# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The supposed danger of digital media made headlines over the weekend when psychotherapist Nicholas Kardaras published a story in the New York Post called "It's 'digital heroin': How screens turn kids into psychotic junkies." In the op-ed, Kardaras claims that "iPads, smartphones and XBoxes are a form of digital drug." He stokes fears about the potential for addiction and the ubiquity of technology by referencing "hundreds of clinical studies" that show "screens increase depression, anxiety and aggression."

We've seen this form of scaremongering before. People are frequently uneasy with new technology, after all. The problem is, screens and computers aren't actually all that new. There's already a whole generation - millennials - who grew up with computers. They appear, mostly, to be fine, selfies aside. If computers were "digital drugs," wouldn't we have already seen warning signs?

No matter. Kardaras opens with a little boy who was so hooked on Minecraft that his mom found him in his room in the middle of the night, in a "catatonic stupor" - his iPad lying next to him. This is an astonishing use of "catatonic," and is almost certainly not medically correct. It's meant to scare parents.

If computers were "digital drugs," wouldn't we have already seen warning signs?

This style of manipulation is most obvious in Kardaras' use of statistics: "According to a 2013 Policy Statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 8- to 10 year-olds spend 8 hours a day with various digital media while teenagers spend 11 hours in front of screens," he writes. His article takes general aim at screens, but specifically stokes fears about video games and the internet ("I have found it easier to treat heroin and crystal meth addicts than lost-in-the-matrix video gamers or Facebook-dependent social media addicts," he writes). He makes no mention of television, which remains the predominant form of media for children and teens, according to a 2013 policy statement from the American Academy of pediatrics.

Kardaras is the executive director of The Dunes East Hampton luxury addiction recovery center, which Vanity Fair reports costs between $50,000 and $75,000 per month. He's also the author of a recently published book: Glow Kids: How Screen Addiction is Hijacking Our Kids - And How to Break The Trance. (Kardaras said in an interview with The Verge that The Dunes doesn't offer therapy for tech addiction, and that his op-ed wasn't driven by a financial agenda.) But how accurate are Kardaras' claims? Should we all live in fear that our toddlers will be ravaged by their iPads?

Michael Rich, the director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Boston Children's Hospital, says that he has seen cases of problematic interactive media use that keep children up at night. But, he adds, "I've also had kids who have been found staring wide-eyed and bloodshot at Harry Potter at two in the morning."

Kardaras' op-ed goes on to warn that exposure to screens can cause "addiction," and he quotes researchers analogizing screen time to heroin and cocaine. "That's right - your kid's brain on Minecraft looks like a brain on drugs," he writes. This is, strictly speaking, true - at least, from a neuroimaging standpoint. This is a hoary old trope in science writing, and it's apparently loosely based on fMRI, which is hardly the most accurate discipline. The brain's reward center, the ventral striatum, is what makes you feel good when you eat, have sex, take cocaine, or play video games.

Should we all live in fear that our toddlers will be ravaged by their iPads?

Yale psychiatrists Robert Leeman and Marc Potenza write in a 2013 review paper that there are neurobiological and genetic parallels between substance abuse and problematic behaviors, like excessive gambling, shopping, sex, gaming, and internet use. But because these are things pretty much everyone engages in, it's hard to draw a line between one person's activity and another person's addiction.

Kardaras' loose talk on addiction is what makes his argument so tough to believe. About 1.6 percent of Americans use heroin, but a quarter of them wind up addicted, according to an estimate from the National Institutes of Drug Addiction. Something like 16 percent of cocaine users become dependent on the drug within 10 years of trying it for the first time, say scientists in the journal Neuropsychopharmacology. Digital devices, as well as video games, are far more widespread than either of these drugs. If they were, in fact, comparable, we should be seeing a lot more people displaying "catatonia," with their iPads dropped dramatically beside them.

The tech-as-addiction metaphor is sloppy, though it might not be wrong. The problem is we don't have a good handle on what qualifies as tech addiction - if it exists at all, how common it is, and what kind of environmental and physiological conditions predispose someone to it.

Substance use disorder - that regular ol' drug addiction - is a recognized condition in the latest version of the psychiatric Bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; technology abuse disorder is not. Internet gaming disorder is in a special section called "the research appendix," where the DSM's authors relegate conditions that do not have sufficient evidence for existence - but where more research might be useful. While it's true, as Kardaras pointed out, that the DSM is not without flaw - it did, after all, list homosexuality as a disorder until 1973 - whether to list internet gaming disorder or internet addiction was hotly debated.

The tech-as-addiction metaphor is sloppy, though it might not be wrong

"Well over 250 publications exist on internet gaming disorder, also referred to as gaming or internet use disorder, gaming or internet addiction, gaming or internet dependence, pathological or problematic gaming, etc.," Nancy Petri, a committee member for the DSM, and Charles O'Brien the chair of the committee wrote in in 2013. But, as the dispute over terminology hints, there wasn't much standardization on these studies; nor did the qualifications for problematic behavior remain the same between the studies. "Given substantial differences related to classification, it is not surprising that information on the prevalence, course, treatment and biomarkers associated with internet gaming disorder is inconclusive," they write.

This is of course less attention-grabbing than a scary bedtime story about a six-year-old with bloodshot eyes sitting upright and unresponsive in his bed next to an iPad - which is probably why the Post didn't run it. One has to sell the paper after all. But the way the article discusses addiction is meant to incite panic, and parents should be wary of anyone trying to panic them. "I don't think this is a helpful approach, this panic and addiction fears," says Boston Children Hospital's Rich.

Kardaras isn't the first one inciting fear about the ill-effects of technology on our - and our childrens' - minds. Others have done the same before him. British scientist and media-maker Susan Greenfield made waves by claiming that 500 peer-reviewed papers showed that technology harmed the brain. When Oxford University psychologist Dorothy Bishop actually analyzed the papers, there were 395, and only a small proportion were peer-reviewed papers that actually supported Greenfield's conclusions.

Other reviews of the literature didn't find consistently positive or negative effects of media on children. "The content delivered by electronic media is far more influential than the media themselves," write the authors of a review in the under-the-radar, but apparently peer-reviewed ( according to their website) journal Future of Children.

"Just as we need to learn to drive a car safely, we need to learn how to drive the internet safely."

And it's just as easy to cherry-pick results that highlight the positive aspects of technology on kids' brains. Just this week, after all, research presented at an international anesthesiology conference suggests that iPads are just as effective as conventional sedatives at keeping kids calm right before surgery. Another study published by a research team at the University of Texas in 2012 demonstrated that virtual reality training - with a digital device - helped boost social skills and cognition in young adults with autism. In March, an international team of researchers published an analysis of more than 3,000 children between the ages of six and 11 living in European Union countries. They found that, all else being equal, gamers had a higher chance than non-gamers of performing better at school and a lower chance of experiencing problems with their peers.

Kardaras, the author of New York Post article, references hundreds of studies he claims to cite in his book and on his webpage. This is an impressive rhetorical trick, though his number is somewhat less than the number the DSM committee came up with three years ago. (Presumably, there would be more studies and not fewer in the intervening years.) Citing that many studies makes him sound authoritative, while disincentivizing anyone who might want to dispute him - not all of us have Bishop's determination. When we took a look at his webpage, we saw that it does include some peer-reviewed studies. But it also references law enforcement speculation that the massacre by Adam Lanza at the Sandy Hook Elementary School "was the result of his video game psychosis."

It's true that there is research linking the overuse of electronics to mental health disorders. But the arrow of causation still isn't clear, says David Hill, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Communications and Media. No one has been able to tell whether excessive screen time can cause mental health disorders, or whether people with underlying disorders are more predisposed to problematic use of interactive media.

"All of us have changed the way we live because of the way we use these devices."

At any rate, Kardaras didn't contribute his conclusions to the scientific body of evidence whatsoever. Searching a database of the academic literature for " Nicholas Kardaras", " Nick Kardaras", and " N Kardaras" doesn't turn up a single peer-reviewed publication about tech addiction, internet addiction, or psychology. That means that while the claims given weight by a 'PhD' following Kardaras' name are out there to frighten parents, he's never submitted them for other scientists and clinicians to evaluate.

In an interview with The Verge, Kardaras didn't dispute that he hasn't published in the peer-reviewed literature. Instead, he said that he wanted to reach the broadest audience possible by publishing in the popular press. But Rich worries that disseminating information having to do with mental health this way stirs up hysteria, and clouds our ability to deal with it. "This kind of hysteria doesn't lead to that kind of thoughtful, evidence-based, mindful use of these tools that, after all, we all have to use," Rich says.

Both Rich and Hill agree with Kardaras' recommendation that parents should take an active role in their children's media use. But while parents should be alert to whether screen time is displacing other activities, they also need to realize that screens are becoming an unavoidable part of a child's environment - in school, with friends, even on the street, where billboards are increasingly replaced by digital screens. Children will be exposed to them.

"I think that the approach we should take to it is to understand that all of us have changed the way we live because of the way we use these devices, but we also have to be aware that they are just tools. They are neutral. What we do with them, and what we demonstrate for our children, and what we let our children do with them is what determines the outcome," Rich says.

"Just as we need to learn to drive a car safely, we need to learn how to drive the internet safely. Again, this is another tool that increases our freedom, increases our ability to do things, but also has great potential danger. But we don't get in cars thinking oh, I could get addicted."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why calling screen time 'digital heroin' is digital garbage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The supposed danger of digital media made headlines over the weekend when psychotherapist Nicholas Kardaras published a story in the New York Post called "It's 'digital heroin': How screens turn kids into psychotic junkies." In the op-ed, Kardaras claims that "iPads, smartphones and XBoxes are a form of digital drug."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Conversation With

Adam Alter warns that many of us - youngsters, teenagers, adults - are addicted to modern digital products. Credit... Karsten Moran for The New York Times

In a new book, "Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked," the social psychologist Adam Alter warns that many of us - youngsters, teenagers, adults - are addicted to modern digital products. Not figuratively, but literally addicted.

Dr. Alter, 36, is an associate professor at the Stern School of Business at New York University who researches psychology and marketing. We spoke for two hours last week at the offices of The New York Times. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity and brevity.
Q. What makes you think that people have become addicted to digital devices and social media?
A. In the past, we thought of addiction as mostly related to chemical substances: heroin, cocaine, nicotine. Today, we have this phenomenon of behavioral addictions where, one tech industry leader told me, people are spending nearly three hours a day tethered to their cellphones. Where teenage boys sometimes spend weeks alone in their rooms playing video games. Where Snapchat will boast that its youthful users open their app more than 18 times a day.

Behavioral addictions are really widespread now. A 2011 study suggested that 41 percent of us have at least one. That number is sure to have risen with the adoption of newer more addictive social networking platforms, tablets and smartphones.

How do you define "addiction"?
The definition I go with is that it has to be something you enjoy doing in the short term, that undermines your well-being in the long term - but that you do compulsively anyway.

We're biologically prone to getting hooked on these sorts of experiences. If you put someone in front of a slot machine, their brain will look qualitatively the same as when they take heroin. If you're someone who compulsively plays video games - not everyone, but people who are addicted to a particular game - the minute you load up your computer, your brain will look like that of a substance abuser.

We are engineered in such a way that as long as an experience hits the right buttons, our brains will release the neurotransmitter dopamine. We'll get a flood of dopamine that makes us feel wonderful in the short term, though in the long term you build a tolerance and want more.
Do the designers of the new technologies understand what they're doing?
The people who create video games wouldn't say they are looking to create addicts. They just want you to spend as much time as possible with their products.

Some of the games on smartphones require you to give money as you play, so they want to keep you playing. The designers will build into a game a certain amount of feedback, in the same way that slot machines offer an occasional win to hold your interest.

Not surprisingly, game producers will often pretest different versions of a release to see which one is hardest to resist and which will keep your attention longest. It works.

For the book, I spoke with a young man who sat in front of his computer playing a video game for 45 consecutive days! The compulsive playing had destroyed the rest of his life. He ended up at a rehabilitation clinic in Washington State, reSTART, where they specialize in treating young people with gaming dependencies.
Do we need legislation to protect ourselves?
It's not a bad idea to consider it, at least for online games.

In South Korea and China, there are proposals for something they call Cinderella laws. The idea is to protect children from playing certain games after midnight.

Gaming and internet addiction is a really serious problem throughout East Asia. In China, there are millions of youngsters with it, and they actually have camps where parents commit their children for months and where therapists treat them with a detox regime.
Why do you claim that many of the new electronic gadgets have fueled behavioral addictions?
Well, look at what people are doing. In one survey, 60 percent of the adults said they keep their cellphones next to them when they sleep. In another survey, half the respondents claimed they check their emails during the night.

Moreover, these new gadgets turn out to be the perfect delivery devices for addictive media. If games and social media were once confined to our home computers, portable devices permit us to engage with them everywhere.

Today, we're checking our social media constantly, which disrupts work and everyday life. We've become obsessed with how many "likes" our Instagram photos are getting instead of where we are walking and whom we are talking to.
Where's the harm in this?
If you're on the phone for three hours daily, that's time you're not spending on face-to-face interactions with people. Smartphones give everything you need to enjoy the moment you're in, but they don't require much initiative.

You never have to remember anything because everything is right in front of you. You don't have to develop the ability to memorize or to come up with new ideas.

I find it interesting that the late Steve Jobs said in a 2010 interview that his own children didn't use iPads. In fact, there are a surprising number of Silicon Valley titans who refuse to let their kids near certain devices. There's a private school in the Bay Area and it doesn't allow any tech - no iPhones or iPads. The really interesting thing about this school is that 75 percent of the parents are tech executives.

Learning about the school pushed me to write, "Irresistible." What was it about these products that made them, in the eyes of experts, so potentially dangerous?
You have an 11-month-old son. How do you interact with your technologies when you're with him?
I try not to use my phone around him. It's actually one of the best mechanisms to force me not to use my phone so much.
Are you addicted to this stuff?
Yeah, I think so. I've developed addictions from time to time to various games on my phone.

Like many of the people in the survey I mentioned earlier, I'm addicted to email. I can't stop checking it. I can't go to bed at night if I haven't cleared my inbox. I'll keep my phone next to my bed, much as I try not to.

The technology is designed to hook us that way. Email is bottomless. Social media platforms are endless. Twitter? The feed never really ends. You could sit there 24 hours a day and you'll never get to the end. And so you come back for more and more.
If you were advising a friend on quitting their behavioral addictions, what would you suggest?
I'd suggest that they be more mindful about how they are allowing tech to invade their life. Next, they should cordon it off. I like the idea, for instance, of not answering email after six at night.

In general, I'd say find more time to be in natural environments, to sit face to face with someone in a long conversation without any technology in the room. There should be times of the day where it looks like the 1950s or where you are sitting in a room and you can't tell what era you are in. You shouldn't always be looking at screens.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Conversation With In a new book, "Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology and the Business of Keeping Us Hooked," the social psychologist Adam Alter warns that many of us - youngsters, teenagers, adults - are addicted to modern digital products. Not figuratively, but literally addicted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
EXETER - A SAU 16 task force is studying the potential implications of starting school later for middle and high school students in the district in light of medical research about teen sleep as it relates to school performance and overall health.

Any decision in SAU 16, which includes the Cooperative Middle School, Exeter High School and the Seacoast School of Technology, is far from being made, said Assistant Superintendent Bill Furbush, who is overseeing the task force. The group is still gathering information and does not expect to make a decision this school year.

Districts like SAU 16 have been considering the issue since the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement in 2014 in which they recommended middle and high schools delay the start of class to 8:30 a.m. or later. The reasoning, the AAP said, was that the times would align school schedules to the biological sleep rhythms of adolescents, whose sleep-wake cycles begin to shift up to two hours later at the start of puberty. Locally, Portsmouth and the Oyster River School District have implemented later start times.

"Chronic sleep loss in children and adolescents is one of the most common - and easily fixable - public health issues in the U.S. today," Pediatrician Judith Owens, MD, FAAP, lead author of the AAP policy statement said in a press release. "The research is clear that adolescents who get enough sleep have a reduced risk of being overweight or suffering depression, are less likely to be involved in automobile accidents, and have better grades, higher standardized test scores and an overall better quality of life. Studies have shown that delaying early school start times is one key factor that can help adolescents get the sleep they need to grow and learn."

Furbush said the task force is looking at a number of issues, including health benefits and logistical challenges. "This came out of our new strategic plan," he said. "We were tasked with looking at the benefits, both to the students and the community, and also look at all potential impacts, both positive and negative."

The task force, which has been meeting since last November, recently presented their early findings to the SAU 16 Joint Board, which includes school board representatives from all towns in the district. The Joint Board asked for further research into other districts, in addition to the two local ones, that have changed to later start times, the impact on sports schedules, and the impact to the Seacoast School of Technology, which draws students from around the Seacoast.

"I think that the research is clear that it supports positive academic outcomes as well as positive health outcomes," Furbush said of starting school later. "However, the health benefits and academic impacts of our students is only one of the areas that would be impacted by this potential change."

The task force meets monthly and is expected to go back before the board in the spring of 2018. At the last Joint Board meeting, Assistant Superintendent Esther Asbell suggested that a decision like changing start times should wait until a new superintendent and principal at Exeter High School are hired. Both positions are currently being advertised.

Furbush acknowledged that one of the biggest hurdles to making a change in start time is busing. At the Joint Board meeting, Tricia Daly, the transportation coordinator for SAU 16, said that the district has 39 bus routes, of which 36 buses also do elementary bus routes. The district works to have bus trips take no longer than 50 minutes, with no more than 60 students per bus. Options that might be considered include longer routes or fewer stops. Oyster River and Portsmouth implemented K-12 bus routes, which Furbush noted is not uncommon in some districts around the state.

At Exeter High School, clubs could start later, but sports would be affected by a later start time, EHS Interim Principal Michael Monahan told the Joint Board. For example, the high school has over 200 soccer players at this time, because they opt to add teams instead of cut players. There is only one lit field at the high school and a later start time would likely mean the school would have to reduce the number of teams. They also pointed out that scheduling might be difficult and that other districts that changed start times have lost some opponents as a result.

The potential impact to the SST was an area of concern, Furbush noted, as there were questions about whether a change in start time would affect enrollment from sending towns outside of SAU 16. SST Principal Margaret Callahan, at the Joint Board meeting, said that 42 percent of SST students are from Exeter High School. The end of the school day is important as students have to return to their home school in time for the afternoon bus. Oyster River has less technical education students while Portsmouth's tech program is on-site, which make it easier to shift their schedule. Newmarket, which does send students to SST, is also discussing a later start time, she said. If both Newmarket and Exeter went to a later start time, their students would have to attend the middle session at SST, which would put classes over capacity. She noted that a later start time could lead to Exeter students not being able to attend SST due to class capacity issues.

Members of the task force also reached out to Oyster River and Portsmouth. Oyster River is having some challenges as they are short six bus drivers this school year. While in Portsmouth, the district opted to have all schools start at 8:20 a.m., which required adding three more buses, and having all ages on the same buses. Oyster River's decision was also influenced by the fact that they'd recently adding more lighting to their athletic fields.

The ultimate decision on whether to move middle and high school start times would start with the SAU 16 Joint Board, which includes representatives from each town in the district. But changes to individual elementary routes, would have to be approved by the boards in each affected town. Furbush stressed that the discussion is still preliminary but that at a later date, parent and community input would be an important piece of the eventual decision.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
SAU 16 weighs pros and cons of later start times

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
EXETER - A SAU 16 task force is studying the potential implications of starting school later for middle and high school students in the district in light of medical research about teen sleep as it relates to school performance and overall health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
CINCINNATI (Paula Toti) -- With thousands of local children back at school this week a new study suggests most children start school too early. It's a matter of health and concentration. The American Academy of Pediatrics says school should start for middle and high school students no earlier than 8:30am.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What happens when 1,200 teenagers hit the streets during the lunch hour? See what the School Resource Officer at Arvada High has done to ensure the safety of the students and to reduce the crime rate in the area.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Principal of Doherty High School sent a notice out to parents on Saturday informing them the privilege of open campus will return, but only to students who meet certain criteria.

Privileges were restricted in late September following the shooting of a student near campus. Colorado Springs Police have arrested two 16-year-old boys in connection with the lunchtime shooting that caused a shelter-in-place response on September 22.

The District 11 school temporarily suspended their open campus policy in response and started strict enforcement of a policy requiring all students to carry and display a student ID at all times. Visitors and staff must also comply with the ID policy.

Effective Monday, October 9th, students will receive after school detention for a first violation, further violations could lead to suspension.

The new open-campus policy announced on October 21 will allow students to leave campus during their free periods. The privilege does not extend to lunch hours.

In the letter to parents, Principal Kevin Gardner states, "Beginning Monday, October 23rd, 11th and 12th grade students who have demonstrated responsibility through academics, attendance, and behavior will be able to leave campus through a sign-out and sign-in process with school security."

Security staff will compile a list of eligible students every Monday based on the prior week's performance in class.

Eligibility is based upon:
Grades 11th and 12th grade students who have all grades of C or above
Attendance - No unexcused absences or excessive tardies (determined on a case-by-case basis)
Behavior - No disciplinary referrals

In order to leave campus, a student must stop by the security window at the west doors of the building, present their ID and sign out. Upon return they must sign in and present ID at the same window. If they fail to follow the rules, open-campus privileges will be revoked for the remainder of the week.

RELATED:
Policy changes at Doherty High School

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doherty High School brings back open-campus to eligible students

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Principal of Doherty High School sent a notice out to parents on Saturday informing them the privilege of open campus will return, but only to students who meet certain criteria. Privileges were restricted in late September following the shooting of a student near campus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An open campus lunch is a policy that is typically set by a high school about how students can access the foods they eat during their meal in the middle of the day. These policies are usually set by either the school district board, a state board of education, or an oversight committee. Some principals are given the permission to set individual policies for specific schools, class years (junior, senior, etc.) or even individuals.

One such example of an open campus lunch policy exists in California. The Stockton Unified School District board offers detailed provisions to create an open campus, yet it also provides the school principal to close the campus if there are justifiable reasons to do so. Most policymakers include the superintendent of each district with the decision as well.

It is essential to remember that an open campus lunch or policy does not exist on its own in a vacuum. There must be community support, policy goals, and situational facts that are specific to that school or region that must be taken into consideration. Without these resources, the policies or laws which govern the situation can be ignored, rendered useless, or even become harmful to the students.

If your district is considering an open campus lunch, then here are the pros and cons that you will want to discuss with your elected officials and school administrators.

List of the Pros of Open Campus Lunch

1. It offers high-performing students an opportunity to experience a reward.
Many school districts use an open campus lunch policy as a way to reward their juniors and seniors who perform at an above average level. The students must sign themselves out of school when they leave, and then an honor system typically tracks their arrival back in class. Administrators can set the policy to be as strict as they want it to be, using GPA, attendance, and the overall standing of the individual as guidelines to grant this privilege. If you do not meet the qualifications, then you are eating lunch at the cafeteria.

2. It can be a way to teach students time management skills.
When there is an open lunch policy in place, then students must manage their time wisely when they leave their school to get something to eat. They must make it to the restaurant, fast food location, or grocery store with enough time to order and consume their food while also being able to return to their school to make it to the next class. This process requires an acknowledgement of finite time resources, how to manage them, and what it will take to create healthy results. Kids who are going to be entering the workforce soon or attending college must have these skills at-the-ready to be successfully anyway.

3. It can be used to take a breather from the stresses of the day.
Do not underestimate the stresses that are placed on high school students today. The pressure to succeed can be enormous. Not only does this element come from their parents, but it can also be in place from their teachers, guidance counselors, and the cliques that usually form in this educational environment. When students can take advantage of an open campus lunch, then they have a chance to escape these issues for a short time to enjoy a meal with their friends - or on their own if that is their preference.

4. It is a way to support local businesses that are in close proximity to the school.
When students can take advantage of an open campus lunch, then they can take advantage of what their local businesses offer if there is location close enough to the school. Although there is a stereotype that suggests teens will only go to fast food destinations if they are given the opportunity to leave during the midday break, sandwich shops, delicatessens, and grocery stores all benefit from student traffic during the lunch hour. Many of these small businesses see a tremendous drop in revenue during the summer months because their student traffic levels are so high.

5. It can be a way for some students to spend some extra time at home.
When there is an open campus lunch policy available to students that does not restrict their geographic location during this break, then individuals with transportation can take some time to help with family responsibilities or emergencies when they arise. They could run home to take care of a sick pet or let the dogs outside so that they can go to the bathroom. The student can make a lunch from what is available at home, run errands for their family to save time for everyone else, or just head off to a park somewhere to enjoy a few moments of quiet. This added flexibility makes it a lot easier for the students and their families to manage the rigors of modern life.

6. It can be a way for families to save some money.
Secondary school lunches for the Oak Harbor School District in Washington State for 2019 are listed at $3.20 per meal for students and $4.45 for adults. Although a student would likely pay more for their meal outside of the school, this is not always the case. Teens who live close to their high school could take advantage of prepackaged foods at home, leftovers from the night before, or other options to reduce the cost of this meal for their family.

The price might seem nice at first glimpse, but the cost of a school lunch for families who do not qualify for reduced pricing can be prohibitive. Imagine a family with three kids all in high school. Using the pricing from above, they will be spending $48 per week on the privilege of this midday meal. Assuming that there 180 educational days where this food is necessary, their parents would spend $1,728 on lunches throughout the year.

7. It creates an opportunity for students to learn real-life lessons.
Budgeting is one of the most crucial skills that students can learn before they move away to college or start working in their first job. You must know how to live within your means if you are going to stay out of debt and function independently. Giving teens a chance to make food choices away from campus with limited funds is one way to make this happen. Although it might cost more to eat away from school, having a specific amount to spend each day is a valuable lesson for students that will help them to learn the actual value of their monetary resources.

8. It offers students a chance to get some extra exercise during the day.
Students in high school go through long periods of sitting, followed by a mad scramble to grab their books and assignments for their next class. This design creates a lot of downtime that produces high levels of internal energy which needs a release somehow. Waiting for practice times in their preferred sport or the physical education class they have may not be suitable. By offering an open campus lunch policy, teens could get some extra exercise walking a few blocks to their preferred lunch destination each day.

When these students are able to release this pent-up energy, then it can reduce the temptation to cause mischief or all of the other ways that bored students try to entertain themselves during the day.

9. It offers students a chance to prove why adults can trust them.
Trust is always a two-way street, so it is essential that parents and teens keep it as free of obstacles as possible. Although a majority of kids between the ages of 13-17 say that their parents, guardians, or other adults in their lives say that they get the trust they deserve, 1 in 5 kids say that they feel like they're not trusted as much as they should be. Offering students access to an open campus lunch policy puts the "ball in their court," so to speak. By allowing teens to prove that they can be responsible with their time, money, and eating choices, it gives these kids an opportunity to add more trust to their important relationships.

10. It provides students with an opportunity to find better quality food items.
One of the biggest disadvantages often discussed with an open campus lunch policy is the quality of the food that the students choose to eat. According to the National Education Association, there is a reason to question how good the food is at the cafeteria as well. USA Today investigated the items served to students at schools, and then compared them to what fast-food chains provide on their menu. Their conclusion was that the quick-service restaurants had higher safety and quality standards for the meat being served than what schools implement through the National School Lunch Program.

This issue was highlighted by a salmonella recall of ground beef from a meat-packing plant in 2009. Even though grocery stores and restaurants could not serve food items that had been shipped from the facility, the items going to American schools were still authorized for use. If it is not safe for the general public to eat these items, then how can it be appropriate for students to be eating the same things?

11. It allows students with specific dietary needs to have their needs met.
There are students with food allergies, sensitivities, and restrictions that may not be able to eat the dishes coming out of the school cafeteria as it stands now. Many schools do not have cross-contamination policies in place that limit the spread of gluten, peanuts, or the other major allergies that teens may have. By allowing them to eat off-campus, it gives each student an opportunity to meet the specific requirements of their health without placing themselves or the school at risk of an adverse event happening because of an accidental contamination. Even when the medical record of a student is updated and current, this information is not always communicated to the appropriate individuals. An open campus lunch policy allows students to make their own choices instead of allowing a potentially uninformed provider to make it for them.

List of the Cons of Open Campus Lunch

1. It can place the lives of students at risk while they travel.
The West Hempstead School District in Nassau, NY, once had an open campus lunch policy which allowed students to walk to local businesses to get something to eat instead of staying for their meal at the cafeteria. There were two students killed in an automotive accident while taking advantage of their off-campus privileges, which caused the local board to shutter this idea for the rest of their 2,600 students in the district. Accident rates for students over the lunch hour are significantly higher for teens where an open lunch policy exists.

2. It may not offer students a lunch that meets nutritional guidelines.
There is a definite benefit to consider when students can choose their own food items when they want to eat lunch. These teens will need to be responsible for their eating habits in the next year or two anyway. While they are still juniors and seniors, many of these kids are still under the age of 18 - which means their parents and school administrators are responsible to some extent for their health. Allowing students to go off-campus to find something to eat could create a situation where the lunch they choose does not meet the nutritional guidelines that are sometimes mandated by law.

Although some students do make healthy choices, a study that the International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity published found that teens attending a school with an open campus lunch were much more likely to have a meal at a quick-service restaurant than students who attended classes in a district with a closed campus.

3. It could reduce the number of fruits and vegetables that students consume.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture has published data which suggests that students who participate in the National School Lunch Program are more likely to consume a well-rounded diet that includes fruits and vegetables compared to the teens who can choose their own establishments for the midday meal every day.

4. It increases the risk of truancy, tardiness, or skipping.
When the weather is beautiful and you are outside, then it is very tempting to stay away from the office. Students go through the same temptation. The only difference between you and them is that the teenage brain is wired a little differently. These kids are prone to decisions that tend to be impulsive and self-gratifying in the moment instead of thinking about the long-term consequences of their actions. An open campus lunch increases the risk that students will become truant. It can also lead to higher levels of tardiness for classes around the lunch hour. Some students will even decide to skip their next class because it is more fun to be outside than it is to be indoors studying literature under fluorescent lighting.

5. It creates an opportunity for students to make poor, unsupervised choices.
Because teens do act impulsively, having the freedom to do essentially whatever they want may create problematic situations for the kids taking advantage of an open campus lunch. Those who are above the age of 18 could use this time as an opportunity to purchase cigarettes and smoke. Alcohol consumption could become part of the daily routine for some students. Taking illegal drugs is another possibility. Although a vast majority of students use this time to find something they want to eat, there are always a few in that group who will use their free period to cause trouble in some way.

6. It costs more to eat off-campus than it does to have a school lunch.
Parents are going to spend significantly more on lunch costs if their students take advantage of an open campus policy every day. Unless a student goes to their local grocery store to purchase items that they can craft into a meal personally, the average person will spend almost double buying something away from the school compared to the cost of eating what is available in the school cafeteria. That $1,700 for a family with three teens would quickly balloon into approximately $4,000 per year if each student had lunch at a local restaurant or quick-service destination during the day.

7. It may cause some students to bring back food items that become a distraction in the classroom.
When students have their lunch in the school cafeteria, then they are generally not permitted to take food items to their next class. Medical issues may create an exception to this rule, but in-class snacks are usually prohibited. Although this rule also applies to food items that are brought back from an off-campus meal, it would be illogical to assume that students do not carry items with them throughout the day in case they get hungry. Fast food items have addictive qualities to them, which even includes their smell. Students may find themselves distracted by these off-campus items, eventually creating a negative impact on their learning process.

8. It creates a safety risk for the school campus.
When students are permitted to leave their school because of an open campus lunch policy, the freedom that they are given works in both directions. If a teen experienced bullying during the morning sessions or felt like they were threatened, then they could use this opportunity to go home to grab a weapon that they could bring back after the end of the lunch hour. Even with security screening procedures in place, it is possible for these items to be missed. The student could then act impulsively to hurt themselves or someone else.

A Final Thought About Open Campus Lunch Policies

More than half of the children in the United States who are in school today are on track to be classified as medically obese by the time they reach the age of 35. Sugary drinks at school could be contributing to this potential epidemic. A single carton of flavored mil will add up to 4 teaspoons of sugar to the daily diet of a child.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue argued in late 2018 that providing nutritious lunches in school was a needless cost. "It doesn't do any good to serve nutritious meals if they wind up in the trash can," he said in November on a post on the USDA website.

The reality of school lunches is that they may not meet the specific health needs of some students. There are times when teens could make better, more nutritious choices outside of the cafeteria. Even if they only bring a sack lunch that they eat somewhere off-campus, the benefits of this policy can come to light.

The pros and cons of an open campus lunch attempt to balance the benefits of personal freedom and time management responsibilities with the need for continued oversight. Some students will definitely benefit from this policy, while it could also be detrimental to others. That is why each district, along with each set of school administrators, are often given the task of deciding what they think is best for their students. If there are restrictions involved that allow the most mature teens to enjoy this privilege, it generally works out well for all of the parties involved.

Author Bio
Natalie Regoli is a child of God, devoted wife, and mother of two boys. She has a Master's Degree in Law from The University of Texas. Natalie has been published in several national journals and has been practicing law for 18 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
19 Primary Pros and Cons of Open Campus Lunch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An open campus lunch is a policy that is typically set by a high school about how students can access the foods they eat during their meal in the middle of the day. These policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Kluva/iStock

The idea that big tech companies like Facebook, Google and Apple are addicting us to their products has gained a fair amount of traction. That's thanks in large part to Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google who has turned whistleblower of sorts by revealing the techniques tech companies use to instill all that compulsive clicking and scrolling into your brain. Harris appeared on " 60 Minutes" a couple of months ago, and last week he discussed the issue on Bill Maher's HBO show.

'It's driving teenagers crazy.' Tech design expert Tristan Harris on Snapchat's Snapstreaks feature.

Many of the design elements these companies employ to ensnare users are derived from behavioral research and neuroscience, Harris and other experts claim. Here are seven such tricks of the trade used on popular tech platforms, as identified by these experts in interviews with KQED, other media outlets, and on Harris' blog.
1. Snapstreaks (Snapchat)
This feature of the messaging app Snapchat tells users how many days in a row they've communicated with each other. Bloomberg reported in January that some obsessed teenagers have been logging on just to keep their streaks alive.

"For those that have streaks, they provide a validation for the relationship," Emily Weinstein, a Harvard University doctoral candidate studying adolescents and social media, told Bloomberg. "Attention to your streaks each day is a way of saying 'We're OK.' "

Spurring even more use: The company's use of hourglass emojis, notifying users when their streak is in jeopardy,

"The makers built into the app a system so you have to check constantly or risk missing out," Nancy Colier, a psychotherapist and author of The Power of Off," told Bloomberg. "It taps into the primal fear of exclusion, of being out of the tribe and not able to survive."

Tristan Harris told KQED's Lesley McClurg that Snapstreaks "might sound like it's innocuous and kind of gamey, but if you have a number that's, say, over 100, you don't want to lose your streak. It's really persuasive. They just gave you something to lose."

Harris said teens who were unable to log on during vacations were giving their passwords to friends to keep their streaks going.

"It's driving teenagers crazy," he said.
2. Video Auto-Play (Netflix, Facebook, YouTube)
These companies are using the same principle to keep people viewing their content as the one demonstrated in a study involving trick bowls of soup, Harris wrote in his blog. As the subjects ate from them, the bowls were imperceptibly refilled.

The study reported that the eaters who got the refills consumed 73 percent more soup than those who ate from normal bowls. The reason: They did not receive the visual cue of an empty bowl that would prompt them to stop eating. More food, more consumption.

And that, says Harris, is why Netflix, Facebook and YouTube auto-play the next video after the one you are watching is finished, "instead of waiting for you to make a conscious choice. A huge portion of traffic on these websites is driven by auto-playing the next thing."
3. Continuous Scroll (Facebook, Twitter)
Similar to auto-play, perpetual replenishment of written material will keep you hunting for something you want to engage with.

'What's different today is that machines are being created to use these techniques.' BJ Fogg, Stanford Persuasive Tech Lab

"News feeds are purposely designed to auto-refill with reasons to keep you scrolling, and purposely eliminate any reason for you to pause, reconsider or leave," Harris writes.

"Continuous scroll is a proven way to keep you searching longer," said Ramsay Brown, the co-founder of a company that uses artificial intelligence and neuroscience to help app writers attract and retain users. "You spend half your time on Facebook just scrolling to find one good piece worth looking at."
4. Invitations to Connect (LinkedIn)
When LinkedIn sends you emails prompting you to connect with someone, says Harris, the implication is that "this person made this conscious choice to invite me to connect and they're actually waiting there when I get that e-mail."

He says at play is a principle called social reciprocity.

"You imagine that person making a conscious choice to invite you, when in reality, they likely unconsciously responded to LinkedIn's list of suggested contacts. In other words, LinkedIn turns your unconscious impulses (to "add" a person) into new social obligations that millions of people feel obligated to repay," he writes on his blog.

In addition, If you accept an endorsement from someone through the site, LinkedIn "takes advantage of your bias to reciprocate by offering four additional people for you to endorse in return."

"And so we can sit there drowning in social obligations," Harris told KQED.
5. Notifications (Facebook, Instagram)
Harris and Brown believe that social media companies use a concept known as variable rewards, which is a technique slot machines employ to hook gamblers, and which will similarly keep users compulsively checking their phones due to the possibility some bit of social approval may be waiting there.

"The brain isn't particularly craving any one little feel-good signal as much as it does a really good rhythm and pattern," Brown told me. He says Facebook and Instagram tailor the timing of the "notifications" they deliver - on Facebook, indicated by that number in red at the top right of the screen - in order to deliver, literally, hits of dopamine to users at algorithmically determined times.

Sometimes the companies will stockpile these notifications before delivering them all in a batch to maximize the emotional impact a user experiences, he says.

"Like, hey, here's the 30 likes we didn't mention from a little while ago, "he told "60 Minutes."
6. Swiping Left or Right (Tinder)
"Fear of missing out" drives much of social media's hold on people, writes Harris. "If I convince you that I'm a channel for important information, messages, friendships, or potential sexual opportunities - it will be hard for you to turn me off, unsubscribe, or remove your account - because (aha, I win) you might miss something important."

This is what will keep us swiping faces on a dating app like Tinder, "even when we haven't met up with anyone in a while. .. But if we zoom into that fear, we'll discover that it's unbounded: we'll always miss something important at any point when we stop using something."
7. Photo Tagging: (Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat)
Getting tagged in photos plays right into our need for social approval, Harris says. He contends that because Facebook actually prompts users to identify people in photos, it is artificially creating social approval for people.

This craving for validation also comes into play when we change our profile photo . "Facebook knows that's a moment when we're vulnerable to social approval," he writes. "What do my friends think of my new pic?"

Facebook can rank this "event," such as it is, higher in the news feed, "so it sticks around for longer and more friends will like or comment on it. Each time they like or comment on it, I'll get pulled right back."

So, some may ask: What's a successful social media app to do? Start kicking people off?

"Asking technology companies, asking content creators to be less good at what they do feels like a ridiculous ask," tech consultant Gabe Zichermann told "60 Minutes." "It feels impossible. And also it's very anti-capitalistic. This isn't the system that we live in."

It should also be noted that Harris himself doesn't necessarily think all of these strategies have been formulated intentionally by the companies "Apple and Google's designers didn't want phones to work like slot machines," he wrote. "It emerged by accident."

BJ Fogg, who runs the Stanford Persuasive Tech Lab, where many young entrepreneurs have learned methods like the ones mentioned above, told me a lot of these strategies have been employed by non-digital companies for a very long time.

"What 's different today is that machines are being created to use these techniques," he said.

Indeed. Ramsay Brown put it this way:

"We have now developed a rigorous technology of the human mind, and that is both exciting and terrifying. We have the ability to twiddle some nobs in a machine learning dashboard we build, and around the world hundreds of thousands of people are going to quietly change their behavior in ways that, unbeknownst to them, feel second-nature but are really by design.

"Which means that there's a deep ethical imperative for us to use it for good."
Facebook, Snapchat and Google did not respond to our requests for comment. LinkedIn declined to comment.
7 Specific Tactics Social Media Companies Use to Keep You Hooked

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
7 Specific Tactics Social Media Companies Use to Keep You Hooked

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The idea that big tech companies like Facebook, Google and Apple are addicting us to their products has gained a fair amount of traction. That's thanks in large part to Tristan Harris, a former design ethicist at Google who has turned whistleblower of sorts by revealing the techniques tech companies use to instill all that compulsive clicking and scrolling into your brain.