House Education hears independent schools’ concerns over H.54 cellphone and electronic-device limits

Montpelier — On May 7, 2025, the Vermont House Education Committee continued debate on H.54, a bill that would restrict student use of cell phones and other electronic devices in schools. Oliver Olsen, head of the Vermont Independent Schools Association, told the committee that independent schools generally support limits on phone use in classrooms but urged lawmakers to avoid a rigid, one-size-fits-all ban.

Olsen said the association surveyed its roughly 42 member schools this year and heard from about 70% of them. “Overwhelmingly, schools are very supportive of having, prohibitions at the very least in classrooms, of cell phone use,” Olsen said. He told lawmakers that families have broadly reacted positively to school phone restrictions and that many schools see benefits to learning when devices are limited.

Committee members pressing for clarification heard several reasons why a hard statutory ban could be problematic. Olsen said definitions in draft 1.1 of H.54—particularly a broad definition of “electronic device” and how the bill defines campus, arrival and dismissal—could unintentionally sweep in items or situations that schools rely on for instruction or accommodation. Examples he gave included scientific calculators, programmed hearing aids, augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices, international students who lack U.S. IEP documentation, phones used to program robotics equipment, phones used as cameras for photography classes and athletic watches used to monitor performance.

“Oversimplifying these definitions could create conflicts with 504 or individualized education program accommodations and with boarding programs that supervise students outside typical arrival-to-dismissal windows,” Olsen said. He also quoted an educator who cautioned that “a ban does not solve the problem, but actually has the potential for our graduates to enter the world beyond high school without being taught how to navigate social media.”

Olsen recommended a goal- and objective-oriented alternative: require schools to adopt policies that aim to “restrict and minimize” noneducational device use while allowing flexibility for educational uses and documented accommodations. “If you have a broad sort of goal and an objective that everybody can be working toward, there's that flexibility to allow for exceptions that nobody may have thought of,” he told the committee.

Representative McCann expressed support for the “restrict and minimize” approach and said she appreciated examples in testimony that showed legitimate instructional uses for personal devices. Committee members also raised the example of the Community High School of Vermont, an approved independent school run by the corrections department, to illustrate settings where device policy and monitoring raise special concerns.

No formal action was taken on H.54 during the hearing. The committee chair said further work was scheduled: the committee will return for additional discussion and draft markup the following day during a two-hour session, with at least 45 minutes set aside for drafting language on the topic.

The testimony highlights tensions lawmakers face as they attempt to balance classroom learning conditions, equitable access to required tools, accessibility under federal accommodations frameworks and the practical realities of boarding and therapeutic independent schools. Committee members indicated they will use upcoming markup time to refine definitions, exceptions and the bill’s overall approach.