School cell phone bans are a distraction. The real crisis isn't in your kid's hand.
Dear parents, every August, we buy the pencils, we pack the lunches and we tell ourselves we're ready. But as another school year begins, I want to ask you to take a breath – and look past the headlines.
Because if you believe what you're hearing, the biggest threat to our kids' future is in their pockets. Banning phones in schools, they say, will cure anxiety, raise test scores, restore childhood.
I understand the instinct – I'm a father myself. But I've also been a teacher, a principal, a senior education advisor to former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio who oversaw the country's largest school system – and now the president of an education company. And I'm telling you: this is a distraction. Of course we don't want kids using their phones throughout the school day without purpose and intentionality. But the real crisis isn't in your kid's hand. It's in their reading scores.
Right now, one third of American eighth graders can't read at the National Assessment of Educational Progress "basic" testing benchmark. In some districts, the numbers are even worse. This isn't a new problem – it's just one we keep refusing to face head-on. Instead, we reach for easy fixes, fueled by nostalgia and fear. But banning phones won't turn back the clock on childhood. It will just widen the gap between the kids who have and the kids who don't.
Opinion: My 4-year-old asked for a smartphone. Here's what I did next as a parent.
Here's what I've seen in the classroom: when you take away cell phones, you don't create equity – you erase it. In underfunded schools, smartphones are calculators, translators, research tools and sometimes the only reliable internet connection a student has. For multilingual learners, for kids without Wi-Fi at home, that device is a lifeline. When we ban it, we're not protecting them – we're pulling up the ladder.
Not all screens are created equal
Let's be honest. The anxious generation isn't our kids – it's us. We're the ones struggling to navigate a changing world, grasping for control. But our children don't need us to fear the future. They need us to prepare them for it.
That means leaning into digital literacy, not running from it. It means investing in the tools and teaching that help kids learn how to use technology wisely. And it means addressing the root of the problem – not the symptom – by giving every child access to the kind of reading instruction, books and support they need to thrive.
Your Turn: Tablets, screen time aren't 'parenting hacks.' They're killing kids' attention spans. | Opinion Forum
I believe in meeting kids where they are – because that's where real learning begins. Not all screens are created equal, and the goal isn't to eliminate technology but to use it wisely. There's a big difference between passive consumption and purposeful practice.
Research shows that just 15 to 20 minutes a day of focused, high-quality reading can drive real progress – especially when it's supported by tools that are engaging, accessible and grounded in how kids actually learn. That's the idea behind many of the resources we build at Mrs Wordsmith, a company of which I'm president and where we use cell phones and other nontraditional approaches to teach students how to read.
This school year, don't let the conversation get hijacked. Ask your school leaders the hard questions, such as how are you teaching reading? How are you using technology to support learning? And what are you doing to ensure every child has the skills and knowledge to thrive in school and beyond?
Our kids deserve better than blanket bans and wishful thinking. They deserve an education built for the world they're actually going to live in.
Brandon Cardet-Hernandez is a member of the Boston School Committee and the president of Mrs Wordsmith.
You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Good riddance to UNESCO — a hate-America shouting gallery
President Donald Trump is pulling America out of UNESCO for the third time. Maybe this time it'll be for good. Once lauded for its work in preserving important cultural sites, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations became a platform for miseducation by every tinpot tyrant trying to score points by defaming America and its allies. It also adopted a full-on woke agenda, backing divisive DEI and social-justice causes that, as a Team Trump aide explained, conflicted with American values. Advertisement 'Continued involvement in UNESCO is not in the national interest of the United States,' the State Department declared. The agency's focus on the UN's 'Sustainable Development Goals,' for example, follows the Paris Climate Accords program of deindustrializing the developed world, while paying the Third World to help it catch up. It admitted the 'State of Palestine' as a full member, though the United States does not recognize such a state, believing the Palestinian issue should be decided by Israel and Palestinian Arabs, not the striped-pants brigade from third-party nations. Advertisement UNESCO has also politicized Jewish holy sites, calling Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem a 'mosque,' which it never was. And it's been China's running dog, promoting Beijing's domination of Tibetan and Uyghur culture — arguably genocidal — as perfectly fine. UNESCO's odious record goes back decades. Washington first withdrew from the group in 1984, under Ronald Reagan, when it sought to have US media companies submit to the control of a 'New World Information Order.' Advertisement Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO follows his exit from the UN's equally vile Human Rights Council, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's sanctioning of its 'special rapporteur' on Palestinian issues, Francesca Albanese, who was obsessed with falsely depicting Israel as a perpetrator of genocide. Those moves were well deserved. Call it a Turtle Bay trifecta.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
CIA director teases more files on alleged Russiagate links to Hillary: ‘Finally coming to light'
CIA Director John Ratcliffe on Sunday teased plans to publicly disclose additional files that allegedly help tie Hillary Clinton to the false claims of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Ratcliffe specifically hinted at 'underlying intelligence' referenced in the annex of the Durham report, which scrutinized probes into the Clinton vs. President Trump match-up and is currently undergoing a declassification process. 'What hasn't come out yet and what's going to come out is the underlying intelligence,' Ratcliffe told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo on 'Sunday Morning Futures,' referring to Russiagate. 4 CIA Director John Ratcliffe claims that the 'good guys' are in charge now. AP 'And what that intelligence shows, Maria, is that part of this was a Hillary Clinton plan, but part of it was an FBI plan to be an accelerant to that fake Steele dossier, to those fake Russia collusion claims by pouring oil on the fire, by amplifying the lie and bearing the truth of what Hillary Clinton was up to.' During the 2016 election cycle, an opposition-research file against then-candidate Trump and compiled by ex-MI6 spy Christopher Steele was circulated within the intelligence community. 4 Hillary Clinton's campaign helped pay for the development of the Steele dossier. The Washington Free Beacon, Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee ultimately ended up paying for the research Steele conducted into Trump during the 2016 cycle. The largely debunked Steele dossier was reviewed by investigators in the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane probe into Russia's meddling in the 2016 election. Former Special Counsel John Durham, who was appointed by the first Trump administration, investigated the FBI probe and criticized the bureau's handling of the inquiry in a report released in 2023. The unclassified portion of his report is public. 'In the summer of 2016, U.S. intelligence intercepted Russian intelligence talking about a Hillary Clinton plan, a Hillary Clinton plan to falsely accuse Donald Trump of Russia collusion, to vilify him and smear him with what would become known infamously as the — as the Steele dossier,' Ratcliffe recapped. The CIA boss said he combed through predecessor John Brennan's handwritten notes on the matter to discover the 'underlying intelligence behind it that revealed exactly what happened. 'All of this evidence that's been hidden and buried from the American people is finally coming to light,' Ratcliffe said. Some key figures from the Obama administration, which was in power at the time, have denied that the Steele dossier was the impetus for the FBI's Russia investigation into whether the Kremlin was communicating with Trump's 2016 campaign. 'There is no doubt in my mind that the people that we just talked about conspired. They conspired against President Trump. They conspired against the American people,' Ratcliffe said. 4 Former CIA Director John Brennan was a key figure in promulgating the Russiagate narrative. AP He noted that both he and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have made referrals to the Justice Department pertaining to their findings. 'I don't think statute of limitations are going to impact [it] because, on the conspiracy, the statute of limitation doesn't start to run until the last act in furtherance of that conspiracy,' he said. 'The people behind this are still furthering the conspiracy. 'They're refusing to admit or acknowledge what they did … was wrong.' Gabbard revisited Russiagate earlier this month with a series of public disclosures on previously classified information, such as a 2020 House Intelligence Committee report which determined there wasn't enough evidence to conclude Russia favored Trump in 2016. 4 Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has been revisiting the Russiagate controversy and declassifying key intelligence documents. Anna Wilding/ She also released material indicating that top intelligence bosses had evidence that Russia did not hack 2016 voting systems in a way that allowed them to change the election outcome. US Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a 'strike force' last week at the Justice Department to parse through the referrals made from Gabbard and Ratcliffe on Russiagate.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's imaginary numbers, from $1.99 gas to 1,500 percent price cuts
Trump even congratulated Veterans Affairs Secretary Douglas A. Collins for having an approval rating of 92 percent. In this polarized moment, it is unlikely any US political figure enjoys a figure close to that, and the White House provided no source for the claim. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump is hardly the first politician to toss out figures that wilt under scrutiny. But he attaches precise numbers to his claims with unusual frequency, giving the assertions an air of authority and credibility - yet the numbers often end up being incorrect or not even plausible. The bogus statistics are part of Trump's long history of falsehoods and misleading claims, which numbered more than 30,000 in his first term alone. Advertisement 'He uses statistics less as a factual statement of, 'Here is what the best data says,' and more as rhetorical construct to sell an idea,' said Robert C. Rowland, professor of communication studies at the University of Kansas, who has studied Trump's rhetoric. 'I think he uses statistics as something to make whatever he is saying look better. He will choose a statistic based on what he thinks he can credibly say, and frankly, there are not strong limits on that.' Advertisement Trump has made little secret of his disdain for research and expertise. Yet he routinely reaches for numbers or statistics, often grandiose ones, when seeking to hammer home the failures of his adversaries, the grandeur of his accomplishments or the boldness of his promises. At the July 22 reception for GOP members of Congress, the president waxed expansive about his goals for the future, including a plan to cut drug prices. 'This is something that nobody else can do,' Trump said. 'We're going to get the drug prices down - not 30 or 40 percent, which would be great, not 50 or 60. No, we're going to get them down 1,000 percent, 600 percent, 500 percent, 1,500 percent.' At the same event, Trump mocked Democrats for claiming that consumer prices were rising when, he said, they were falling precipitously. 'Gasoline is … we hit $1.99 a gallon today in five different states,' Trump said, as the lawmakers applauded. 'We have gasoline that's going down to the low $2's, and in some cases even breaking that.' AAA maintains a website showing the average cost of gas in every state. None was significantly below $3 per gallon. The White House suggested that such numeric minutiae matter far less than Trump's sweeping accomplishments. 'The fact of the matter is that President Trump has delivered historic progress on America's economy, health care, foreign policy, and national security,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. 'He's right to tout these victories for the American people, and no amount of pointless nitpicking by the Fake News is going to change that.' Advertisement Trump tangled with numbers again last Thursday in an appearance with Federal Reserve chair Jerome H. Powell, whom he has hinted he might fire. The president complained that a renovation of two Fed headquarters buildings was expected to cost $3.1 billion, prompting Powell to shake his head and respond, 'I'm not aware of that.' Trump handed Powell a sheet of paper, saying the $3.1 billion figure number had just come out. 'You're including the Martin renovation,' Powell said, looking at the paper. 'You just added in a third building, is what that is.' Trump said, 'It's a building that's being built,' and Powell countered: 'No, it was built five years ago. We finished Martin five years ago.' Some analysts believe the misuse of numbers is growing, a reflection of an era when Americans increasingly inhabit separate realities. Ismar Volić, a mathematics professor at Wellesley College, said people often seize on numbers offered by politicians they trust as confirmation of their preexisting worldview. 'Trump is an egregious example, but it's not limited to him, nor did he invent this,' Volić said. 'It's like absolute, final, immutable truth - when you throw out a number or graph or chart statistic, people tend to believe it.' But those numbers often do not get the scrutiny they deserve, said Volić, who specializes in algebraic topology and wrote a book called 'Making Democracy Count: How Mathematics Improves Voting, Electoral Maps, and Representation.' Advertisement 'A consequence of bad math education is we are just scared of math, and therefore not in the habit of questioning it, scrutinizing it or looking at it critically,' Volić said. 'That makes it an effective tool, because anything that scares us can be used as a tactic of manipulation, and politicians absolutely know this.' Trump was also specific in the weeks before the July 3 passage of his sweeping budget bill, which extended tax cuts from his first term. If his bill did not pass, he warned on May 30: 'You'll have a 68 percent tax increase. That's a number nobody's ever heard of before. You'll have a massive tax increase.' Financial experts were predicting taxes would go up about 7.5 percent if the legislation failed - still a substantial hike but far from the 68 percent figure. The White House has declined to comment and several fact-checkers tried unsuccessfully to determine where Trump's number was coming from, speculating that Trump was conflating it with the proportion of Americans who would see their taxes go up. Republican pollster Whit Ayres said it is important to get numbers right, but that Trump is unique. 'In many ways, Donald Trump is sui generis in the way he uses numbers,' Ayres said. 'I don't think you can use the way he uses numbers as an example for how other politicians might effectively use numbers. I will simply say that accurate numbers are a lot more compelling than inaccurate numbers.' To Trump's critics, his looseness with numbers dates to his long career as a developer and real estate mogul, when he specialized in touting his properties and, they say, often exaggerating their value and features. Advertisement In February 2024, Trump was found guilty in a civil fraud case after the New York attorney general said he had inflated his net worth by as much as $2.2 billion annually. The judge found, for example, that Trump described his luxury apartment as being 30,000 square feet when it was actually 10,996. He has appealed the verdict. Other presidents, including Joe Biden, have also been less than precise with their math on occasion, though Biden's misstatements tended to involve his personal history rather than the country's condition. He said repeatedly that he had traveled 17,000 miles with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, for example; The Washington Post Fact Checker found that figure misleading at best. Most presidents have worried that tossing out demonstrably incorrect facts or figures would hurt their credibility, Rowland, the communications professor, said. 'I was reading Reagan's speeches where he personally made notations,' Rowland said. 'You will occasionally see him write in, 'Check this data.' That is the norm for presidents … That is the opposite of what is happening now.'
