Senate education committee hears testimony on bill requiring school cell‑phone policies

The Michigan Senate Committee on Education heard testimony on Senate Bill 234 on March 5, which would require each public school district to adopt a cell‑phone policy for every school building beginning in the 2025–26 school year.

Senate Bill 234, introduced to the committee by the bill sponsor, would require school‑level policies that aim to limit cell‑phone use during school hours and reduce classroom distractions. The bill text, as described in committee testimony, would require districts to post their policies on their websites and would include exemptions for emergency situations, medical device use and devices specified in an individual’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) or a 504 plan. Committee members were told a substitute is being drafted to make clear that schools must enforce the policies they adopt.

Olivia Ponti, legislative liaison for the Michigan Department of Education, told the committee the measure responds to growing concern about student cell‑phone use. “As educators, policymakers, parents, and concerned citizens, we all share the common goal of creating a focused, supportive, educational environment with limited distractions in the classroom,” Ponti said. She cited data from the National Center for Education Statistics showing more than half of public‑school leaders report academic impacts from phones and more than two‑thirds report negative effects on students’ mental health and attention span.

Vanessa Keesler, president and CEO of Launch Michigan, said in testimony she supports a requirement that districts adopt policies while retaining local flexibility. “If we really want our students to be prepared for the future, they have to be able to do more than just interact on their wireless devices,” Keesler said, adding that some employers report recent graduates lack teamwork and conflict‑resolution skills.

Jennifer Smith, director of government relations for the Michigan Association of School Boards, told the committee the association supports the bill’s approach to leave details to local boards and praised the bill’s medical and IEP/504 exemptions. Smith warned, however, that the planned start date could be difficult to meet if the bill is not enacted well before the next school year. “If the bill does not get to the governor's desk before the close even of this school year, it's going to be very difficult for boards to have thoughtful conversations and pass a policy before school begins again in August or September,” she said.

Members asked several clarifying questions. Senator Johnson asked what the bill considers an emergency; the sponsor and witnesses said emergency definitions would be left to local boards. Vice Chair Geiss and other members confirmed the bill’s exemption language is intended to cover devices needed for medical purposes and those specified in IEPs; witnesses agreed that 504 plans can be listed explicitly if the committee prefers.

Committee testimony emphasized local variation among more than 800 Michigan school districts and the bill’s intent to allow districts to select a policy that fits their instructional practice and community needs. Witnesses gave examples ranging from teacher‑by‑teacher rules to district‑wide bans to devices stored in lockable pouches during the school day.

Committee recordkeeping and next steps referenced statutory limits on collecting district policy data. A committee member noted that, under Section 1281b of the Revised School Code (as cited in testimony), the Michigan Department of Education cannot collect data that is not statutorily required, so the state does not have a complete count of districts that already have phone policies.

No formal committee vote on Senate Bill 234 occurred during the hearing. The committee did adopt the March 5 meeting minutes on a motion by Vice Chair Geiss without objection. The hearing concluded after witnesses from school‑related associations and advocacy groups gave brief statements of support and committee staff read written testimony into the record.

The committee record includes written or brief oral support from the Michigan Department of Education; Launch Michigan; the Michigan Association of School Boards; the Michigan Association of School Psychologists and the Michigan Association of School Social Workers (submitted by Noah Smith); the Michigan Alliance for Student Achievement (Peter Spada); and a written card from Rafael Johnson of the 180 Gramme Foundation (listed as supporting).

No formal amendments or committee votes on the bill were recorded in the transcript. Committee members and witnesses repeatedly emphasized that the bill is intended to set a statewide requirement that districts adopt policies while preserving local control over the policy details.