The problem is that districts and schools have tried this, but then parents complain and threaten to sue about "stealing the phone" and such. The district doesn't have a leg to stand on.

They need a state law to back them up so that they can tell the parents to take it to their legislature instead of the principal.

Every time I’ve seen phone rules deployed by a district they’ve been overwhelmingly popular.

My experience has been different. In some places it works really well, in other the district caves because of a few very loud parents.

Districts like that won’t do well regardless.

They have to manage day by day enforcement and so on.

This law affects companies, not students, as it should be. Enforcing limits on students is the job of parents, not teachers or police.

Parents have failed, government is for solving the collective action problem, we know what the best decision is for the kids.

I'm well aware of what this law does, but we are not talking about this law in this thread.

> Enforcing limits on students is the job of parents

Luckily in California we understand the value of protecting kids over uninformed adults. That's why we require vaccines to attend school.

This is about individual freedoms, not public health, and is directly related to this post. Unfortunately, no law can protect against poor parenting.

> Unfortunately, no law can protect against poor parenting.

Oh, but they most certainly can. See the aforementioned vaccine laws. Or the law that provides free breakfast and lunch to every California student regardless of income. Of the law that requires dental coverage for anyone in the state under 18 (and provides it to those who can't afford it).

No matter how bad your parent is about feeding you, at least you know you'll get breakfast and lunch every school day, and you can get your teeth checked.

There are many laws that protect against poor parenting.

You can do both which is why I think it should be the default choice and up to admins to choose how to deviate from the default.