House Education Committee advances bill requiring districts to adopt student cell‑phone policies

The House Education Committee voted 12‑1 to send House Bill 1135 to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation, advancing legislation that would require Colorado public school districts to adopt a local policy on student cell‑phone possession and use by July 2026.

The bill’s sponsors and supporters told the committee the measure is intended to reduce classroom distractions and support student mental health by ensuring districts have clear, local policies in place. Proponents — including educators, superintendents and pediatric mental‑health specialists — urged the committee to advance the bill while retaining district flexibility and accommodations for students with medical or special education needs.

Representative Lukens, a teacher and one of the bill’s sponsors, opened the hearing by saying limiting classroom distractions helps “improve[] student engagement” and allows teachers to move through material without constant interruptions. Co‑sponsor Representative Bradfield said the bill requires districts to adopt a policy by July 2026 but “refrains from impeding on their jurisdiction,” noting the text uses “shall” to require a policy while leaving the content of that policy to local boards.

Witnesses described classroom and mental‑health benefits from local phone policies already in place in some districts. Brian Hill, superintendent of Mesa County’s District 51, told the committee research and local experience show significant reductions in phone‑related disruptions: “teens use their phones for at least 90 [minutes] during the school day,” he said, and limiting access improved engagement and student well‑being in his district. Dr. Sandra Fritch, medical director of the Pediatric Mental Health Institute at Children’s Hospital Colorado, described the testimony as part of broader efforts to address youth mental‑health concerns and said some studies tie heavy social‑media use to higher rates of anxiety and depression.

Panelists and agency witnesses described several implementation details the committee considered. The Colorado Department of Education (CDE) told members it will publish a collection of research and model policies to help districts craft local rules; CDE said the state board requested that work and that it expects to absorb the necessary effort within existing resources. The Department of Law and other proponents said they intend to fund pilot interventions in seven schools this coming spring to test approaches such as in‑school storage pouches and community engagement models.

Committee discussion and the amendment process focused on scope and exemptions. Sponsor Representative Bradfield moved amendment L001 as a cleanup and to clarify covered school types; the committee adopted L001 without objection. Committee staff and sponsors discussed whether the draft text would cover charter schools and how the Colorado School for the Deaf and the Blind should be treated; sponsors said they had incorporated input from that school in the amendment language and flagged special‑education accommodations as a consideration districts must include when drafting policies.

Amendment L001 passed without objection. The full bill was then moved to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; the roll call showed multiple yes votes and the committee reported the measure 12‑1 in favor. Representative members who spoke on the record in roll‑call excerpts included Representatives Bacon, Phillips, Smith, Story, Lukens and the committee chair, each recorded voting yes in the transcript excerpt.

Votes at a glance: - Amendment L001 (cleanup/coverage clarifications): passed without objection. - House Bill 1135 (require districts to adopt student cell‑phone policies by July 2026; preserve local control; require accommodations for medical/special‑education needs): moved to Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation, committee vote 12‑1.

Supporters urged the committee to advance HB 1135 while allowing districts flexibility in implementation; opponents and some members said they preferred a permissive approach that would leave adoption to local boards. Representative Cook, representing the Colorado Association of School Boards, said CASB members generally prefer local control and would have preferred a permissive “may” approach but appreciated the bill’s flexibility. Representative Johnson said the fiscal and staffing impact on small rural districts remained a concern, and sponsors and CDE staff said they do not anticipate direct district costs for simply adopting a policy and that any discretionary purchases (for example, optional phone storage pouches) would be paid locally.

The committee hearing included testimony from multiple educators and mental‑health professionals, state agencies and associations; many witnesses described positive effects on student interaction, classroom focus and reductions in phone‑related disciplinary incidents where districtwide policies already exist. Committee members who supported the bill cited the state’s youth mental‑health challenges; members who opposed or hesitated emphasized local control and district capacity. The committee advanced the bill with L001 and set a July 2026 deadline in the text for districts to adopt a policy.

The measure now moves to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration. CDE and proponents said they will publish resources and report results from pilot work to help districts design policies that fit local needs.