Expert testifies phones harm classroom focus, social development during House Education hearing

BURLINGTON, Vt. — Dr. Harris Strokoff, a child and adolescent psychiatrist who works in South Burlington and with NCSS in St. Albans, told the Vermont House Education Committee on April 23 that widespread smartphone and social media use is harming classroom attention, social development and mental health and that school limits on phones can produce measurable benefits.

Strokoff said mounting research and his clinical experience show a pattern he described as similar to addiction: “Almost all the same symptoms we see in substance use disorders we see in Internet and gaming addiction,” he told the committee. He added that even a phone turned off but present on a student’s desk reduces academic performance in controlled studies.

The committee was hearing continued testimony on a phone-free schools bill. Strokoff said the problem goes beyond academics, affecting skills that develop through face-to-face interaction: “For many kids, especially from more marginalized groups, being in school may be the only time that they get to be around other kids in a pro-social environment,” he said.

Why it matters: Strokoff tied the harms to both screen time and social-media dynamics. He cited national data showing increases in teen reports of sadness, hopelessness and suicidal thoughts beginning around 2009—coinciding with the widespread adoption of smartphones—and referenced a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analysis he said found a roughly 50 percent increased risk of suicidality among heavier teen social-media users. He also referenced the U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on youth mental health and social media from May 2023.

On evidence and schooling, Strokoff pointed to examples of districts that banned or restricted phones and saw improved attendance and test scores, and he said surveys of students often show initial resistance followed within weeks by acceptance and perceived benefits.

Committee members raised equity and exemption concerns. Representative Brady thanked Strokoff for highlighting equity and asked how medical exemptions should be handled for students who say they need phones for anxiety management or to check in with caregivers. Brady said she has heard requests from parents and special-education staff for case-by-case allowances.

Strokoff replied that, based on clinical practice, most accommodations that rely on allowing constant phone access are counterproductive to therapeutic goals. “Most of the time, the therapist and certainly the psychiatrist would not recommend such an exemption,” he said, explaining that exposure-based approaches used in cognitive behavioral therapy require practicing tolerating discomfort rather than immediate check-ins. He acknowledged narrow exceptions, such as devices used for communication by a nonverbal student or documented treatment plans that require limited check-ins with a clinician.

Strokoff also framed the policy as an equity issue: families with more resources often can engineer screen-free opportunities—private schools, camps, or device management tools—that less-resourced families cannot, he said. He urged the committee to pair any phone policy with outreach and supports so that lower-income students do not bear a disproportionate burden.

Committee members asked about state-funded programs such as summer camps and after-school funds. Committee staff said those programs were separate policy areas; the bill under discussion would not by itself expand state-funded extracurricular opportunities.

Strokoff closed by emphasizing balance: he acknowledged technology’s benefits for medicine and education but said schools providing structured phone-free time could improve learning and social development. The committee paused to take a scheduled break at 11 a.m. before continuing consideration of the bill.