Illinois’ proposed cellphone ban should apply to the entire school day — not just during instructional time.
As a former high school teacher and a parent of two young children, I was elated that Gov. JB Pritzker proposed a statewide ban on the devices in schools. However, when I saw the two bills being introduced to address this issue, I was disappointed. Both bills propose banning cellphones during instructional time only. Is this significantly different from the rules already in place at most schools? I suspect that most Illinois schools already have some kind of rule in place prohibiting students from using phones during class. That type of rule is not enough.
In my experience, when cellphones are banned during class time but are still allowed in pockets and backpacks, they are a distraction. Teachers still spend too much class time policing phones, and kids still spend much of their recess, lunch, passing periods and other types of non-instructional time engaging with their phones instead of their peers.
In his 2024 bestseller “The Anxious Generation,” Jonathan Haidt details the ways in which social media access on phones is leading to many problems for adolescents, particularly their mental health. In his call to action, he argues that phones should be banned for the entire school day and that a ban limited to class time is “nearly useless.” Having spent 10 years in the classroom, from 2014 to 2024, when phones were rising in popularity, I wholeheartedly agree.
Some may fear banning phones for the entire day would make it so that parents cannot reach their kids or kids cannot use their phones during an emergency. I would argue there are other ways to contact one’s kids if absolutely necessary. I would argue further that in a serious emergency, I would much rather my child be attentive to the emergency instructions provided in the moment by their teacher and school to ensure their safety than send me texts.
We all know how difficult it is to pass laws and how rare it is to have bipartisan agreement on issues. While we have momentum on this issue across party lines, let’s create a law that will actually create the positive change we are intending to see.
Kimberly Tobin, Brighton Park
SEND LETTERS TO: letters@suntimes.com. To be considered for publication, letters must include your full name, your neighborhood or hometown and a phone number for verification purposes. Letters should be a maximum of approximately 375 words.
Congress allows ‘a monarch in all but name’
If there is a primary culprit for the wrecking ball that’s currently being taken to our national government, it’s not President Donald Trump but the U.S. Congress, which has abdicated the role the founders envisioned for it.
When the founders created a national government based on checks and balances, they mainly worried about the legislative branch. This is obvious when you read the Constitution. Article I lays out the rules for Congress, and it is by far the longest and most detailed section in the document.
After throwing off monarchical tyranny during the Revolution, the founders experienced roughly a decade of legislative tyranny as state governments labored under constitutions that concentrated almost all power in the legislative branch. So when drafting the U.S. Constitution, the founders put in constraints to keep Congress from overpowering the other two branches. One of the main reasons behind the creation of a strong executive branch was to enable the president to check Congress.
The founders still expected Congress to be the dominant branch, which it was until roughly the middle of the 20th century. The growth of the federal bureaucracy has made the president more powerful, a shift that was probably unavoidable given the greater complexity of modern life.
But the main problem is Congress. The founders expected each branch to guard its power, but Congress is failing to do that.
With a divided government, the checks and balances system continues to work. The real problem occurs when the same party controls the presidency and Congress. Because of rising partisanship making any legislative action difficult, Congress has allowed presidents to push through policies through alternative means.
Trump has now accelerated this trend, so that we are in danger of recreating exactly what the founders feared — a monarch in all but name. Republicans in Congress are little more than compliant lapdogs.
Many Republicans are thrilled by this turn of events and believe the country is getting the dramatic action it requires. But this is short-term thinking. When Democrats return to power, a Democratic president will feel emboldened to run amok as much as Trump has.
If we really are a government by the people, of the people and for the people, Congress needs to stand up for itself.
Andrew Trees, Ph.D., Lake Forest
Immigrants need health care too
So the Illinois auditor general found the state’s pre-COVID projection underestimated health coverage utilization during the three years of a once-in-a-century pandemic? Living in a heavily immigrant community, I am sure glad my neighbors had such access. What would be the alternative: Having them postpone medical care until they were so sick that they end up in the Cook County emergency room? That would cost us all a lot more, not to mention the additional illness exposure for all the rest of us. Health care is a human right and immigrants are human.
John D. Cameron, West Ridge
Pitiful potholes
Thank you for including a photo of a pothole, from 2023, in Thursday’s Sun-Times. As if people who live in Chicago don’t know what a pothole is.
Margo Sliwa, Norwood Park