INSIGHTS
Ban Cellphones From Schools?
“And solving that condition is far bigger than just cellphones….But the fact is that bans on cellphone use in schools have been widespread for a very long time. And that has not prevented the student mental health crisis that we’re seeing today. ” –Howard Bloom
Education Week reports that we are in a student mental health crisis. So does the surgeon general. Will taking cellphones away from kids while they’re in school help us get out of this crisis?
I asked the science search engine Consensus to do a survey of studies on school cellphone bans and mental health. Consensus reviewed ten scientific papers on the topic and came to the following conclusion: “Some studies suggest that school cellphone bans can improve student performance and reduce bullying,”
Bullying? How do you bully someone in class using your cellphone? Education Week hints that you pick on one kid, make fun of what he or she is wearing, take a picture of it, put the photo up on a social network, and give it a nasty caption.
Sometimes, what starts as bullying turns into a fight. And while the teacher is talking, kids on phones message each other and set a time and place to meet for a brawl.
But the fact is that bans on cellphone use in schools have been widespread for a very long time. And that has not prevented the student mental health crisis that we’re seeing today.
In 1989, Maryland was “one of the first states to ban cell phones in schools,” Maryland’s legislators apparently believed that kids were using two new technologies, pagers and cellphones, to set up drug deals.
Ten years later, The Columbine High School Massacre, in which twelve students and one teacher were killed, shocked the nation. Suddenly parents wanted to be in touch with their kids in case of emergency. These parents wanted their children to have cellphones in the classroom. So the cellphone bans were relaxed.
But after another ten years, 91% of America’s schools once again had bans on cellphones.
Then came the Covid pandemic and school lockdowns. When you were stuck at home, cellphones were salvation. They were the only way to get together with your friends.
But when kids returned to class after three years of learning at home, teachers found that their students were glued to their phones during class more than ever.
So now we’re in a new era of school cellphone bans. As of 2022, just two years ago, 77% of American schools had some form of cell phone ban. But that was not enough. In May, 2023, Florida was the first state to pass a law ordering all public schools to ban cellphones from classrooms. Indiana, Ohio, and Virginia followed suit.
And a few months from now, New York City and LA—the two biggest school districts in the country–will also ban cellphones in schools.
This new wave of cellphone bans is not just taking place in the United States. It’s happening in countries all over the world, including China, England, Italy, and France.
Even the United Nations is getting in on the act. In an official report it cites research that blames cellphones for poor grades and low test performance.
The bottom line is this. If we want students to learn from their teachers, we have to ban cellphones from the classroom.
But will giving kids seven hours a day without cellphones prevent bullying, stress, and depression?
We’ve had cellphone bans for 35 years. Yet as you know, we’re in the midst of what the surgeon general calls a mental health crisis.
Even worse, we are in the midst of wars in Ukraine, Sudan, and Gaza. Mental health crises, monstrous behaviors like bullying and school fights, and the most monstrous behavior of all, war, are part of human nature. They are part of what the great social thinker Hannah Arendt called the human condition.
And solving that condition is far bigger than just cellphones.
References:
Beneito, P., & Vicente-Chirivella, Ó. (2022). Banning mobile phones in schools: evidence from regional-level policies in Spain. Applied Economic Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1108/aea-05-2021-0112
Beland, L., & Murphy, R. (2016). Ill Communication: Technology, distraction & student performance. Labour Economics, 41, 61-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LABECO.2016.04.004
Marciano, Laura, Anne-Linda Camerini, and Rosalba Morese. “The developing brain in the digital era: A scoping review of structural and functional correlates of screen time in adolescence.” Frontiers in psychology 12 (2021): 671817. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.671817/full
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000385723/PDF/385723eng.pdf.multi.
https://slate.com/life/2024/06/phone-bans-schools-activism-shootings-parents-resistance.html
https://whyy.org/articles/delaware-district-middle-school-cell-phone-policy-lock-bags/
https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/about#team
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/17/a-smartphone-free-childhood-a-global-movement-is-growing.html
https://www.centerforonlinesafety.com/blog/do-any-countries-ban-smartphones-at-school
https://www.nationalbook.org/books/the-human-condition/
______
Howard Bloom of the Howard Bloom Institute has been called the Einstein, Newton, Darwin, and Freud of the 21st century by Britain’s Channel 4 TV. One of his eight books–Global Brain—was the subject of a symposium thrown by the Office of the Secretary of Defense including representatives from the State Department, the Energy Department, DARPA, IBM, and MIT. Bloom’s work has been published in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Wired, Psychology Today, and the Scientific American. For more, see http://howardbloom.net.
COP must evolve with the times, or go down the abyss of irrelevancy.
COP 30 lands in Belém, a vulnerable Amazon city, Nov 10–21, 2025. The host nation hopes to spotlight deforestation, Indigenous rights, and climate inequity. Brazil plans to launch the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF)—a proposed $125 billion blended‑finance fund to reward forest conservation.
What’s at risk
- Affordability crisis: Belém has ~18,000 hotel beds for ~45,000 expected attendees. Room rates surged to $700–$2,000/night. Developing nations may be shut out.) Brazil has deployed cruise ships and capped rates for poorer countries—but gaps remain.
- Credibility gap: A new highway cutting through protected rainforest (Avenida Liberdade) contradicts the summit’s conservation message—even though officials deny federal involvement.
- Fossil fuel influence: COP media deal awarded to PR firm Edelman, which also represents Shell—sparking conflict concerns.
Why it may just “kick the can”
- Progress stalled in Bonn: Critical texts—like the Just Transition Work Programme and the Gender Action Plan—are underpowered, with weakening language on Indigenous and gender justice. Negotiations postponed to Belém.
- Ambitious goals, low political will: The annual climate finance scale-up roadmap to $1.3 trillion by 2035 lacks binding commitments. Most countries’ updated NDCs remain underwhelming.
- Logistical chaos: Thousands of civil society, women groups, and youth may be excluded by cost and infrastructure constraints, undermining representation.
Why it still matters
- Location is symbolic: Holding COP in the Amazon aims to humanize climate action, not sanitize it in luxury venues.
- TFFF could deliver: If fully funded by COP or 2026, the forest conservation fund could redefine climate finance.
- Health in focus: A WHO-led Climate & Health conference in Brasília is shaping a Health Action Plan for COP, embedding public health in climate policy.
Bottom line
COP 30 has the potential for impact—but so far, optics risk overshadowing outcomes. High costs, diluted ambition, fossil-fuel influence, and delayed mechanisms could make Belém another kickoff, not a game changer. Unless financial pledges and rights-centered action materialize, COP 30 may merely defer real climate solutions to the next summit.
As people in America–and worldwide–are rethinking their residencies, Brazil offers a unique opportunity.
Why it matters
Brazil’s investor visa (VIPER), launched in 2018 and expanded in 2025, offers straight to permanent residency, family inclusion, and a path to citizenship in ~4 years. Designed to attract foreign capital, it’s one of Latin America’s most competitive options.
✅ Pros
- Low investment threshold: BRL 700K (~USD 140K) in the North/Northeast; BRL 1 M (~USD 200K) in other regions.
- Fast processing: Approval typically in 3–6 months.
- Minimal stay requirement: Spend just ~14 days every 2 years in Brazil to maintain residency.(
- Path to citizenship: Apply after 4 years of residency; dual nationality allowed.
- Family included: Spouse and dependents can join under the same investment.
- Access to MERCOSUR: Freedom to live/work across South America and access public services locally.
❌ Cons & caveats
- Capital-intensive: Though cheaper than many EU programs, still requires upfront investment.
- Low liquidity: Must hold qualifying property or business for residency status.
- Complex documentation: Must transfer funds through formal Brazilian banks; property deed must be fully registered.
- Tax implications: Residents become Brazilian tax-liable; must file global income.
- Risk & bureaucracy: Mistakes in property purchase or application can lead to denial.
⚙️ How it works
- Choose investment route:
- Real estate: BRL 1M (~USD 200K), or BRL 700K in North/Northeast.
- Business investment: As low as BRL 150K (~USD 30K) if it creates jobs or invests in tech.
- Acquire property or company with clean title in urban region.
- Transfer funds via central‑bank‑approved channels.
- Apply via MigrantWeb and attend a brief visit (~30 days in-country).
- Receive temp residency (2–4 years), then upgrade to permanent if holding the investment.
- Citizenship after residency plus Portuguese proficiency and clean record.
Real-world impact
- Stimulates foreign investment into Brazilian real estate and startups.
- Helps diversify global mobility: Dual citizens gain visa-free access to ~171 countries.
- Competitive edge: Lower thresholds than Spain, Portugal, and others, with faster timelines and better climate
Who should consider it
- Remote workers or retirees seeking affordable residency in Latin America
- Investors looking for second passports or access to Mercosur markets
- Entrepreneurs or families seeking global mobility and alternate residency options
Bottom line
Brazil’s Golden Visa isn’t just another residency-by-investment program—it’s a strategic gateway to permanent residency, citizenship, and regional access, at competitive cost and with minimal residency obligations.
Whether you’re buying property in Recife or launching a startup in São Paulo, Brazil offers a forward-facing bridge for global citizens—without the EU price tag.
America’s public media system is stuck in a time warp — built for a world that no longer exists.
Back then…
When the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) was founded in 1967, there was:
- ❌ No internet
- ❌ No YouTube
- ❌ No MP3s or MP4s
- ❌ No smartphones
- ❌ No TikTok, file sharing, livestreams, or global DIY distribution
NPR, PBS, and local community stations were born in the age of vinyl and rabbit ears — and many still operate like it’s 1975.
The old model
- Broadcast licenses → transmit radio/TV signals
- Federal subsidies + pledge drives → fund operations
- Audience = passive receivers
All built for one-to-many media when the internet has made everyone a node.
The new reality
Welcome to media in motion:
- Creators self-distribute across platforms
- Real-time news spreads peer-to-peer
- Audiences expect participation, not programming
- Livestreams, podcasts, and video-on-demand rule attention
It’s horse and buggy vs the electric car, and too much of public media is still shoveling hay.
Why it matters
| Then | Now |
|---|---|
| Top-down | Peer-to-peer |
| Static schedules | On-demand, everywhere |
| Centralized stations | Decentralized communities |
| Annual pledge drives | Micro-giving, crowdfunding, subscriptions |
We can’t build the future with our minds in the past. Yet too much of public media clings to legacy systems, dated org charts, and siloed content.
What’s being lost
- Entire generations under 40 have no relationship with public radio or TV
- Community voices, diverse stories, and local impact are drowned out by outdated delivery
- Opportunity for global collaboration, multilingual content, and co-creation is missed
Public media could be a participatory ecosystem — but instead, it’s often a museum exhibit of what media used to be.
What’s next
✅ Shift from broadcast to networked ecosystems
✅ Enable community-owned media nodes
✅ Train creators in digital-first storytelling
✅ Embrace open-source, global collaboration
✅ Reimagine the CPB as a commons infrastructure, not a broadcast subsidy
Bottom line
We don’t do that anymore.
Public media must evolve—or become irrelevant. This is not business as usual. It’s time to flip the script—before the last station fades to static.
