I have no idea how you've generated this principle. I'm going to ignore the noise.

1) "The victims of these policies aren't infants; they will be adults in about five minutes."

You've made no case for why adults couldn't be banned from using phones in class.

2) "They reduce the quality of life for people who rely on AAC..."

I don't know what this stands for, but if it is some sort of handicap, exceptions can be made. It's fine to ban wheelchair use in school for people who don't need wheelchairs. Even if having a wheelchair makes you stand out because everybody isn't using one.

3) "To pretend that smartphones are somehow different from that past..."

That past is very recent, and is also garbage. Chromebooks, iPods, cellphones, and "Discmans" in class is also a terrible idea. If whatever advantages that Chromebooks provide (I don't want Google in schools at all, but ignore me) are nullified by the fact that kids can bypass the security on them, get rid of them.

4) "...you have to issue laptops in order to much of the kind of relevant teaching necessary in 2026"

You definitely don't.

5) "The people who are interested in learning will learn, the others will not, that's that."

That is a good argument for not even having schools. But we have schools because we are concerned with setting up situations that can make it easier to learn, even for children who are less interested than others.

6) "Also, the Oregon ban is illegal and will be tossed out the moment that it gets to the appropriate level of judicial review - the Governor cannot make law."

The state can make policy, though, for its own schools. If this ban extended to private schools that weren't taking any money from the state, I could see this being a problem. This includes "vouchers."

Oregon school cell phone ban: 'Engaged students, joyful teachers'