Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Education topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House Education committee forwards 'phone-free schools' draft to Senate, sets model-policy deadlines

3251237 · May 9, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House Education Committee reviewed draft 5.1 of a bill to require a statewide model policy restricting student cell phone and certain personal electronic-device use, including a ban on direct student communication via social media unless approved and archived by districts; the language will be sent to the Senate for consideration.

At its May 9 meeting, the House Education Committee reviewed draft 5.1 of proposed "phone-free schools" legislation and agreed to forward the language to the Senate for consideration.

The draft requires the Agency of Education (AOE), in consultation with the school boards association, to develop a model policy prohibiting student use of cell phones and non–school-issued personal electronic devices that connect to cellular networks, the internet, or have Bluetooth capabilities from arrival to dismissal, with limited exceptions. The bill would require districts and approved independent schools to adopt policies at least as stringent as the model by July 1, 2026, to take effect in the 2026-27 school year; the draft also directs AOE to publish the model policy by Jan. 1, 2026.

"We've got a definition for cell phone, individualized health care plan, parents, school, and student," said Best St. James of the Office of Legislative Council during the committee's review. St. James noted the draft does not include definitions for "electronic device" or "social media."

Under the draft, the specified exceptions to the ban include use required by a student's individualized education program (IEP), individualized health care plan, Section 504 plan, or use approved by an administrator for an academic purpose. The measure also would deem any school district or approved independent school that does not adopt a district-specific policy to have adopted the model policy beginning in the 2026-27 school year.

A separate section of draft 5.1 would broadly prohibit schools, school districts, and supervisory unions from using social media to communicate directly with students unless the platform is approved by the school district. Approved platforms would have to allow school officials to archive all communications and prevent messages from being edited or deleted once sent. The draft also would bar schools from requiring students to use social media for out-of-school academic work, school sports, extracurricular clubs, or other out-of-school school-sponsored activities.

Angela Arc, the bill sponsor, asked for clarity about a provision that says, beginning with the 2026-27 school year, districts "shall develop, adopt, [and] ensure the enforcement of" policies. "I’m just curious if by page 4, line 21... do you feel like that makes it clear?" Arc asked, noting the language could be interpreted as requiring districts to begin the development process during the 2026-27 school year rather than to have policies in place by then.

Legislative counsel responded that the implementation language in the draft — including the Jan. 1, 2026 deadline for AOE to publish a model policy and the July 1, 2026 adoption date for districts — is intended to ensure the policies are in place to be effective for the 2026-27 school year. Counsel also noted the statute-language requiring districts to "develop, adopt, and ensure enforcement" is typical when a law contemplates future changes in district leadership or policy updates.

Committee members discussed wording choices such as whether to preserve the phrase "non–school-issued personal electronic devices" or to simplify it, noting the value of redundant phrasing as a backstop. Counsel and members also discussed whether to define terms such as Bluetooth or to use broader, technology-neutral language to avoid obsolescence.

The committee concluded its review and moved to forward the draft to the Senate for consideration. No formal recorded vote was taken during the committee discussion; members indicated assent to sending the language forward.

The draft remains subject to revision by the Senate and possible further changes if stakeholders raise issues about definitions, exceptions, or technical requirements for approved social-media platforms.