Vermont educators, health experts and school boards urge state backing for phone ban, seek clear rules for social media and AED plans

Montpelier, Vt. —— Testimony at a Senate Education Committee hearing on H.54 emphasized broad support among school leaders and health professionals for restricting students' personal electronic devices during the school day, while warning that the Legislature must provide model policies, funding and clear definitions to make any new rules workable.

The bill under discussion, referred to in testimony as draft 5.1, would require school districts to adopt policies limiting use of cell phones and other personal electronic devices during school hours and would restrict use of social media for official school communications. Witnesses also addressed a separate requirement in a related draft for cardiac emergency response plans, including access to automated external defibrillators (AEDs).

Why it matters: Witnesses said removing phones during the school day can improve classroom focus, reduce bullying and benefit student mental health, but they also cautioned that enforcement, equity and data-privacy questions must be resolved at the state level. Without model policy language, training support and fiscal resources, several presenters warned, districts could struggle to implement consistent rules.

Michael Craig, associate executive director of the Vermont Principals Association, told the committee that many Vermont schools have already moved to restrict phone use and that members want “something from the state to back up what they are already engaged in.” Craig urged caution on overly specific statutory language because technology changes rapidly, but said statewide guidance would help align local policies.

Benjamin Clark, a public school teacher, Vermont school board member and parent, argued strongly for clear, enforceable statewide rules. Clark said districts need uniform guidance on enforcement and protections for staff and recommended that seized devices be returned to parents, not students, and that the Agency of Education be charged with creating model policy and enforcement templates. "We do not need a sixth, a seventh, or an eighth path that distracts from learning," Clark said, arguing that existing school communications systems provide reliable alternatives for emergency contacts.

Mental-health clinicians who testified linked device use to worsening symptoms among children and teens. "These are addictive," said psychiatrist Harris Spokoff, describing clinical signs such as tolerance, withdrawal and impairment of daily functioning. Spokoff cited research associating heavier social-media use with increased risk of depression, anxiety and suicidality and urged policymakers to treat the issue as a public-health concern.

Representatives of school governance groups said they generally back the phone-policy provisions but flagged implementation risks. Sue Zielowski of the Vermont School Boards Association said the VSBA supports legislation "that would require school districts to adopt a policy concerning use of cell phones and other personal electronic devices in schools," but raised concerns about the Agency of Education's capacity to draft and update a timely model policy and recommended a fiscal note to assess costs for training, enforcement and any infrastructure changes.

Colin Robinson, speaking for a statewide education membership group, said a scientific survey of educators this spring found 94 percent view youth mental health as a serious or somewhat serious issue and urged prompt action so districts and the Agency of Education can implement policies for the 2026 school year. Robinson and others noted draft language under discussion would give districts time to prepare; committee discussion referenced a target date of Jan. 1, 2026 for an AOE-issued model policy.

School administrators who have already adopted phone bans described concrete effects. Ryan Herdy, superintendent of the district identified in testimony as "Lemoyo South," said his supervisory union prohibited phones during school hours and "This policy has been a resounding success," citing improved academic performance, reduced bullying and higher staff satisfaction. Herdy and other administrators described outreach to families, consistent enforcement across schools, and alternate communication channels (student information systems and district mass-notification services) as keys to acceptance.

Several witnesses raised legal and technical questions. Testimony noted a 2020 AOE model policy on electronic communications and Act 5 of 2018 as prior authorities; speakers also referenced a class-action lawsuit against Meta and the existence of state-level legal actions against social platforms. The Vermont School Boards Association warned that a broad statutory definition of "social media" could unintentionally sweep in classroom learning platforms or communication tools and recommended the agency review and update its 2020 model policy before a new law takes effect.

Funding and equity were recurring themes. Witnesses urged that any rollout include a fiscal assessment and suggested grants for AEDs, training and communications systems; VSBA noted that some districts are not eligible for limited existing BISBET safety grants. Speakers also cautioned about equity: parents with resources can choose lower-tech schooling or camps, while others cannot, so statewide policy should include supports for districts serving different communities.

Committee members discussed timing and next steps but took no formal vote during the hearing. Senators asked whether the Agency of Education could meet a draft timetable; staff and witnesses suggested the AOE could issue a model policy by Jan. 1, 2026 but recommended the committee consider a fiscal note and clear assignment of roles between the Legislature, AOE and local boards.

What happens next: The committee will consider amendments and whether to attach related measures. Witnesses asked the Legislature to direct the Agency of Education to produce model language, provide guidance on definitions and enforcement, and include a fiscal assessment to support districts during implementation.