Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Phone Free Schools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Agency of Education urges model policy, 2026-27 rollout for H.54 phone-free schools bill
Summary
Agency of Education testimony to the House Education Committee recommended a model policy developed with school boards, an implementation timeline beginning with the 2026-27 school year, a fiscal note, and narrowing or removing a social-media provision in H.54; committee members debated bell-to-bell bans, carve-outs and local flexibility.
The Agency of Education told the House Education Committee Thursday that it supports a statewide approach to the phone-free schools bill H.54 but recommended a measured rollout and clearer statutory language.
The agency recommended that the state, in consultation with the Vermont School Boards Association and other partners, draft a model policy districts can adapt and that implementation begin in the 2026-27 school year to allow time for local adoption, communication and any necessary facility or storage adjustments.
The recommendation is intended to set a statewide floor, not a ceiling, for local policies and to preserve carve-outs for academically sound uses such as dual enrollment, career and technical education and teacher-directed classroom activities. The agency also recommended including a fiscal note to assess any potential unfunded costs to districts.
Lisa Hale, assistant division director of student candidates at the Agency of Education, summarized the agency's field survey work for the committee. She said the data came from the 2023-24 school year and that 277 schools responded to questions about cell phone policies.
"You should feel confident that even with that, the EdTech directors are discussing how do we block that and how do we so when they say they block it, they're serious about it and they are pursuing it," Hale said, describing how many districts use firewalls on school-issued devices and restrict access to particular apps such as TikTok.
The agency told the committee it found roughly a 50-50 split statewide between schools with and without formal cell-phone policies, that elementary schools were less likely to have policies, and that districts use two common approaches: full-day bans and schedule-based restrictions, with schedule-based restrictions more common at the high school level.
Agency witnesses asked lawmakers to revisit a social-media provision in H.54 and recommended removing the social-media language or keeping it very high-level. The agency said the bill’s current definition (section 2, subsection 6) risks sweeping in platforms and emerging technologies—potentially affecting tools schools use for instruction or communication—and urged further review with field stakeholders.
Representative Dobrevich, who participated in the committee discussion, said one purpose of the bill is to ensure schools cannot compel students to use social media for classwork. "It doesn't say that the school can't use social media," Dobrevich said. "It says that we can't compel the students to use any of these things."
Committee members expressed mixed views on a blanket bell-to-bell ban. Representative Wong asked whether the agency supported a bell-to-bell prohibition; the agency said it supports a bell-to-bell prohibition in principle but recommended explicit carve-outs for students who need devices for translation, medical, or other documented reasons.
Members raised implementation logistics. The agency noted school boards' limited summer meeting availability and suggested a December 1 target for releasing a model policy if legislation moves forward. Agency staff also noted they have already released guidance in February and plan webinars to share model templates and examples from districts such as Mount Mansfield supervisory union and Harwood, which some lawmakers cited as local examples of effective policies.
The agency described broad stakeholder engagement, saying it convened school leaders, the Vermont School Boards Association, educator associations and medical providers, including pediatric organizations, and that the resulting recommendations reflect a general consensus with some nuanced differences.
The committee did not take formal votes on H.54 during the agency's appearance; the testimony closed with members indicating they would continue marking up language and discussing timeline and carve-outs.
The discussion included these concrete agency suggestions for the committee’s markup: require the Agency of Education to develop a model policy in consultation with school-board and educator groups; plan implementation for the 2026-27 school year; include a fiscal note to assess costs; and remove or narrowly define the social-media section to avoid unintended consequences for instruction or evolving technologies.
