I ask us all to consider – do the benefits outweigh the risks? But, don’t just take my word for it. I want to point us to a January 2018 article in the San Jose Mercury News: “A couple of large Apple shareholders are appealing to the company that popularized the smartphone to take responsibility for studying its effects on children — and the co-creator of the iPhone agrees. The California State Teachers’ Retirement System and JANA Partners, which own a combined $2 billion in Apple shares, are urging the world’s most valuable public company to help study the issue, release annual progress reports about its findings and expand options for parental controls on its devices. “Apple can play a defining role in signaling to the industry that paying special attention to the health and development of the next generation is both good business and the right thing to do,” the investors wrote in a letter dated Jan. 6. “Doing so poses no threat to Apple, given that this is a software (not hardware) issue and that, unlike many other technology companies, Apple’s business model is not predicated on excessive use of your products.” CALSTRS and JANA cite several research studies related to smartphone addiction. The studies show personal devices distract kids in school, and affect children’s physical and mental health. One study links excessive use of personal devices to a higher risk of suicide. “Some may argue that the research is not definitive, that other factors are also at work, and that in any case parents must take ultimate responsibility for their children,” the investors wrote. “But it is both unrealistic and a poor long-term business strategy to ask parents to fight this battle alone.” Tony Fadell, one of the creators of the iPod and iPhone, added a hearty “hear, hear!” via a tweetstorm Monday. He noted that adults have also become addicted to their smartphones, and that other companies should help the effort being urged by the Apple investors, too. “Apple Watches, Google Phones, Facebook, Twitter — they’ve gotten so good at getting us to go for another click, another dopamine hit,” Fadell said on Twitter. “They now have a responsibility & need to start helping us track & manage our digital addictions across all usages — phone, laptop, TV etc.” Fadell added: “They’re the only ones who can do this — they own the OS & app ecosystem. They need to do more, like single-use device modes: when I’m reading an eBook on my tablet, listening to music (ala iPod) …no email or Facebook notifications, no texts.” Finally, as mentioned in the Digital Childhood 5 Rights Framework: “The digital environment was conceived as an environment for adult users . Not even its inventors thought it might one day be a place where childhood would be spent. Nor did they make any design concessions for child users. On the contrary, the utopian vision was that all users would be equal. And if all users are equal, then a child user is treated as if they were an adult” Thank you, Gabe Lazarus, parent of two children at MCPS schools and member of the MCCPTA “Safe Tech” Task Force .