House Education Committee directs draft of model policy to ban cell phones bell-to-bell and limit compelled social media use

The Vermont House Education Committee on May 8 continued work on H.54 and directed legislative staff to produce draft language requiring the Agency of Education, in consultation with the Vermont School Boards Association, to develop a required model policy that would prohibit student use of cell phones from arrival to dismissal and prohibit schools from compelling students to use social media for out-of-school academic work or school-sponsored activities.

The action grows out of debate on three related aims in H.54: a bell-to-bell ban on cell phones and similar devices, a prohibition on compelling students to use social media to participate in schoolwork or activities, and limits on schools’ use of social media more broadly. Committee members and witnesses repeatedly framed the bill as addressing student mental health and classroom disruption.

Committee discussion balanced two central points: members pressed for a clear, enforceable requirement that schools adopt bell-to-bell policies, while others warned that defining “social media” and the universe of personal electronic devices is complex and rapidly changing. St. James of the Office of Legislative Council provided drafting options and said of the staff work: “you have not failed at all in anything. That's the line,” as members asked for clearer model-language and implementation timing.

Colin Robinson, a representative of the Vermont National Education Association, testified in support of statutory policy and emphasized urgency, saying the association’s membership identifies student mental health as a top concern. “Our members are deeply concerned about student mental health,” Robinson said, adding that a recent survey showed “94 percent of our members identified [it] as very serious or somewhat serious.” He recommended that whatever approach the committee chooses include guardrails so school policy does not compel students for economic or other reasons to adopt social-media accounts.

On definitions and scope, committee members debated whether to include prekindergarten providers, with several members agreeing to remove pre-K from the statute’s scope. Members also discussed whether the statute should list specific devices (smartphones, smartwatches, earbuds, tablets) or use broader language that covers any personal electronic device capable of internet communication. Some members urged naming categories now; others warned that naming devices risks obsolescence.

A recurring implementation question was timing. Several members urged a target effective date of July 1, 2026 to give the Agency of Education and school boards time to adopt model policies and allow districts to hold community engagement; others suggested an earlier adoption if districts can move quickly. Committee members noted that some districts already have bell-to-bell policies; witnesses and members cited existing guidance and sample policies from VSBA and AOE.

The committee recorded three distinct types of outcomes from the discussion: further drafting direction to Legislative Council and staff, agreement in principle to require a model policy developed by AOE with VSBA consultation, and continued open issues on definitions, exceptions and timelines. The committee instructed Legislative Council to return with draft statutory language reflecting those directions rather than taking a final vote at the meeting.

Committee members identified exceptions that must be preserved in policy language, including individualized education plans (IEPs), Section 504 plans and individual health plans, and agreed administrators should retain limited discretion for academically appropriate or health-related uses. Members also raised practical concerns about implementation costs (for example, whether schools would need devices for classroom documentation) and the need for community engagement so families and students understand policy changes.

The committee left contested questions unresolved: how narrowly or broadly to define social media; whether to restrict school-run social-media accounts that tell school stories (for community engagement); and whether to list types of devices by name or rely on function-based language. Legislative Council was asked to return with language that compels AOE to produce a required model policy, includes guardrails on compelled student use of social media, addresses personal electronic devices in scope (while not rigidly defining every device), and reflects the committee’s conversation about implementation timing.

The committee scheduled further drafting and public testimony; no formal motion or recorded roll-call vote was taken on the substantive policy changes during the May 8 session.