House Education hears testimony on H.54 to limit student smartphone and social-media use during school hours

The Vermont House Education Committee met April 17, 2025, for a hearing on H.54, legislation proposing restrictions on students' use of smartphones and certain social-media communication during the school day. Witnesses including Michael Graeth of the Vermont Principals Association and parents testified on mental-health concerns, classroom uses of phones, and practical questions about implementation.

Supporters told the committee they see rising anxiety, sleep disruption and other harms linked to smartphones and social media. “I used to feel a little bit more like a voice in the wilderness, with my concern over digital addiction,” said Michael Graeth, associate executive director of the Vermont Principals Association, noting he had talked with roughly 75 school leaders in recent weeks and assembled examples of school policies. Graeth described both district-level bans and a variety of local practices, from teacher-managed use to physical lockboxes for phones.

The bill's language and practical effects were a focus. Committee member Pat summarized the bill as written: it “prohibits schools, school districts, and supervisory unions from utilizing social media for communication with students directly and asking, requiring, or permitting students' use of social media for school activities, out of school academic or homework, school sports, or extracurricular clubs, or any other school sponsored activities.” Committee members and witnesses discussed whether communication apps that send official messages to families, such as ParentSquare, are covered; several said ParentSquare-style tools can be configured so that schools retain oversight and continue official family communication.

Witnesses raised several recurrent implementation questions: how to define “social media” for the statute; how to accommodate students who use devices for medical or assistive purposes; whether schools would need equipment or storage solutions (lockboxes, pouches) and who would pay for them; and how to avoid shifting routine communications into unregulated channels such as team WhatsApp groups. Graeth supplied links to nine Vermont high-school policies and pointed committee members to Connecticut State Board guidelines as an example of one set of practices he described as “well done.”

Speakers also flagged broader policy context. Graeth noted multi-state litigation against major social-media companies and said, without making legal claims, that some advocates view recoveries from litigation as a possible source of funding for student mental-health supports. He cited that, as of April, multiple states had filed suits: “41 states have sued Meta and 14 states have sued TikTok,” and he said nine states have enacted phone restrictions for schools while about 16 states had pending measures (figures described by the witness during testimony).

Parents and former educators spoke in support of the bill on grounds of student well-being and opportunities for unstructured social time during the school day. “I strongly am in favor of it,” said Peter Earl, who described decades of experience in schools and urged the committee to move the proposal forward. Aida Guzavarria, a parent involved with the HomeFree Vermont initiative, urged the committee to focus on students' mental health rather than on fine points of which platform the school might use for after-hours announcements.

Committee members cautioned that any statute will have to be carefully worded to preserve necessary classroom instructional uses, to leave room for assistive-device exceptions, and to avoid creating enforcement burdens or counterproductive power struggles between staff and students. One committee member described classroom examples where teachers legitimately pull up quick data on students' phones for instruction, and another raised concerns that a student who is told to submit a phone to the office can experience that process as punitive.

No formal vote or final action on H.54 was recorded at this session. The committee scheduled students and a principal to appear the following day and said it will take public testimony next week, continuing the review and allowing additional witnesses and committee parsing of statutory language.

Votes at a glance: none — no motions or roll-call votes were recorded during this hearing.