House Education revisits H.54 to ban student cell phone use during school day, restrict school social‑media communication

The Vermont House Committee on Education reviewed H.54 on April 23, 2025, a bill “relating to cell phone preschools” that would require each school governing body to adopt and implement a policy prohibiting student use of cell phones and personal electronic devices from arrival to dismissal and would bar schools from using social‑media platforms to communicate directly with students.

Legislative counsel St. James walked the committee through the bill as introduced, reading the bill’s legislative intent and definitions and noting that the proposal is “as introduced” and may be edited. St. James read the bill’s intent phrase: “It is the intent of the General Assembly for all students in Vermont to access the benefits of a phone and social media preschool environment, which promotes focus, improves mental health and increase social mobility.”

The bill would add a new subchapter to Title 16, chapter 9. It defines “cell phone” as any device capable of using cellular technology to facilitate voice service through a commercial telecommunications company and defines “electronic device” broadly to include devices that transmit or store sounds, images, text or other electronic information. The draft requires that each school board, governing body of an independent school, or prequalified private pre‑K provider “develop, adopt, and ensure implementation of” a policy that at minimum prohibits student use of cell phones and personal electronic devices during the school day. The policy may further bar bringing such devices to school, require placement in a designated area on school property, or permit use of secure storage such as device lockers or lockable pouches.

The bill includes two specific exceptions: documented medical necessity and individualized education plans. Under the introduced language, a student may possess and use a device if a licensed physician or licensed advanced practice registered nurse determines such possession or use is necessary for the student’s health; schools may require documentation. The policy must also provide an exception when device use is documented as part of an IEP or a Section 504 plan, “according to applicable state and federal law,” St. James said.

The draft also contains a prohibition described in the transcript as “Prohibition of Integration of Social Media Platforms into Education.” That section as read by counsel would bar schools, school districts, and supervisory unions from utilizing social media to communicate with students directly and from asking, requiring, or permitting students to use social media for school activities, homework, sports or clubs. The bill would require measures to prevent students from accessing social media on school‑issued devices while under school supervision.

Committee members raised implementation and drafting concerns repeatedly. Several members said the definition of “electronic device” is unusually broad and could sweep in everyday classroom tools (committee members mentioned battery‑powered music players, cameras, CD players and other low‑tech items as examples), which they said could create enforcement headaches and unintended consequences. One committee member asked whether a teacher‑provided device would be covered; counsel replied that the definitions in the subchapter apply only to the subchapter and that policy choices about scope are for the committee to decide.

Members also questioned how the social‑media prohibition would affect common school practices: athletic teams and clubs that use Instagram or Facebook to post results and schedules, school accounts used by administrators to promote school activities, and communication tools such as ParentSquare or Front Porch Forum. Committee discussion repeatedly returned to whether the bill’s language should distinguish school‑run, administrator‑posted accounts from student‑run groups and whether the bill should bar only school‑mandated student participation rather than all school social‑media presences. St. James told the committee the social‑media definition in the draft was taken from a federal definition cited by staff, and staff later said the electronic‑device definition was taken from S.284 as introduced the prior year.

Members also flagged practical questions about timing and logistics. Counsel read the bill’s effective‑date language as written: the bill’s findings would take effect July 1, 2025, and the policy requirement and the social‑media sections of the new subchapter would take effect on a different date as stated in the draft (as read aloud during the session). Committee members said implementing a new, statewide “bell‑to‑bell” rule mid‑year would be disruptive and suggested a school‑year start date (for example, July or August 2026) might be more practical. Members discussed low‑cost storage options already used in some schools (envelopes, shoe‑hanger pouches, wooden cubbies, legal boxes) and emphasized that any requirement that effectively forces families to purchase devices or accessories would raise equity concerns.

Staff told the committee they compiled a non‑exhaustive list of existing state laws and guidance from other states; counsel listed states with statutes, executive actions, or guidance that address school cell‑phone use and said those references would be provided to committee members. Committee members asked staff to return examples of how other jurisdictions have handled narrow drafting problems (for example, distinguishing administrator accounts from student accounts, and exempting school‑issued devices used for instruction).

No motion or formal vote on H.54 occurred during the session. Committee members repeatedly described the bill as a “blank canvas” as introduced and signaled intent to refine definitions, the social‑media language, the effective date, and exceptions before considering any formal recommendation.

What’s next: staff and counsel were asked to collect examples and statutes from other states and to return with options and clearer drafting to address the committee’s concerns about definitions, implementation timing and communication tools. The committee did not take final action on H.54 during the meeting.