Parents Don't Want Schools to Confiscate Kids' Phones
A new survey highlights how fear-based parenting drives phone-based childhoods.

A majority of American parents want kids to have access to their phones at school, a new survey finds. In addition, most parents think cellphones have a positive effect on their kids' lives.
Debates over teens and smartphones often contain the (assumed or explicit) premise that parents want their kids to stop living what author and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls a "phone-based childhood." Popular wisdom today says parents think phones are negatively impacting their childrens' lives and want kids to have less access to phones but feel powerless to change the situation—a premise baked into Haidt's new book, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness (read my review here).
But a survey conducted earlier this month by the National Parents Union challenges this narrative.
You are reading Sex & Tech, from Elizabeth Nolan Brown. Get more of Elizabeth's sex, tech, bodily autonomy, law, and online culture coverage.
Phones—the Perfect Vehicle for Helicopter Parenting
In The Anxious Generation, Haidt looks at the rise of various problems among young people and pinpoints two interlocking culprits: the ascendancy of a "phone-based childhood" and the decline of a "play-based childhood." Many folks see this as a simple one-way flow: phones came along and simply wiped out time or motivation for other pursuits. Haidt suggests a somewhat different sequence of events. As parents began to fear everything in the offline world (and instill this fear into their children), individual families and American society more broadly started denying children independence, autonomy, and unstructured free time. "Screen time" started to fill a void that parents, politicians, police, and our culture as a whole had already created.
The new National Parents Union survey perfectly illustrates the way fear-based parenting is driving phone-based childhoods.
In the survey—conducted in February among 1,506 parents of public school students grades K-12—66 percent of parents said their kids have a cell phone and most of these kids (79 percent) take their phones to school. Asked why parents' wanted this, the most common answers were so that kids could "use their phone if there is an emergency" (79 percent agreed) and so parents could get in touch with their children "or find out where they are when needed" (71 percent). Forty percent said it was important for communicating with kids "about their mental health or other needs during the day."
In other words, a lot of parents want their kids to have phones at school because these parents are anxious, afraid, and/or overzealously policing their progeny's whereabouts and feelings.
Hat tip to Bonnie Kristian for first identifying this paradox. "It is increasingly fashionable to talk about the risk phones pose to American kids, especially teenage girls," writes Kristian on Substack:
The dysfunction of the phone-based childhood has become impossible to ignore, thanks in no small part to Haidt's own work. We're all saying it: Make the kids put down their phones at dinner! Ban phones in school! Kick teenagers off social media or confine them to flip phones or take the phones away altogether!
But then there's the second level: When push comes to shove, whatever ideals they may spout about rejecting the phone-based childhood, average American parents want their middle and high schoolers to have phones, preferably smartphones with location tracking kept on their persons at all times.
Hey, Teachers, Leave Those Phones Alone
It seems parents are as attached to their kids having phones as their kids are. In light of this, it's unsurprising that many parents frown on policies that totally deny kids access to phones at school (even though the popular/political narrative around kids and phones suggests this is what parents want).
Fifty-six percent of the people surveyed by the National Parents Union said "students should sometimes be allowed to use their cell phones" in school, while just 32 percent said "students should be banned from using their cell phones, unless they have a medical condition or disability for which they need to use a cell phone."
Even among the group who said most students should be banned from using phones, only 30 percent wanted this ban to apply broadly (i.e., outside of class). Most said phones should be banned during academic instruction but allowed at other times, such as during lunch or recess or during periods between classes.
In keeping with this, relatively few of the parents surveyed supported school policies that keep kids' entirely away from their phones during the day.
Fifteen percent said schools should "require students to place their cell phones in a central location in their classroom, such as a cubby or holder, but don't lock them up" and 14 percent said they should "require students to place their cell phones in a locked cabinet or cell phone lockers in their classroom." Another 8 percent said schools should "lock up students' cell phones in secure pouches or containers that they can carry with them but that prevent them from using their phone."
The most popular answer—shared by 59 percent of the parents surveyed—was that schools should "allow students to keep their phones in their backpack or bag (not locked
up) as long as they don't take them out and keep them on silent."
Reassuringly, very few people (5 percent) think the federal government should make decisions about school phone policies and only 10 percent say it should be a state-level government decision.
Most parents think phone policies should be made at the school district level (29 percent), the school level (28 percent), or at the classroom level (18 percent).
The Upsides of Screen Time
Some of the data in this survey fits popular narratives about kids and phones, like the ideas that they're starting young and spending a lot of time on them.
Among parents who allowed their children to have cellphones, the most popular ages to have given phones to them was between 10 and 13 years old. (The survey does not say what type of phones were given, so it's possible many kids received dumb phones to start.) Only 13 percent of parents waited until a kid was age 14 or older.
Among those whose kids had cell phones, only 18 percent estimated that their child spends less than 2 hours per day on it. Some 28 percent estimated that their kid spends between 2 and 3 hours per day on their phones, with 29 percent suggesting their kid uses it for 4 or 5 hours per day, 12 percent saying 6 or 7 hours per day, and 9 percent saying their kids are on phones for upwards of 8 hours per day.
And yet, most parents seem pretty unalarmed by this phone usage. Just 9 percent said phones had a mostly or entirely negative effect on their kids.
Nearly half—46 percent—said the phone had a mostly or entirely positive effect on their child, while 42 percent said the effect was "about equally positive and negative."
This stands out as at odds with what we commonly hear in the media and from legislators about how parents view kids' phone use. But it's in keeping with what many kids themselves say. In a 2022 survey of American 13- to 17-year-olds, conducted Pew Research Center, kids identified all sorts of plus sides to social media (which is, of course, one of the main things that kids use phones for). And a majority—59 percent—said social media is neither a negative nor a positive in their lives, while 32 percent said it's mostly positive and just 9 percent said it's mostly negative.
It's also in keeping with some earlier research on phone adoption among kids. For instance, a 2022 study from Stanford Medicine researchers followed 250 tweens and teens for five years during which most got a first cellphone, tracking study participants' well-being during this transition. The kids were 7 to 11 years old when the study started and 11 to 15 years old when it ended. The researchers "found that whether or not the children in the study had a mobile phone, and when they had their first mobile phone, did not seem to have meaningful links to their well-being and adjustment outcomes," according to lead author Xiaoran Sun.
More Sex & Tech
• Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law restricting teen use of social media platforms. Under the new law, 14- and 15-year-olds can old start social media accounts with their parents' permission. "This law puts all users' privacy at risk by mandating age verification," said Competitive Enterprise Institute's director of the Center for Technology & Innovation, Jessica Melugin. It also "ignores parents' rightful role in deciding what is and is not appropriate for their child, and may sacrifice too much of the free flow of speech to be constitutional. It's political click bait, but it's not good public policy."
• California lawmakers are considering a bill that would require large online platforms to verify the identities of "influential" users. Influential here is defined to include basically any user that's been at it for a while (that is, if content they've shared "has been seen by more than 25,000 users over the lifetime of the accounts that they control or administer").
• Mother Jones has an interesting interview with Lynn Paltrow, founder of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women (now called Pregnancy Justice). "For much of the past 50 years, the mainstream pro-choice groups were focused almost exclusively on the right to abortion," said Paltrow, who believes this was a mistake. "There was no campaign to explain abortion as necessary to the full equality and citizenship—the personhood—of women in this country. They were defending abortion as opposed to the people who sometimes need abortions but always need to be treated as full constitutional persons under the law, whatever the outcome of their pregnancies."
Today's Image

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
If you send your kids to a public school in this day and age, then you and your kids get what they deserve.
close the conformity factories. zero reasons children cannot have flipphones in schools for safety, and still waiting for reasons they require smartphones.
Hear ye, hear ye.
You realize you can take pics and browse the internet on a flip phone these days, right grandpa?
Why would I buy a flip phone when I can simply hand my oldest the working smart phone I or the Mrs. just replaced, he can hand his younger brother the smart phone he just replaced, his younger brother can hand *his* younger brother just replaced... all second hand.
That said, SIM, SD and other hardware/network locking tech is bullshit. I'm buying a phone and paying a service fee. I'm not buying a contract just because I really like paying money for lots of paperwork with stylish corporate logos at the top.
>>You realize you can take pics and browse the internet on a flip phone these days, right grandpa?
lol
Since when should the burden be on individuals to demonstrate that they "require" something? Just make and consistently enforce rules that phones should be put away and silenced when class starts. Problem solved with minimal micro-management.
Sounds like a terrible childhood
I’d reckon cell phones are disruptive to things like paying attention in class whether the model is public or private.
Teachers want phones out of schools because they can record video and audio of what the teachers are actually telling the kids. There are a number of teachers who have actually been fired because of what kids have captured on their phones.
This has nothing to do with disruptions in class or the welfare of kids. It's about protecting teachers from exposure.
That really shouldn't be that hard to handle. Just make and enforce a rule that all phones get put away and silence when class starts. There's no need for sweeping bans.
The National Parents Union brings together an intersectional group of families from all 50 states, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico giving space to parents of color, low-income parents, parents of children with special needs, LGBTQAI parents, single mothers and fathers, grandparents, formerly incarcerated parents and parents in recovery with traditionally represented parent voices to join a vibrant coalition that disrupts the traditional role of families in the policy space.
Yeah, I totes trust a survey from this organization to be completely unbiased and unmanipulated.
I don't care what this survey says, BTW. Cellular distraction devices are anathema to teens concentrating in the classroom. If a teacher wants them banned from the classroom for that reason, they should be gone. They can turn them on again at lunch or between classes or something. Regardless of what the majority in some survey said about "so I can get in touch with them when I need them."
I'm honestly amazed that hasn't been the policy all along. We used to get in trouble for reading comic books or whatever in class. Or wearing hats. A phone is a million times the distraction.
If a teacher wants them banned from the classroom for that reason, they should be gone.
Are we talking about *teacher* teachers and students getting distracted from learning the 3Rs or union-backed, remote learning political advocates and students getting distracted from learning how to handle a female penis?
I'm talking about teacher teachers. The ones who teach the subject matter.
They exist. They are increasingly rare in public schools, but I know more than a few. Last one I talked to about this was in a private school, though.
This is all just a theoretical discussion. I'd never teach, and the thought of having kids of my own going through public school right now is horrifying. But I'd definitely be the dick teacher who banned cell phones if I were in that spot.
The teachers who want to ban phones don't care about disruptions and the like. They don't care about dicipline, education, childhood development or mental health. They don't want to be recorded while teaching. A smart phone is a spy cam in the classroom and what it records can actually get a teacher fired.
There was a line in the Buffy the Vampire series that applies well here. At one point Xander is being asked by Cordilia "do guns really make you think about sex?" He replies, "I'm a 17 year old male. Linoleum males me think about sex."
Boys don't need phones to be distracted in school. Girls are enough of a distraction. Female teachers are a distraction. If statistics are to be believed 10% of boys are distracted by male teachers. Phones are like sprinkles on an ice cream sunday. Just one more thing on top of everything else.
Want to ban phones to end distractions? Better ban girls, teachers and linoleum. They already banned guns.
It's not like the parents could call the school. In fact that has been happening and still happens to this day!
That might trigger an FBI investigation under the current regime.
“In addition, most parents think cellphones have a positive effect on their kids' lives.”
So, possibly, Democrats do have a majority.
I'd like a cite for that one. I think most people see the phones as primarily a tool to contact their kids. Socialization is an added benefit with mixed returns for parents. However, the majority of what kids do on phones actively dumbs them down and stalls creativity. I see only negative results from their access to social media and this bullshit culture of hypersocialization and fabricated identities.
I don't see anything you said there that doesn't apply to video games before phones and social media or TV before video games.
Which, SSDD, yes, if you sit your kid in front of the TV for 16 hrs. between 8 hr. school sessions while you pass out on the couch with a lit cigarette after getting them a $40-50 piece of milk-fed vealfor Christmas, yeah, expect some maladjustment.
Otherwise, if you want your kids to become responsible adults, they're going to have to learn at some point to use phones to interact with responsible adults the way responsible adults do with each other and, for a bit, you're going to have to be involved to make sure they don't fail catastrophically. Waiting until they're 18 and legally culpable for everything they do isn't really any more fair or better, and arguably worse, parenting than handing them a phone at age 6 and saying "Don't text nudes."
I waited until I was 40 to get a smartphone and I turned out OK.
I don't think the cell phone has any real effect one way or the other. It depends on how the parents use the phones around their kids.
I've been using pagers, brick phones, flip phones, blackberrys, tablets and smart phones since the tech was new. Rule number one was kids were never less important than the phone. I would put a customer on hold if a kid around me wanted my attention.
I think that's the trick. The phone cannot be more important than your own child or else your child will treat the phone as more important than you. I know too many people who prioritize the phone over the child and I can see where it's going with their kids.
I'd really like to see the questions that got them there.
I would like to suggest that parents always being able to reach and locate their children instantly is not good for either the parents or the children when it comes to being a sane and well adjusted human.
And is there any evidence that kids all having phones has made them any safer?
I would like to suggest that parents always being able to reach and locate their children instantly is not good for either the parents or the children when it comes to being a sane and well adjusted human.
Since we’re not talking about State surveillance here, I’d love an explanation of how the passive ability voluntarily offered and voluntarily accepted affects sanity specifically? Microwaves causing brain cancer?
Otherwise, there are probably close to a dozen more popular ways that parents specifically fuck up their kids psychologically that involves zero technology or tracking at all. Rather the opposite.
If hovering, controlling, disapproving mothers are the issue, it's been a notorious problem for Jewish kids dating back probably to the time of Canaanites and the Kingdom of Israel and phones have fuck all to do with it.
I mean that I think it's good for kids to know sometimes that they are on their own and don't have an instant lifeline if something goes wrong. And similarly it's good for parents to be OK with their kids being who-knows-where sometimes and not to worry about not being able to contact them within 1 minute at all times.
And even if overprotective mothers have been a problem for all of history, that doesn't mean that the problem can't get worse.
Everything has an up side and a down side.
There was a time I did locksmith work for AAA in Northern Colorado. This was during the brick phone era. We’d get a call that some customer was near mile marker X on some obscure county road in the middle of the Rocky Mountains. No call back number. So we’d drive out to find them. It could take hours because there was no Google maps. The maps we had were paper and you couldn’t read them while driving. Even then they were only partially helpful.
These days, as a AAA customer, you look on Google maps for where you are, call AAA and you give them your phone number so the service guy can call you if something goes wrong. It’s a beautiful thing.
Compared to the damage done because some parents don’t bother actually parenting I’d say call phones are a definite net good. No matter how good you've prepared your kids for life a flat tire in the middle of a rainstorm on a dark road makes anyone want to hear a confident voice ready to offer aid on the other end of the phone.
Still a parent problem. Not a tech problem.
I wanted my kids to have less access to phones and, because I was the parent, had complete power to change the situation. My kids played, on their own and with others, and outside as much as weather permitted, a lot.
I'm skeptical of this latest survey but regardless, Haidt is a fear-mongering moron.
Parents need to take responsibility. Dead stop. Nuff said.
Good job by the way.