Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. November 8, 2022.
Editorial: Dialogue needed between schools, parents
Over the past couple weeks we’ve seen discussion nationally on schools’ efforts to rein in cell phones and pushback from parents. Honestly, both sides have valid arguments. There’s need for compromise.
A story from PBS News Hour summed up the debate nicely. School bans on cell phones in the hands of students were rising before the pandemic. With students now largely playing catchup, schools argue they need to limit distractions.
Some parents say that places their children at risk in the event of a school shooting. Others have argued the bans remove a potential route for accountability, since students have recorded incidents involving staff and others that districts might well have wanted to keep quiet.
It’s important to remember that, as deeply as they have enmeshed themselves in our lives, cell phones with today’s capabilities remain new technology. We’re still learning how to adapt and that’s reflected in how school bans on cell phones have grown and shrunk over the years.
In the early days of smartphones, bans on using cell phones in school were almost universal. But that changed as they became more common. By 2015-2016 the National Center for Education Statistics said about two out of every three schools banned their use. The pendulum then swung the other way, with bans rising to three quarters of schools by 2019-2020.
The pandemic and the imposition of remote classwork short circuited that process, bringing an abrupt end to policies’ evolution in American schools. Any consensus that might have eventually emerged went out the window.
It didn’t help that school violence shot up in the pandemic’s wake. In 2021 there were 49 fatalities in school shootings, according to Everytown Research & Policy. Another 127 people were injured. The spike quite understandably rattled parents.
Students have indeed used their phones to call for help in such situations. The pleas for help during the Uvalde shootings played a significant role in public criticism of law enforcement’s collective response. There can be little doubt that students having access to emergency communications is — or should be — an enhancement to everyone’s safety.
But we’re not quick to dismiss the argument from school administrators that there must be steps to rein in what is unquestionably one of the premiere distractions available to students. Time in class needs to be spent learning. When cell phones interfere with that fundamental purpose, there’s a problem.
It’s not just a question of students texting or watching videos during class time. There have been clear cases in which cell phones facilitated bullying and other behavior that schools have a clear interest in ending.
The way we see it, absolute bans on cell phones in classrooms are neither likely to work nor desirable. There’s a long history of fights against technology, and the vast majority of them don’t end well for those opposed to a new device’s spread. Compromise is the best option.
What form that compromise takes is the question. Some schools implement policies that prohibit students from using their phones in class, but that’s largely on the honor system. If caught violating the policy, students can have their phones confiscated. That makes us more than a little uncomfortable, given the cost of phones and the massive amount of personal information they contain. This isn’t the same as taking away a yo-yo in decades past, and schools need to recognize that.
Other locations have experimented with having students place their phones in cell-proof pouches while in class. Students can have the phones in their possession, but a phone without a signal provides considerably less distraction. That strikes a bit more of a balance, maintaining emergency access while limiting the potential for disruption.
There’s no question students in school need to be concentrating on their classes. We don’t really see conflict between parents and districts on that point. The question is how best to ensure that concentration in the presence of a technological temptation.
One other point worth making: being a student is about growth. So is learning to control yourself amid distractions and focusing on the most important priority at the moment. Taking every decision out of students’ hands creates automatons, not well-rounded people.
No one is likely to get everything they want when it comes to this issue. But there’s a strong case to be made that parents and districts would be well-advised to work together toward solutions.
___
Wisconsin State Journal. November 6, 2022.
Editorial: Let voters know who is speaking when attack ads fill their screens
We love free speech.
We hate those incessant campaign ads — especially the nasty and misleading ones that flood the airwaves, social media and our mailboxes before elections.
The problem isn’t the First Amendment, which lets everyone have their say in a free society.
The problem is anonymous speech backed by tens of millions of dollars. Dark money groups that don’t specifically urge people to vote for or against a candidate don’t have to report their donors or spending — even though they clearly hope to impact the outcome of elections.
That needs to change so our democracy isn’t hijacked by hidden voices with gobs of secret money. Wisconsin and America need much better disclosure laws that force these shadowy political players to take responsibility for what they say.
Congress already requires federal candidates to “stand by your ad,” which works well. When U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Oshkosh, or his Democratic challenger, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes, run a political ad, they have to identify themselves and say “I approve this message.”
This direct and clear connection between the speaker and his speech discourages mudslinging and wild claims that can’t be easily defended.
Similarly, when Gov. Tony Evers and his challenger Tim Michels run ads, they have to disclose (though not as explicitly) that their messages were paid for by their campaigns. Voters also can find out who is directly giving them money, including small individual donations up to $20,000. The public also can learn that Michels has spent nearly $18.7 million of his own money on his campaign.
Advocacy groups that urge a vote for or against a candidate have to report their donors and spending, too.
The problem is dark money groups that raise and spend whatever they want without much disclosure or accountability for what they say. Glaring loopholes in state and federal law give them a pass on transparency if they don’t specifically urge voters to support or oppose a candidate.
This lets anonymous voices and donors say outlandish things about candidates and political causes without having to show their faces and accept responsibility.
Dark money groups are cowardly and corrosive for our democracy. Our state and nation shouldn’t let them take anonymous potshots at candidates just before people vote.
Making matters worse in Wisconsin was a Republican-backed bill in 2015 that allowed these dark money groups to coordinate with candidates as they target their opponents with political ads.
The solution is to require disclosure of all donors and donations before elections, even if an ad doesn’t specifically urge a vote for or against someone.
The Disclose Act, which passed the Democratic-led House but was blocked by Republicans in the Senate, would improve transparency for voters at the federal level. It would require interest groups to stand by all of their political ads. It also would help protect elections against foreign meddling.
At the state level, the Democratic-sponsored Senate Bill 531 would require more disclosure of political ads 60 days before an election.
Disclosure used to be a broadly bipartisan goal. Back when former Republican Gov. Scott Walker was a state lawmaker, for example, he and others in the GOP understood the danger of anonymous electioneering. Walker warned that foreign sources could secretly funnel money into Wisconsin to influence voter decisions.
If you’re sick of all the attack ads this fall, tell your leaders in the Legislature and Congress to require clear and consistent disclosure of who is paying for what. Everyone spending money on elections should have to stand by what they say, just as the candidates already must do.
