Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Vermont committee hears Connecticut official on cell‑phone guidelines, special‑education exceptions
Loading...
Summary
The Vermont House Education Committee heard from Aaron Benham, vice chair of the Connecticut State Board of Education, about Connecticut—s nonbinding cell‑phone guidelines, grade‑level differences, parental safety concerns, special‑education exceptions and curricular uses as Vermont considers H.54.
Aaron Benham, vice chair of the Connecticut State Board of Education, told the Vermont House Education Committee on April 30, 2025, about Connecticut—s approach to regulating student cell‑phone use and lessons that could inform Vermont—s debate over H.54, the "cell phone free schools" bill.
Benham said Connecticut adopted nonbinding guidelines in August and deliberately stopped short of a statewide ban, instead urging districts to adopt grade‑specific policies. "We were not prepared to go with a school ban on cell phones for the state of Connecticut," he said, and the board made clear the guidelines "were not set in stone" so districts could report problems and request tweaks.
The guidelines divide expectations by grade level, with more leniency at the high‑school level. Benham said districts reported that high‑school courses such as physics sometimes rely on phones for specific curricular activities, and that some special‑education needs and medical devices now route alerts through phones, creating a need for narrowly written exceptions.
Benham told the committee that Connecticut followed a process of outreach and review: the State Department of Education drafted the guidelines, the state board heard testimony from districts (including Hartford and Berlin) and the department runs a district survey every three months to track implementation issues. He said some Connecticut districts had already banned phones years earlier — one district—s ban drew national attention — but most districts had existing policies in hand when the statewide guidelines were issued.
Committee members pressed Benham on several practical points. Representative McKay asked whether Connecticut borrowed from other states; Benham said the state department surveyed other states and local district practice, and that the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) is preparing a study on cell‑phone use he planned to share with Vermont. Representative Long asked whether the guidelines address social media and whether districts define it; Benham said many districts handle those rules in student handbooks and through separate coaching/extracurricular policies rather than in a single "cell phone" rule. Representative McCann asked about curricular uses; Benham cited physics, a timing app in P.E. and a middle‑school newspaper project that used phones to record interviews.
Benham and others told the committee that parent concerns — particularly parents worried about contacting children during emergencies — were the largest source of pushback. He urged districts to communicate school safety plans clearly to parents, noting that "cell phones are not part of any safety plan" and that trying to call during certain emergencies can hinder official directions.
The committee also discussed practical and cost issues. Benham described Hartford—s pilot with Yondr pouches to store phones during the school day, and said districts raised concerns about the expense and about students finding workarounds; some districts purchased storage solutions while others did not. He said a complication of a strict ban is the number of legitimate exceptions that would be required for medical or individualized education plan (IEP) needs, and warned that too many exceptions could undermine a ban—s effectiveness.
Benham described unexpected positive reactions from students in Connecticut. "They were thrilled that allowing them at lunch was thrown out, because they were thrilled that they weren't allowed at lunch," he said, reporting that some schools saw improved student interaction after limits were imposed.
On the legislative question, Benham said Connecticut was considering a bill that would require districts to adopt and report a policy consistent with the board—s guidelines rather than impose an outright ban. He told Vermont lawmakers that a likely path for a legislative requirement would mirror how school safety plans are submitted and tracked in Connecticut.
No formal vote or directive on H.54 was taken during the Vermont hearing. Benham offered to share Connecticut materials and the forthcoming NASBE study with Vermont staff and lawmakers.
Looking ahead, committee members will continue reviewing H.54 and related testimony; Benham said he would provide the NASBE materials to Vermont when available.
