Connect with us

News

How to give kids autonomy? 'Anxious Generation' author says a license to roam helps

Published

on

How to give kids autonomy? 'Anxious Generation' author says a license to roam helps

The author’s 8-year-old daughter Rosy has a ‘kids’ license,’ showing she has her parents’ permission to ride her bike around her Texas hometown.

Michaeleen Doucleff


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Michaeleen Doucleff


The author’s 8-year-old daughter Rosy has a ‘kids’ license,’ showing she has her parents’ permission to ride her bike around her Texas hometown.

Michaeleen Doucleff

American kids are being walloped by a hurtful combination, says social psychologist Jonathan Haidt: too much screen time and too little autonomy.

In his new book, The Anxious Generation, Haidt argues that these two key factors have combined to cause the mental health crisis now facing America’s teenagers. A study by the health policy research organization KFF shows that 1 in 5 adolescents reports symptoms of anxiety and depression. Haidt’s book offers a series of recommendations for flipping both of these factors around.

Advertisement
The Anxious Generation, by Jonathan Haidt
The Anxious Generation, by Jonathan Haidt

For example, Haidt gives this advice to parents of children ages 6 to 13: “Practice letting your kids out of your sight without them having a way to reach you. While you cook dinner for your friends, send your kids out with theirs to the grocery store to pick up more garlic — even if you don’t need it.”

But as many parents know, granting kids more autonomy while delaying access to smartphones can be way tougher than it sounds.

Parents confront resistance from many directions: school policies, neighbors, other parents and even the law. Some parents have even faced prosecution. So I wanted to talk with Haidt, who is a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business, about the details of implementing some of his recommendations.

I started our conversation by telling him a story about my daughter, who was 7 at the time:

This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

Last summer, my husband and I taught our daughter to walk or ride her bike to the local market on her own. Within a few months, police had stopped her not once, but twice. The first time, they brought her home in the back of the police car, which scared her quite a lot.

Advertisement

How do you give children more independence when our law enforcement, our neighborhood and our communities aren’t used to it?

Parents need to act collectively:

Step 1: We need to change laws in states to make it explicit that giving your kids independence cannot be taken as evidence of neglect on its own. We’ve already passed that law in eight states [Utah, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Virginia, Connecticut, Illinois and Montana]. It’s being considered in many others.

Step 2: We then have to change group-level norms. And we can do that with what’s called the Let Grow Experience. You encourage your elementary school administrators to download the materials from Let Grow [a nonprofit organization that Haidt co-founded to foster childhood independence]. That material gives teachers instructions for assigning kids a specific type of homework. Teachers tell children, “Go home, talk with your parents and find something that you think you can do, but you’ve never been allowed to do before. Something you think you can do by yourself.”

Like going to the store on their bike a few blocks away?

Advertisement

Exactly. Children agree with parents on what the task is. And then the child does this type of assignment once a month for six months.

The brilliant part of this challenge is that it changes the norms. Before you know it, it’s normal to see an 8-year-old carrying a quart of milk. It’s normal to see a 9-year-old on a bicycle — that’s how you change the norms.

So after the second police incident, we actually went to the Let Grow website and printed out the little licenses that kids can carry, saying that their parents have given them permission to walk around town. And our daughter loved that.

Oh good! That was my invention.

Well, thank you. It worked well. We actually thought about going to the police with other parents and discussing how we want our children to walk and ride around the neighborhood without problems.

Advertisement

Oh, I should have put that in the book. So, yeah, once the school does the Let Grow Experience, you can get 10 parents to go into the police station and say, “Here’s what we want to do with our kids. And we want to make sure there’s no trouble with it.”

In your book, you also recommend waiting to give children smartphones until at least high school. As a parent, I’m already hearing parents talk about giving their 9-year-olds a smartphone. How do you even broach the subject with other parents about delaying, without sounding judgy or angering them? I worry that I’ll hurt the friendship between our children.

Why not suggest that the 9-year-olds have a flip phone that only has the ability to make phone calls and text? No access to the internet.

Parents think the only option is a smartphone or no phone at all. That’s what I thought. So I gave my son my old smartphone when he was in fourth grade and started walking to school. It didn’t occur to me to give him a more basic phone. So that was just a failure of imagination. And it’s funny because most of the parents now are millennials who grew up with flip phones. The flip phones let them connect. It did not harm them. I see no evidence that flip phones harmed millennials. So just give the 9-year-old a flip phone.

So flip phones allow parents to communicate with their children while they’re away from home without giving them access to the internet and all the risks associated with it, such as the risk of bringing strangers into their lives.

Advertisement

Yes, it’s really internet-linked devices that allow companies [and strangers] to reach your child directly. And that’s really, really a bad thing.

Gosh, I hope it will be that easy to get many parents to go along with this and switch to flip phones. I know I will try.

To change things, we need coordinated action, like this. Parents feel hopeless right now. But they shouldn’t feel that way. Things are going to change very quickly because we all want them to change.

Last question: The Anxious Generation focuses on smartphones, especially during middle school. But for many younger children, iPads and game consoles can consume nearly all their time out of school. Is there a developmental trajectory in which children develop screen-based habits at a very young age so that when they do have a phone, it’s hard to regulate because long screen times have become a habit?

What you’re describing is what I call a phone-based child. It doesn’t start with the first smartphone. It starts with the first screens. When I say phone in the book, I don’t just mean the smartphone — I mean every internet-enabled device.

Advertisement

If we’re going to keep all of our kids alone in our houses because we’re afraid to let them explore their neighborhood autonomously, then they’re going to get bored. But if we make much more effort to have them spend time with other kids without screens, guess what? They’ll figure out a game to play. If you send them outside, they’ll figure out something to do. You know, in the ’60s and ’70s, there were crime waves, but parents still sent their kids outside to play. Today many parts of the country are much safer, and yet we’re so afraid to let children go outside. If we’re going to take away screens from children, then we have to give them freedom outside too.

This story was edited by Jane Greenhalgh.

News

As Supreme Court expands Trump’s immigration power, experts warn of steeper U.S. population decline

Published

on

As Supreme Court expands Trump’s immigration power, experts warn of steeper U.S. population decline

President Trump holds up a bill funding immigration enforcement after signing it in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, June 10, 2026, in Washington.

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Julia Demaree Nikhinson/AP

Even before the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Trump has broad power to deport hundreds of thousands of migrants living legally in the U.S. under temporary protected status, David Bier feared the U.S. was slipping toward a demographic cliff.

“We’re destined to be there, in short order, there’s no question,” Bier said. “We’re already seeing a situation where most counties in the United States had more deaths than births.”

An expert on population and immigration at the libertarian Cato Institute, Bier believes the U.S. is beginning to look more like China, Italy and South Korea — nations that face rapid aging and population decline are seen as a crisis.

Advertisement

U.S. birthrates have been declining for decades. There are far too few children born each year to maintain a stable population.

Until last year, high rates of foreign immigration largely offset that trend. But for the first time since the 1930s, during the Great Depression, the U.S. now faces record low birthrates and low numbers of migrants at the same time.

“Our higher birthrates of a century ago are not coming back. There’s no way to have a sustainable fiscal and economic situation that doesn’t involve immigration,” Bier said.

Trump’s legal fight to end temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of Haitians, Syrians and others living in the U.S. legally is only one part of a wider administration effort to squeeze immigration.

The Supreme Court also ruled this week that the administration has authority to block most asylum seekers from entering the country. Federal agents have also conducted raids in cities across the U.S., to accelerate deportations.

Advertisement

Last month, Trump issued an executive order that could make it harder for many migrants living in the U.S. without full legal status to use banking and financial services.

Many immigration opponents see these changes as progress. In a statement following this week’s Supreme Court decisions. A spokesman for the Federation for Immigration Reform said Trump should have full authority to direct who enters the U.S.

Continue Reading

News

Utah County declares State of Emergency as wildfires ‘ravage’ the state

Published

on

Utah County declares State of Emergency as wildfires ‘ravage’ the state

UTAH COUNTY, Utah (ABC4) — Utah County has declared a state of emergency.

According to an announcement from the Utah County Commissioner Skyler Beltran, the county is in a dire position due to the extensive wildfires in the area and high fire risk.

The announcement states that declaring the State of Emergency will allow the county to access additional resources, and notes there is no imminent threat to Utah County residents.

“We have utilized a tremendous amount of our resources (very early in the traditional fire season schedule) responding to the Iron Fire and continue to face ongoing recovery concerns,” the statement read. “This was even before the Maple Peak and Cherry fires, which have now merged and are moving toward the Iron Fire.”

The Iron Fire, which started last week, has burned over 40,000 acres. Around 22,830 of those acres were in Utah County. Reportedly, the county has limited resources available to help those who are evacuating from Juab County, including the 600 residents in the Town of Eureka.

Advertisement

Due to the influx in evacuees, the Utah County Commission says that more resources are necessary to help the evacuation shelters in Elberta, Utah. Additionally, due to the Iron Fire and other wildfires, Utah County is facing immense repair needs to avoid future flooding, loss of homes, and disruption to local economies and ecosystems.

There is “imminent threat” to public safety due to the damage.

The commission also asks the public to be vigilant when handling heavy equipment, using campfires or barbecues, and discharging fireworks, to avoid preventing fires.

Their statement added, “Our firefighters are exhausted, our resources are stretched thin and we are in a very vulnerable position.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

Published

on

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).

Alex Wong/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alex Wong/Getty Images

As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.

The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.

Advertisement

After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending