The author of two college textbooks and five books for non-academic readers, she is equally at home researching and writing about adolescent mental health, sleep disorders, digital technology, homework and narcissism. She was one of the first experts to warn nearly that smartphones could hold negative consequences for our mental health. A decade after the advent of the iPhone, Twenge went viral in 2017 with an that asked, provocatively, “Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?”

A professor at San Diego State University, she has collaborated for years with the researcher and author Jonathan Haidt, whose 2024 book was a mega-bestseller that has helped build momentum for school cellphone bans in a growing number of states — .

And she is one of the few experts in the education and mental health world to have appeared on HBO’s .

Twenge’s 2017 book, , looked at how modern teens are somehow both more connected than previous generations and less prepared for adulthood. In it, she theorized that depression rates among teens are rising because they spend more time online, less time with friends in person, and less time sleeping — a problematic combination. 

The dilemmas Twenge identified in 2017 are only getting worse: By 2023, the typical American teen was spending nearly five hours a day using social media, recent research finds, with severe depression rates rising. In , girls who were heavy users of social media were three times as likely to be depressed as non-users.

Her , out Tuesday, offers practical guidelines for parents raising kids in the age of ubiquitous connectivity and sophisticated — some would say addictive — social media.

Twenge doesn’t shy away from challenging harried parents to do better. Among her suggestions: No one — parents included — should have electronic devices in the bedroom overnight. Likewise, she says, the first handheld device a kid should receive is a “basic phone” that allows calls, texts and not much else.

“It’s a really big myth out there that if kids are going to communicate, it has to be on social media,” she said. “That’s just not true.”

Ahead of its publication, Twenge spoke with ����Ӱ��’s Greg Toppo about her rules, her work with Haidt and her belief that we need stiffer laws that keep young people off social media until they’re old enough to drive.

Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.  

I wanted to start with a quote from your book. It’s a parent’s description of his 10-year-old after she got her first smartphone: “She suddenly wasn’t playing with her younger siblings as much. Novels were promptly cast aside. She wasn’t around to help with dinner anymore. She danced less, laughed less. She was quieter. Our home was quieter.” That’s so heartbreaking, but I’m guessing it’s not unusual.

I don’t think it is. Many, many parents describe how their kids are different after they give them a smartphone. And it’s especially heartbreaking when that’s a 10-year-old, but even when it’s a 16-year-old who might otherwise be ready. It’s very noticeable how they change after they get that phone in their pocket.

Were there any particular data points about smartphones and social media that persuaded you they were causing a mental health crisis?

It was a slow process for me, and it wasn’t an immediate conclusion when I first started to see these trends in adolescent mental health. It was first a process of ruling out obvious causes, like the economy, which wasn’t aligned at all, and any other big events that might happen. I would trace it, really, to the big that I work with on teens, where there was just this combination all at once of not just rising depression, but teens spending less time with each other in person and less time sleeping. And then realizing, “Well, wait: What might explain all of those things happening at the same time?” 

And it seemed clear that a good amount of that answer is probably smartphones and social media, particularly after I found a Pew Research Center poll about the ownership of smartphones, that [it] in the U.S. at the end of 2012. And that’s right around the same time all these changes were happening.

I want to dig into a few of your rules. No. 3: “No social media until age 16 or later.” That seems a lot tougher than what most families practice. Why 16? And what do you say to parents who worry about their kids’ social isolation and FOMO or Fear Of Missing Out?

I have not found that with my kids — that they’ve been socially isolated for not having social media. Most other parents I talked to who have put off social media have also not found that with their kids. Social media is just one mechanism for communicating. There’s so many others. Kids can call each other, they can text each other — they do a lot of texting. They can FaceTime each other, they can get together in person. Usually that ends up tilting toward texting, but it does not have to be social media. It’s a really big myth out there that if kids are going to communicate, it has to be on social media. That’s just not true.

And that leads to rule No. 4, where you advocate “basic phones” — your phrase — before smartphones. In a world where even school assignments need Internet access, is that practical for most families?

Yeah, because kids have laptops. And if the family can’t afford to buy them a laptop, almost all schools provide a laptop. So they have Internet access on their laptop even if they don’t have it on their phone. And laptops have come so far down in price too, that if you haven’t bought a laptop recently, or if you use Mac laptops like I do and my kids do now, you might not realize you can get a . So that’s another big thing: Maybe 10 years ago, if a kid doesn’t have Internet access on their phone, then they don’t have Internet access at all. That’s just not true in the current landscape.

Although you do have problems with school laptops.

Oh, yes. I mean, this is a thing! They get Internet access on the laptop, whether it’s a school laptop or a personal one, and then that opens a whole other can of worms. Absolutely true. Laptops are the bane of my existence as a parent, particularly the school laptop, although they’ve gotten a little bit better, at least in my district. 

Actually, that was going to be my next question, this parental controls thing. It sounds like your district is being responsive.

Well, on that issue, they still don’t have a coherent phone policy during the school day. In the high school, it’s especially bad. That’s something I’m hoping will change. It is changing in a lot of schools around the country, thankfully. A lot more schools are doing “no phones during the school day, bell to bell,” which is what needs to happen.

A big message of the book is phone-free schools. And I know you’ve worked with , who has pushed for schools to get rid of phones. A few critics have said that this is a to a complex problem, and that it’s not entirely clear that phones are actually causing the mental health issues that Haidt has become a best-seller writing about. How do you respond to that criticism?

There are a couple of things to unpack there. For one thing, even if you take mental health out of the equation, kids should still not have their phones at school for academic and focus reasons, for the reason of developing social skills by talking to their friends at lunch, for the reason that a bell-to-bell ban is actually easier to enforce than a classroom-by-classroom ban. There are so many reasons for it that don’t even include mental health. 

The second question is [about] the research on phones and social media and mental health: We’ve known for quite a while that teens who spend more time on social media are more likely to be depressed or unhappy. Almost every single study finds that. Where you sometimes get more debate is, “O.K., that’s correlation. What about causation?” But in the last 10 years, we’ve gotten a lot more studies, and the studies that ask people to cut back or give up social media for at least three weeks a month or so, almost all of those studies show an improvement in well-being. And I don’t want to get too in the weeds here, but that’s actually a little bit shocking, because by definition in those experiments, you’re taking people who are at average use and having them cut back to low. 

That’s actually not where we see the biggest effects in the correlational studies. The heaviest users are much more likely to be depressed than the average or light users. So, you know, you can’t ethically do an experiment that would really answer the exact question: You can’t take 12-year-olds, randomly assign them to spend eight hours a day on social media, and then see what happens. At least I hope not.

In the book, you talk about the 10 rules “creating a firewall for kids against anxiety, attention issues and constant insecurity.” I think most parents would get behind that. But let’s be honest, they’re users of these tools themselves. How do we craft rules around web dependence and social media without being hypocrites?

Parents have to be role models. Parents are also allowed a small amount of what I call “digital hypocrisy.” Because they’re adults, they have jobs, they may be responsible for elderly parents, etc. But that said, parents should think about their technology use as well. They should get their phones and electronic devices out of their bedroom at night. They should also consider doing things like not having social media on their phone. If they want to use Facebook or Instagram or Twitter, do it on your laptop. That’s what I do. I mean, I don’t have much social media to begin with. I have X, but I don’t have it on my phone, and that’s very much a purposeful decision. During family dinners, unless there’s a really specific reason for me to have my phone with me, it’s upstairs.

That seems to be an easy one: Phones away at dinner.

Well, you’d think so, but you’ve got to get the whole family on board, and sometimes husbands are not really into that.

I want to skip to Rule No. 8: “Give your kids real-world freedom,” which will probably be met with some resistance. I have a 4-year-old grandson, and when I read your recommendation to let 4-to-7-year-olds go find items a few aisles away in the grocery store, I shouted, “Hell no!”

Why? Why is there, do you think, a resistance to that idea?

I have nightmares about this child being snatched from me at Safeway. I guess I want you to just pull me back from the edge, if you would.

I mean, that is not just unlikely to happen — the chances of that are so infinitesimal it probably shouldn’t even factor into our decision making. There’s one stat in there, and I forget the exact number, but someone calculated that if you wanted your kid to get kidnapped, how many hours — it turned out to be years — would they have to be in your front yard for that to happen? It’s something like 100,000 years. 

O.K., well that helps.

And a four-year-old loves that stuff! They love being grown up. I mean, look, even if you don’t do the grocery store thing, make sure they learn how to tie their own shoes, that they know how to get dressed. I remember when my girls were that age, and it occasionally amazed me when I would be with other moms in various situations and their kids couldn’t dress themselves at that age, and that’s where it starts. 

At pretty much every age, the great thing is that giving kids independence makes it easier for parents. It is easier as a parent if your 4-year-old can dress themselves. It is easier if your teenager makes dinner once a week. It’s good for everybody.

A lot of people might see this freedom rule as somehow contradictory to some of the other rules, in which you talk about adults being “in control.” Can you parse that?

For sure. Jon has said this as well — and I completely agree: We have kids in the real world and underprotected them online, and these principles are just trying to get those two to balance. When you’re talking about the real-world freedom thing, it’s not a matter of letting kids completely run wild and do whatever they want. We’re talking about giving kids some of the freedoms that parents themselves had when they were kids, and to build independence in a way that is really good for kids and good for them as they grow up. 

I can’t even remember who said this to me when I had young kids: “You’re not raising children, you’re raising adults.” And that’s just so true. That is your job as a parent. Giving kids some freedom and independence is a really, really key part of raising an adult.  

I wrote a whole book about learning games, and one of the powerful ideas that I took from that reporting is that many adults don’t realize video games have become. You acknowledge that, saying gaming is the primary way that some kids spend time with friends. But I gather that you see the risks as well. And I wonder if you could talk about that.

It really comes back to the principle of “Everything in moderation.” Many games are not as obviously toxic as social media. Games tend to be more in real time, more interactive. But is it a good idea for kids to be spending five or six hours a day gaming? Probably not. There have to be some limits.

You quote , the Facebook founder, admitting they’re “exploiting a vulnerability in human psychology” to keep users on the app. Given social media’s sophistication, are mere parental rules sufficient? I mean, don’t we need a bigger hammer, like legislation and policies? 

Absolutely! Yes! Yes! It would be absolutely amazing for parents and for kids if we had laws that verified age for social media. I mean, ideally, that would be age verification to make sure they’re 16 or older, to raise the minimum age to 16. But even if we just enforced existing law with the minimum of 13, that would be progress, given the enormous numbers of 10-, 11- and 12-year-olds who are on social media, often without their parents’ permission — often explicitly against their parents’ permission — and actually against the law [Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule] that was passed in 1998.

What is the biggest obstacle to getting better regulation, or, to your point, to enforcing the existing regulations?

It’s interesting. The barrier is not the inability to verify age or the inability to verify age without a government ID. There are so many companies that will verify age now that they have their . It can be done in many different ways. The biggest barrier is tech companies themselves. Any time a state passes a law about verifying age on social media or even pornography sites, the companies — every single time. They have sued to keep those laws from going into effect.

Are any emerging technologies that parents should be concerned about? Do your rules need updating for AI or virtual reality or whatever comes next?

AI chatbots are what a lot of parents are rightly worried about. And yes, you could certainly modify or add to the rules and say, “No AI chat bots until 16 or 18 — probably 18.” And of course, it depends on what we’re talking about. It is common for kids to use ChatGPT when they need to look up something for homework or even have it write their essays — that’s a whole other horrible discussion. But what I’m specifically referring to is the many chatbots out there right now that are supposed to be AI friends, or worse, . There’s already been a tragic case of a child who , apparently due to one of these AI girlfriends. It’s just really scary to think of kids having their first romantic relationship with an AI chatbot. It’s terrifying.

The good news is, if you follow that rule about your kids having basic phones, if you give them one of the phones that’s designed for kids, those phones do not allow AI relationship chatbots. It’s on their banned apps, just like social media and pornography and violence apps. Parents have such a tough job, and it’s nice that there are at least a few tools out there that can make their lives easier and keep their kids off of things like AI girlfriend and boyfriend chatbots.

In keeping with the theme of overwhelmed parents, I wonder: If I were to come to you as a parent and say, “Oh my God, Jean, 10 rules is a lot. If I could only do two or three, where would I start?” Is that even a smart thing to do? And if so, where would you start?

I would say, “No electronic devices in the bedroom overnight.” Start there, because the research is so solid on it, and it’s such a straightforward rule, and it works for everybody, of all ages. Your teenager can’t say, “Well, you do it differently,” or, “You get to be on social media.” No, actually, my phone is outside my bedroom when I sleep at night too. So that’s a great place to start. And then, just because they have so much utility, I would probably say the second rule, about basic phones, because even with all of the mess of the laptops, I’m just so happy and grateful that my kids did not have the Internet or social media in their pocket until they were older.

As a parent and a grandparent, I really appreciate you using your real life to inform a lot of these rules. In a way, it hardens them a bit, makes them more durable. Anything I haven’t asked you about that you feel needs to be in the mix?

Two things I’ll throw out there just in terms of pushbacks: With “No phones during the school day,” the pushback is often “What about school shootings?” And it’s actually less safe for students to have access to their phones during an active shooter situation. And I go through the reasons for that in that chapter. 

And then the real-world freedom piece: When you look at the things that I’m suggesting in terms of how to give your kids freedom, obviously letting them go off on their own in the real world is important, and you should do that too. But there are lots of things in that list of suggestions you can do without even leaving the house: teens making their own doctor and hairstylist appointments, for example, or middle-school kids, or even elementary school kids, cooking dinner for the family. Those are great experiences for kids to have without too much parental interference. 

You do have to — and I know this by experience — step back, especially with the cooking piece, and let them do it by themselves and learn how to make mistakes. It’s tempting to just be there when they’re doing that, but you learn quickly that if you leave them alone, they’ll figure it out. And then you can go do something else. Go and read that book you’ve been meaning to read for a while. Go for a walk. Watch TV. Have some relaxation time that you wouldn’t otherwise get. 

I wrote a piece a couple weeks ago on unschooling, this idea of pulling kids out of school and letting them find their own level and their own interests. This almost strikes me as unparenting.

It is — and I’m not a huge fan of unschooling, because it’s a rare kid it would actually work for — but it is. It’s the general idea that not being up in your kids’ business all the time is better for both parents and kids. It’s something we really have to consider more.

The and behaviors among teenage girls . Experts point to social media, cyberbullying and as potential new sources of stress for teenagers.

Dramatic as it may sound, this is not mere conjecture. A December 2022 National Bureau of Economic Research found that teen suicide rates plummeted in March 2020, when schools across the United States closed their doors and shifted learning online. Using national county-level data, the researchers found that teen suicide rates generally did not rise again until the month local schools returned to in-person learning. All else being equal, a return to in-person learning meant an increase in teen suicides of between 12% and 18%.

The study even offers some compelling evidence for the prime suspect at play — based on the , bullying victims were found to be more than to attempt suicide than students who were not bullied. Using the survey and Google Trends data, the study finds bullying likely plummeted when schools went remote and rose again when in-person schooling returned. Cyberbullying also appeared to decline as long as school was remote.

Putting the pieces of this study together, a troubling story emerges. For some teenagers, school shutdowns were welcome reprieves from oppressive environments driven, most likely, by bullying from their peers. When in-person schooling returned, so did bullying and higher suicide rates.

This connection is especially concerning considering how many children are bullied. A pre-COVID from the Government Accountability Office found that about one-fifth of K-12 students experience bullying each year. Their experiences can vary — even in top-rated schools, kids can be to mockery and humiliation so distressing that they experience physical health issues. Other threats can be , such as unprovoked and unpunished physical assault.

It’s hard to imagine kids learning well under this kind of duress.

It’s no surprise, then, that finds safety consistently ranks among the top factors parents consider when evaluating schools. And among parents who transferred their children, whether between public, private, charter schools or homeschooling, bullying was the most-cited reason. A change of environment appears helpful in some cases — parents who switched their kids’ school type are less than half as likely to say their children are experiencing bullying at their new school as at the previous one.

Unfortunately, many children who are bullied don’t have legal, financially feasible education alternatives. Considering the to lower-income parents in particular, it’s easy to imagine that even more families would look for new schools if it were legally and financially viable.

By extension, one wonders whether some teenage suicide victims could have been saved if they and their families had other accessible education options.

Many states enrolling children in a public school to which they are not residentially assigned. Some localities protect their public education from outsiders especially , in some cases hiring private investigators to confirm residential addresses and pursuing criminal charges for those enrolling under false pretenses. In one especially high-profile in Ohio in 2011, a Black mother living in public housing was imprisoned under felony charges for falsifying her address to get her kids into different public schools after they experienced bullying at their assigned schools.

America cannot pretend its K-12 education system serves everyone when it cares more about punishing supposed than affirming the desire to leave a dangerous situation.

This is where school choice can come in. Through policies like , and private school choice like , families can lift their children out of harmful environments without paying for a new home or pinching pennies for tuition. This can be a better option than simply homeschooling or enrolling in an online school, considering the drastic observed during COVID.

Sometimes another public school is all a struggling teen needs. A good public school system would have both in-district and cross-district , and schools should have only limited and transparent reasons to reject transfers. But sometimes, for reasons as menial as transportation or as large as educational philosophy, emphasis or culture, a charter or private school could be a great alternative.

ESAs are the , with five universal programs passing in the last two years. Unlike school vouchers, ESAs can be used for any mix of public and private courses, as well as tutoring, therapy and other educational resources outside of school. Florida’s Hope Scholarship vouchers have granted to bullied students through private schools for five years, and adding the customizability of ESAs improves families’ ability to leave environments that are unsafe, while offering funding for supplemental services that could improve teenagers’ mental, emotional or academic well-being. 

If reducing teen suicide is a worthy societal goal, then advancing educational freedom isn’t merely a good idea but can be the difference between life and death.

More than a third of high school students reported experiencing poor mental health during the pandemic, more than half reported being subjected to emotional abuse at home and a quarter said a parent or another adult at home had lost their jobs, according to results from the first nationally representative survey of high school students’ mental health and well-being during the pandemic.

Faced with sudden school closures, social isolation and the fear of family loss or illness, 66% of students reported that schoolwork became more difficult to complete after the pandemic shuttered campuses nationwide in March 2020.

Even before the pandemic, survey data suggests that youth mental health had grown bleeker and suicide was already a leading cause of death among teens. The new CDC data point to a situation that’s grown even more dire, especially for LGBTQ youth and girls, two groups that reported particularly high levels of poor mental health during the pandemic.

In response, public health experts called on policymakers to act with urgency to reverse the trend. 

“Young people and their families have been under incredible levels of stress during the pandemic,” Kathleen Ethier, director of the CDC’s division of adolescent and school health, said during a press call Thursday. “Our data exposes cracks and uncovers an important layer of insight into the extreme disruptions that some youth have encountered.” 

The results come from the Adolescent Behaviors and Experiences Survey, which was completed by a nationally representative sample of 7,705 public and private high school students. The CARES Act-funded questionnaire was conducted online between January and June 2021. Since then, the country has entered a new phase of the pandemic as mask mandates and other public health measures are lifted, but while the . Public health officials acknowledged it’s unclear how youth well-being has fared since the survey was completed.

The figures are key to understanding the pandemic’s effects on the health and well-being of American youth. Previous evidence has suggested the pandemic has had a deleterious effect on youth and contributed to trends like a surge in teen depression and anxiety, but the national survey is the first to asses the national prevalence of disruptions and adversities like parental job loss, personal job loss, homelessness, hunger and the extent of emotional or physical abuse at home.

They also reveal a promising strategy that school leaders can leverage to put youth on a better trajectory. Youth who feel connected to their school, the survey found, were significantly less likely than those who did not to report feeling hopeless or attempt suicide. Yet fewer than half — 47% — of teens reported feeling close to the people at their schools during the pandemic, when millions primarily experienced learning remotely. 

“Although our latest findings present an often-grim picture and there is much work to be done, it is clear that right now young people need all the support we can give them,” Ethier said.

During his State of the Union address earlier this month, President Joe Biden addressed the youth mental health crisis, declaring that students “lives and education have been turned upside-down.” His released this week seeks $1 billion to double the number of counselors and psychologists in schools. 

Based on the CDC’s survey data, these six charts show the challenges students faced during the pandemic — while also revealing promising strategies that could help them recover from more than two years of life-altering disruptions. 

As the pandemic shuttered businesses, many teens were forced to live through the hardships of an economic crisis.

Nearly a third of students reported that a parent or another adult at home had lost their job while 22% of teens reported experiencing job loss themselves. A quarter of teens reported experiencing food insecurity. Among white students 18.5% reported experiencing hunger while 32% of Black students said they lacked enough food to eat. In total, 2% of students reported experiencing homelessness. 

Teachers and other school officials are generally considered mandated reporters, putting them on the front lines of spotting issues like physical abuse at home. Remote learning heightened concerns that such abuse could go undetected at a moment when pandemic-induced stressors could exacerbate the problem. Indeed, the CDC data suggest that the physical and emotional abuse of teens has grown more alarming during the public health crisis.

More than half of respondents — 55% — reported that a parent or another adult at home had subjected them to emotional abuse and 11% said they faced physical abuse. Black students experienced the highest prevalence of physical abuse by a parent, at 15%, compared to 9.8% of white students. 

Those figures are substantially higher than pre-pandemic levels, when 13.9% of students reported experiencing emotional abuse in and 5.5% reported being subjected to physical abuse by a caregiver. These differences, CDC researchers concluded, highlights a reality that “increased stress contributes to violence.”

The pandemic’s devastating emotional toll on high schoolers was clear in the data. Overall, 37.1% of students reported experiencing poor mental health during the pandemic and an even larger share — 44.2% — said they felt persistently sad or hopeless during the 12 months prior to completing the survey.

And while a teen suicide crisis has been billowing for years, the new CDC data show the extent of the problem. While 19.9% of students reported that they seriously considered dying by suicide, a staggering 9% had actually tried. 

The pandemic-era mental health crisis was particularly grim for girls. Nearly half of girls reported having poor mental health during the pandemic compared to nearly a quarter of boys. Similarly, 5.3% of boys reported attempting suicide compared with 12.4% of girls. 

A widely reported found an increase in youth emergency room visits due to suicide attempts during the pandemic. In February and March 2021, suicide-related emergency room visits were 50.6% higher for girls and 3.7% higher for boys than they were during the same period in 2019.

Even prior to the pandemic, youth mental health was a critical public health concern. Among high school students nationwide, 26.1% reported feeling persistent sadness or hopelessness in 2009. By 2019, that rate jumped more than 10 percentage points to 36.8%. During that same period, there was a 5 percentage point increase in students reporting having seriously considered attempting suicide and a 2.6 percentage point increase in youth reporting having attempted suicide. 

CDC data suggest the pandemic has been particularly challenging for students who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. Perhaps more troubling, the data were released at a moment when Republican lawmakers have championed legislation that critics say would make life harder for LGBTQ youth. Just this week, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis , a controversial law that bans educators from offering instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity to children in grades K-3. 

Nearly three-quarters of gay, lesbian and bisexual teens reported experiencing emotional abuse at home, compared to roughly half of their straight classmates. Similarly, more than a quarter of gay, lesbian and bisexual teens reported an attempt to die by suicide in the last year compared to 5.2% of heterosexual youth.

Although the survey doesn’t highlight the experiences of transgender youth, previous surveys suggest they also faced heightened risks during the pandemic compared to their cisgender peers, Ethier said. 

Between January and June 2021, 31.6% of respondents reported using tobacco, alcohol or marijuana, or misusing prescription opioids. Nearly a third of students who said they’d used such substances before reported using more of them during the pandemic. 

However, CDC survey data suggest that overall teen substance use decreased during the pandemic. It’s possible, researchers concluded, that students who attended schools virtually had limited access and greater parental supervision.

Students who attended schools virtually, the survey revealed, were less likely than those who attended in-person to use substances like tobacco and alcohol. For example, a quarter of in-person students reported using tobacco compared to just 9% of remote learners. 

Because youth get tobacco products from social sources such as friends, access to those products likely decreased during the pandemic, researchers concluded. However, more open alcohol policies like home delivery may have lowered barriers for youth attempting to purchase booze.

The CDC survey highlights the steep obstacles that teens have had to navigate during the pandemic, but it also recommends strategies that could offer a brighter future. While remote learning likely hindered students’ feelings of connectedness at school, experts stressed it’s not too late to make positive changes. 

The CDC survey reveals that feelings of connectedness at school are critical to youth mental health. More than a quarter of youth who felt connected at school reported poor mental health during the pandemic compared to nearly half of those who said they did not feel close to others at their schools. 

Youth who said they experienced racism during the pandemic and those who are gay, lesbian or bisexual were less likely than other student groups to report feeling connected at school. 

To foster greater connectedness and promote positive school climates, the CDC recommended that districts implement programs that focus on social-emotional learning and professional development centered on classroom management and fostering positive relationships between students, their families and school staff. Districts should also analyze school disciplinary policies to ensure they’re implemented equitably across racial and ethnic groups, researchers recommended.

“There is much that can be done to make sure that LGBTQ youth and youth from racial and ethnic minority groups feel safe, supported and connected in their schools,” Ethier said, noting the importance of such school efforts specifically designed to improve the mental health of LGBTQ youth and reduce their risk of suicide. “When schools are less toxic for youth at increased risk for severe outcomes, schools are less toxic for everyone.”