Quick, what problem unites us Ron DeSantis And Gavin Newsom? It would be difficult to find many topics on which the conservative stalwart and his progressive counterpart agree, but the Florida And California the governors both signed bills restricting telephone use in public schools. Ohio, South Carolina and several other states have recently followed suit. A rare moment of bipartisan civility appears poised to upend our previously lax approach to children disrupted by social media.

These measures are welcome as they reflect a growing awareness that it is unhealthy for young people to spend all day looking at their phones, a fact that has taken years to penetrate the public consciousness. However, legislation restricting phone use tends to be broad, ineffective, and riddled with exceptions and loopholes. Meanwhile, boarding schools, private academies and affluent public school districts have adopted their own rules, which are generally more comprehensive than the well-intentioned but vague guidelines issued by states.

New technologies, from classroom tablets to powered by artificial intelligence tutors, are often sold as solutions to the ills of public schools. But the most significant technological change Over the past 20 years, the ever-increasing influence of smartphones and social networks on childhood. Our education system’s current approach to this admittedly thorny problem imposes weak phone restrictions on the poorest and worst-performing schools, while the best-performing schools insist on rules that actually work. A classroom isolated from outside distractions was once within reach of any school willing to enforce good behavior. Today, caring for students is just another luxury product.

Newsom’s legislation limiting phones in schools, which will likely be modeled after other states simply because of California’s political and cultural influence, is a good example. The bill that Newsom signed with great fanfare requires every school to “adopt a policy limiting or banning smartphones by July 2026.” There are enough holes in this language to fit a school bus through. Any school imposing pro forma restrictions on phone use will likely meet California’s vague criteria, even if those rules are rarely enforced or are limited in scope. And Florida’s law, which only bans periods during school hours, isn’t much better.

It is worth noting here that half-hearted restrictions, especially those that place the burden of implementation on busy teachers, are almost useless. The new classroom full of phones presents educators with some truly absurd dilemmas. Write in Slateone teacher described a parent listening to a class discussion through a child’s phone and immediately emailing the child to complain about the class. Like most of us, young people respond best to rules that are simple, clear and easy to follow. For their part, teachers should not be expected to confiscate phones or lay out the rules before each lesson (from experience, enforcing the rules is both tedious and time-consuming). Strict, uniform restrictions ease the burden on teachers and set clear expectations for students. Rules that do not meet this threshold might satisfy California’s new standards, but they will not contribute much to public education.

The shortcomings of lax enforcement are supported by a growing body of social science that links youth phone use to a host of psychological problems. Jon Haidt, professor at New York University, whose best-selling book The anxious generation documents the clear links between widespread smartphone adoption and rising rates of depression and suicide among teens, said he agrees that phone bans should be clear and comprehensive. Schools are for personal interaction, whether academic or social. In class, students must concentrate on the lesson. When they are in the hallways or at lunchtime, they should talk to friends or scribble down late homework assignments. The ambitious goals of our education system are often at odds with the difficult realities of public schooling, but those goals are at least plausible when kids aren’t glued to their devices.

The arguments against strict phone bans, meanwhile, are all unconvincing. Parents are hesitant to lock their phones in the event of an emergency or school shooting, but classroom rules shouldn’t be designed around improbable disasters. Students are also free to keep low-tech phones for emergency situations. Other objections are less pressing. In the Willamette WeekA student at Grant High School in Oregon complained of having trouble finding friends in the lunchroom after her school banned phones. High school students who need to connect with mom and dad say they’re confused by the school’s old-fashioned landlines.

Grant, a public school located in an affluent Portland neighborhood, is representative of the institutions most likely to enforce effective phone bans. It’s difficult to track the evolution of smartphone restrictions because the issue is relatively new and the rules vary from place to place, but a series of recent headlines is certainly suggestive. Deerfield Academy in Massachusetts, St. Andrew’s School in Delaware, and Georgetown Day School in Washington, D.C., have all received glowing coverage in the Atlantic after choosing to ban smartphones. Buxton Boarding School in Massachusetts received similar treatment Tutor. The response to these bans from students, parents and teachers has been overwhelmingly positive. But most families don’t send their children to Deerfield, where annual tuition costs top $70,000.

A similar trend is evident in public school districts. Local headlines tout successful smartphone bans in Aspen, Colorado; Evanston, Ill.; and Mercer Island in Seattle. Some poorer schools will surely follow suit, but your typical California district ends up with vague guidance from Newsom and little else. A complete ban on smartphones in New York City public schools was recently derailed, in part because of union objections.

The underfunding of inner-city classrooms is a perennial liberal talking point, but per-pupil spending reveals a surprising degree of parity among school districts. However, in recent decades, a new divide has emerged in the field of education. Call it the fashion divide. The poorest schools seem to bear the brunt of our worst education policy ideas, which are often linked to unproven technologies or passing teaching fads. When these ideas fail, as they inevitably do, low-performing public schools must clean up the mess.

Last July, an AI tutor developed for Los Angeles County schoolchildren was abandoned after the company behind the program suddenly went bankrupt. An “equity-based” proposal from a Stanford University education professor has led California to issue guidelines banning students from taking algebra before high school. San Francisco public schools went so far as to eliminate middle school algebra classes altogether in 2014, before finally reinstating them earlier this year after sustained outcry from parents. “Contextual” literacy, the brainchild of another activist scholar, replaced traditional reading instruction in many schools for decades, with predictably dismal results. After years of experimentation, it turns out that the old-fashioned method of teaching children to pronounce words syllable by syllable still works best. The Columbia University center associated with contextual reading was closed in 2023.

Perhaps the most egregious example of this fashionable trend is the recent era of distance learning. School closures, which did little to contain COVID-19 and led to shocking declines in attendance and academic achievement, lasted longer in poorer schools than in affluent districts. Private school students were the quickest to return to class.

High-performing public schools and private establishments are quite resistant to educational fads, not because they are repositories of any particular wisdom, but because their parents are acutely sensitive to anything that might threaten their future prospects. Junior. Additionally, wealth and attentive parenting give many families some margin for error when it comes to education. A young boy whose mother reads to him regularly will likely survive “contextual” literacy lessons unscathed. When San Francisco eliminated middle school algebra, concerned parents rushed to enroll their children in private math lessons.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

So far, smartphone bans in schools follow the same depressing pattern. As wealthy families become increasingly wary of excessive screen time, too many public schools rely on outdated or loophole-filled smartphone policies. Yet creating a focused, distraction-free environment doesn’t require expensive infrastructure or expensive classroom technology. Instead, it should be a baseline expectation for all students, regardless of their socioeconomic background.

The fact that state governors from opposite ends of the political spectrum have taken up this issue is an encouraging sign that schools are finally waking up to the dangers of smartphone addiction. But the proposed remedies are unfortunately lacking.

Will Collins is a lecturer at Eotvos Lorand University in Budapest, Hungary.