Quick, what problem unites Ron DeSantis and Gavin Newsom? You’d be hard-pressed to find many subjects on which the staunch conservative and his progressive counterpart agree, but Florida and California governors signed both bills restricting phone use in public schools. Ohio, South Carolina and several other states have recently followed suit. A rare moment of bipartisan sympathy seems poised to overturn our previously lax approach to children sheltered by social media.

These moves are welcome insofar as they reflect a growing awareness that it is unhealthy for young people to spend all day staring at their phones, a fact that has somehow taken years to sink into the public consciousness. Legislation restricting phone use, however, tends to be broad, toothless, and full of exceptions and loopholes. Meanwhile, boarding schools, private academies and wealthy public school districts have continued with their own rules, which are usually more comprehensive than the well-intentioned but vague directives issued by state institutions.

New technologies, from tablets for the classroom to powered by artificial intelligence tutors, are often sold as solutions to the ills of public schools. However, most importantly technological change of the past 20 years has been the increasing influence of smartphones and social media on childhood. Our education system’s current approach to this admittedly thorny issue puts the poorest and lowest-performing schools with lax phone restrictions, while high-performing institutions insist on rules that actually work. A classroom isolated from outside distractions was within reach of any school willing to enforce good behavior. Now student focus becomes just another luxury good.

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

It is worth noting here that half-hearted restrictions, especially those that place the burden of enforcement on harassed teachers, are almost useless. The new telephone classroom presents educators with some truly absurd dilemmas. Writing in Slateone teacher described a parent eavesdropping on a class discussion on a child’s phone and immediately emailing a complaint about the lesson. Like most of us, young people respond best to rules that are simple, clear and easy to follow. Meanwhile, teachers shouldn’t be expected to confiscate phones or set rules before every class (speaking from experience, enforcement is both tedious and time-consuming). Strict and uniform restrictions ease the burden on teachers and set clear expectations for students. Rules that fall short of that threshold might satisfy California’s new standards, but they won’t do much for public education.

The shortcomings of lax enforcement are supported by a growing body of social science linking youth phone use to a range of psychological problems. New York University professor Jon Haidt, whose book is a bestseller The anxious generation documents compelling links between widespread smartphone adoption and rising rates of teen depression and suicide, said he agreed the phone ban should be clear and comprehensive. Schools are meant for personal interaction, whether academic or social. During class, students should be focused on the lesson. When they are in the halls or at lunch, they should be talking to friends or scribbling homework late. The aspirational goals of our education system are often at odds with the uncomfortable realities of public schooling, but those goals are at least plausible when kids aren’t glued to their devices.

Meanwhile, the arguments against strict phone bans are unconvincing. Parents are wary of locking phones in case of an emergency or a school shooting, but classroom rules shouldn’t be designed around unlikely catastrophes. Students are also free to keep low-tech phones for emergencies. Other objections are less pressing. In Willamette Weeka student at Grant High School in Oregon complained that she had trouble finding friends in the lunchroom after her school banned phones. High school students who need to get in touch with mom and dad say they’re confused by the school’s old-fashioned landlines.

Grant, a public school in an affluent Portland district, is representative of the institutions most likely to impose effective phone bans. It’s difficult to track the spread of smartphone restrictions because the issue is relatively new and rules vary from place to place, but a number of recent headlines are certainly suggestive. Deerfield Academy in Massachusetts, St. Andrew’s School in Delaware and Georgetown Day School in Washington, DC all received glowing coverage in the Atlantic after opting to ban smartphones. Buxton Boarding School in Massachusetts received similar treatment in Tutor. The reaction of students, parents and teachers to these bans has been overwhelmingly positive. But most families don’t send their kids to Deerfield, where annual tuition tops $70,000.

A similar pattern is evident in public school districts. Local headlines report success of smartphone ban in Aspen, Colorado; Evanston, Illinois; and Mercer Island in Seattle. Some poorer schools are sure to follow suit, but your typical California district is left with vague guidance from Newsom and little else. A sweeping ban on smartphones for New York City public schools was recently overturned, in part over union objections.

Underfunded inner-city classrooms are a perennial liberal talking point, but per capita student spending reveals a surprising degree of parity among school districts. In recent decades, however, a new division has emerged in education. Call it the fad gap. Poorer schools seem to put up with our worst education policy ideas, which are often connected to unproven technologies or passing educational fads. When these ideas fail, as they inevitably do, low-performing public schools are left to clean up the mess.

Last July, an AI tutor developed for schoolchildren in Los Angeles County was abandoned after the company behind the program suddenly went bankrupt. An “equity-based” proposal by a Stanford University education professor has led California to issue guidelines against students taking algebra classes before high school. San Francisco Public Schools went so far as to get rid of middle school algebra classes entirely in 2014, before finally reintroducing them earlier this year after sustained protests from parents. “Context-based” literacy, the brainchild of another crusading academic, has 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 sound out words syllable by syllable still works best. Columbia University’s Center for Context-Based Reading closed in 2023.

Perhaps the most egregious example of the mode gap in action has been the recent era of distance learning. The school closings, which have done little to limit COVID-19 and led to a shocking drop in both attendance and academic performance, have lasted longer in poorer schools than in high-end districts. Private school students were the fastest to return to class.

High-performing public schools and private institutions are quite resistant to educational fads, not because they are repositories of special wisdom, but because their parents are perfectly attuned to anything that might threaten Junior’s future prospects. Moreover, well-being and careful parenting give many families some margin for educational error. A young boy whose mother reads to him regularly will probably survive “context-based” literacy lessons unscathed. When San Francisco got rid of middle school algebra classes, worried parents rushed to enroll their children in private math lessons.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

So far, the school smartphone ban follows the same depressing pattern. While affluent families are increasingly wary of excessive screen time, too many public schools rely on outdated or flawed smartphone policies. However, creating a focused, distraction-free environment does not require expensive infrastructure or expensive technology for the classroom. Instead, it should be a basic expectation for all students, regardless of socioeconomic background.

That state governors on opposite ends of the political spectrum have addressed the issue is a hopeful sign that schools are finally waking up to the dangers of smartphone addiction. However, the proposed remedies are unfortunately lacking.

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