DV Journal

Some of you may be old enough to remember the chilling 1956 science fiction movie “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”  Or perhaps at least the 1978 remake. Both stories were just science fiction fantasy. But today we are facing another invasion, and it is all too real.

I taught high school for many years. When I began teaching, classrooms did not have computers, nor did any of the students, and cell phones were not smart. My teaching career spanned the creation of the internet, the World Wide Web, and what has become an astounding array of portable electronic devices, the most insidious of which are the ubiquitous smartphones that can do just about anything from text messaging to sophisticated videography to encyclopedic research to providing easy and unlimited access to staggeringly graphic pornography.

I retired in 2019. One major reason I retired was the seemingly unstoppable encroachment of technology. I was, by the time I retired, a real oddball. Unlike most of my colleagues, my students still read printed books and articles, typed and turned in written assignments on paper, and wrote in-class exams in Blue Books.

The administration didn’t particularly like my Neanderthal approach to 21st-century teaching, but by the time senior administrators realized how resistant I was to the arrival of the techno-classroom, I was already on Medicare, and they knew I wouldn’t be sticking around much longer, so they grudgingly left me alone.

But it wasn’t just technology in the classroom that finally drove me out. It was, in particular, those damnable little electronic devices every kid owned. SmartPhones? iPhones? (Whatever they’re called. I do not own one myself.) Their misuse got so bad that I finally refused to allow them in my classroom. I could get away with such a policy because I was teaching in a private school and had a great deal more latitude to set my own rules than most public school teachers.

But it wasn’t only what was happening in the classroom that left me dismayed and despairing. Just outside my classroom door was a student lounge area big enough for a dozen or more kids.  And for my last four or five years of teaching, every time I looked out my door, six or eight or 12 kids would be sitting out there.  And every one of them would be holding a cell phone and staring at its tiny screen. There was almost never any conversation among the kids. Each kid was completely absorbed with whatever he was watching on that little screen.

The boys were no longer interacting with each other. It was depressing. And there was nothing I could do about it. I had some control over what happened in my classroom, but not in the halls, the cafeteria, the library, or anywhere else in the school. And those who ran my school seemed unwilling to tackle or even acknowledge the problem.

Last fall, September 2024, five years after I retired, I dropped by my old school one day just before classes began, and I noticed a big box of rubber-looking things, each about the size of an old VHS cartridge. When I asked what they were, I was told they are some kind of locking device for cell phones. This year, the boys have to put their phones into one of these pouches every morning, and while they get to keep physical possession of their phones, they are not allowed to access them during the school day.

I’m glad to see that my old school is finally beginning to deal with this problem, which is highly detrimental not only to the education of our youth but also to healthy socialization and the development of well-rounded and vibrant personalities. I think every school in our state and our nation should be doing everything possible to arrest and reverse the invasion of these brain-snatchers.

I know of no child psychologist or, mental health professional or experienced educator who has anything good to say about these insidious machines. Apparently, at least a few schools other than the one I taught at are slowly beginning to acknowledge this problem and trying to deal with it. But it is going to take more than “a few other schools” and a lot more determination to put a stop to this very unhealthy and destructive application of technology.

The threat is no longer posed by a fictional alien life form from a distant planet but by a real device created by our all-too-clever human ingenuity.

For an alternate viewpoint, see “Point: Cell Phones Are Distractions, Not Toys”

Should kids have access to smartphones in school? Some argue the smartphone problem leads to distraction. Others say smartphones are necessary for reasons related to safety or other concerns.

In reality, it is a more complicated question than it appears. Yet, oftentimes, when complicated questions arise, broad state-level policies that take the choice away from parents and educators lack the flexibility needed for a more nuanced solution.

As a former elementary and middle school teacher, I certainly empathize with educators, policymakers and parents who may be concerned today’s kids are more distracted by their smartphones in negative ways. Some teachers have instead positively capitalized on young people’s desire to keep and use their smartphones.

Norms around any form of technology may vary from classroom to classroom or school to school. However, the “if you can’t beat them, join them” strategy for smartphone usage in school can be productive.

For example, teachers have used smartphones straightforwardly, such as for educational apps or conducting classroom polls or quizzes. Some teachers have supported students’ unique needs — such as allowing them to stream music to stay focused — but still restricted unauthorized use through classroom management. Others have helped students use their smartphones to gain organizational skills that may extend past the classroom, such as using calendars or keeping records of grades and assignments.

Outside of classroom use, there may be many legitimate reasons that a parent wants their child to have a smartphone at school. According to a survey from the National Parents Union, the most cited reason a parent wants their child to have a smartphone in the classroom is to be able to contact the parent in an emergency.

During the tragic Uvalde school shooting, a 10-year-old with a cellphone called 911 and kept law enforcement informed of the situation. Similarly, cellphones were a lifeline and further documented the harrowing reality of the Parkland High School shooting.

Other safety reasons may be more individualized, such as needing children with medical diagnoses to contact a parent. Sometimes, a parent and child need a means of communication when escaping an abusive partner. In some communities, violence outside of school and unjustified bias against immigrants have made parents feel safer knowing they can always contact their children.

Of course, safety is not the only reason a parent may feel more comfortable with their child having access to their smartphone during the school day. Parents in the National Parents Union survey also frequently cited the logistics of transportation or appointments and a desire for a child to be able to communicate about their mental health or other needs.

In some households, particularly those with low socioeconomic status, smartphones are the primary internet connectivity method. This means that a child needs access to a smartphone to complete the required assignments or that using a smartphone will help them keep up with their peers who might have access to more technology.

As with many cases regarding kids and technology, the answer is not one size fits all. Schools and parents should teach good digital citizenship skills, including the appropriate use of smartphones. State-level bans may not consider the nuanced reasons parents, students and teachers want smartphones and may make exceptions more difficult.

Such decisions are better made at a local level. The school, district, or classroom’s decisions should involve educators, parents and students to find the ideal balance and make exceptions when appropriate. Instead of a state-level ban, school choice programs available in over 33 states can allow parents to select the proper educational environment for their child, including whether smartphones should be in or out of the classroom.

Families will have a wide array of preferences when it comes to the use of technology in the classroom. Sometimes, a smartphone-free environment might appeal to parents. Still, others may want a school that embraces all the technology their child will likely encounter. It should not be presumed that parents or teachers who support students’ smartphone use are merely enablers of smartphone addiction. Instead, technology usage — like many other aspects — should be one factor in the choices around their child’s education.

Pennsylvanians may soon have to put down that phone and drive.

In a bipartisan 124-77 vote Tuesday, the Pennsylvania House passed a law that would allow police to write tickets to drivers yacking on their handheld smartphones instead of paying attention to the road, even if they are not violating other traffic laws.

Other nearby states ban handheld cell phones.

The bill will now go back to the Senate, which has already passed a different version.

Before the vote, the House heard from Eileen Miller, whose 21-year-old son died in a crash with a distracted driver in Monroe County. The bill is called “Paul Miller’s Law.”

“SB 37 isn’t just about following the rules of the road,” said Rep. Ed Neilson (D-Philadelphia), who chairs the House Transportation Committee. “It’s about saving lives, keeping families together, and ensuring that the road trip ends safely. This is a crucial step to ensure Pennsylvania drivers commit to the safety of not only themselves but everyone they encounter on the road.”

Local state Rep. Lisa Borowski (D-Springfield) was a yes vote.

“I voted on a law to strengthen the existing distracted driving law,” said Borowski. “One in eight fatal crashes involve a distracted driver. Yesterday, when we voted on the law, there was a family on the floor who lost their son due to a crash with a driver who was texting.

“The bill, which passed with bipartisan support, expands existing law prohibiting texting while driving to now include using an interactive mobile device while driving. In other words, no texting and driving, no online shopping and driving, no watching a movie and driving, no playing video games and driving.

“I voted to expand existing law to make our roads safer for all Pennsylvanians,” said Borowski.

Rep. Seth Grove (R-York) voted against the bill.

“Driving on the road with a cell phone in your hand is already illegal,” Grove said. “Senate Bill 37, while well-intentioned, will not provide the desired outcome of eliminating texting while driving. I am also concerned this bill runs afoul of the single-subject rule, which requires bills to be limited to one issue. [The Senate version] was amended by House Democrats to add an onerous reporting requiring on traffic stops by law enforcement. For these two reasons, I voted no.”

But Rep. Kristin Marcell (R-Richboro), who voted yes, said, “Distracted driving is a major factor in automobile fatalities. This commonsense bill is a deterrent that will help contribute to having safer roadways for our community members and loved ones.

Of the 27 states that have passed similar legislation, they have reported declines in motor vehicle accidents, and overall highway fatalities have declined nationally. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania is not one of those states, and our fatalities are up 4.2 percent from 2022 to 2023.”

Sen. Rosemary Brown (R-Lackawanna) has been trying to get this bill passed for 12 years. Because April is Distracted Driving Awareness month she said it’s fitting it should go forward now. She hopes the Senate will vote on the amended bill next week.

“I’m very pleased,” said Brown, adding that she worked very closely with the House on the amendments it suggested. “Hopefully, we’ll see it go to the governor’s desk.”

As to Grove’s concern about adding more work for police officers, Brown said state police already do the data collection it requires and police departments in towns with fewer than 5,000 residents are not included.

“I really hope it will help,” she said, noting that Eileen Miller was “an inspiration for me.”

Some DVJournal readers commented about the bill on Facebook.

Tina Marie Hoseweart said, “I’ve seen so many people holding their phone and going so slow or almost causing accidents.”

Teri Selleck Majewski said she’s probably in favor of it because “there is no common sense. It is dangerous to text and drive.”

And Michael Lake said it is “just as dangerous to text and drive with the phone on a windshield mount.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal