Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Students tell House Education Committee H.54 would overreach; urge school-level phone policies
Summary
Students testified May 2 before the House Education Committee against H.54, a proposed cell-phone restriction for schools, saying existing school rules or locally tailored policies better balance safety, instructional needs and students' ability to contact caregivers or document incidents.
Members of the House Education Committee heard student testimony May 2 opposing H.54, the proposed “cell phone–free schools” bill, with several students saying schools—not the Legislature—should set phone rules.
Manny Van Fleet, an eighth-grade student at U-32 in East Montpelier and a member of his school’s student council, told the committee he and peers believe “taking away phones should be something that the school should do rather than something that a law should dictate.”
The students said the bill’s effects would reach beyond classroom distractions: they described phones as tools for safety, for contacting family or employers after practices, and for academic tasks such as taking photos of experiments, using calculator or art apps. Eddie McGrath, a junior at Montpelier High School, warned the bill’s draft definition of social media could sweep in commonly used educational tools and programs and said, “This definition could classify various Google applications as social media, including tools like Canva, slideshow template websites, and Wikipedia.”
Why this matters: H.54 is a state-level proposal that would limit students’ use of mobile devices during the school day. Students at the hearing argued the legislation would be harder to tailor to local school needs than district or building policies and could create unintended harms.
Students offered several concrete concerns and examples. Benicio Hawks, a ninth-grader quoted by Van Fleet, said as a multisport athlete who does not drive, he sometimes needs his phone during the day to coordinate rides and that “having access to my phone during the school day is really helpful.” Ada Coffee, quoted by Van Fleet as an 11th-grader, said attempting “a complete ban” would “only cause more issues than solutions” and compared strict prohibition to Prohibition-era problems. Vaughn O’Hanlon, quoted as a senior, warned a rigid ban “will unite the student body against the administrators” and called the bill “difficult to enforce and overbearing.”
McGrath also described safety and accountability concerns: he said that phones can be critical in medical emergencies and can allow students to document instances of alleged mistreatment by staff or peers. “If this legislation were to be enacted, what measures would you implement to ensure our safety? How would you uphold our rights to document events to safeguard ourselves and our fellow students?” he asked the committee.
Committee members asked about how long students had owned phones and whether phones were commonly used in class. Van Fleet said he received his current phone this school year as he began eighth grade; McGrath said he has had a phone since fifth grade and has his current phone for about four months. Van Fleet described his middle school’s routine as using a “phone tree” (students place phones at the start of class) and said he rarely sees phones used during instructional time. At the high school level he said phones are allowed during passing periods and lunch.
There was no vote or formal action on H.54 at the hearing. The session consisted of student testimony followed by committee questions.
The testimony supplements written and oral submissions the committee has already received on the bill and adds students’ perspectives on how phone rules affect safety, jobs, learning and school culture.
