Assembly committee approves AB 2, requires districts to ban wireless device use during instruction

The Assembly Committee on Science, Technology, and AI voted to approve Assembly Bill 2, which requires every public school district to adopt a policy prohibiting students from using wireless communication devices during instructional time by July 1, 2026.

Committee counsel read the bill and an amendment into the record during the committee meeting. Committee counsel told the panel that under current law school boards may adopt rules prohibiting students from possessing electronic communication devices on school property and that AB 2 would require, by 07/01/2026, district policies prohibiting student use of wireless communication devices during instructional time, include a specified definition of “wireless communication device,” and list certain exceptions. The amendment the committee adopted removes school-district-issued devices from the list of devices that must be prohibited, removes language that would have permitted additional locally determined exceptions, requires districts to provide each student a copy of the district device policy annually, and requires districts to submit their policy to the Office of School Safety and the Department of Justice by 10/01/2026 and report updates annually. The amendment also clarifies that a district may adopt a policy more restrictive than the statutory requirement and repeals a provision in current law that specified school boards may prohibit a student from possessing an electronic communication device.

Representative Madison, a member of the committee, said she appreciated the author and the willingness to accept some recommendations from the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) but argued the amendment “does the exact opposite of DPI’s first recommendation,” because it removes the ability for local school boards to add exceptions. Madison said the change “takes away by and large any local control,” arguing that local school boards are elected to make those decisions. She warned the amendment could create “ambiguity and confusion for school boards, teachers, students, [and] families” and called parts of the bill an “unfunded mandate.” Representative Madison said she could have supported a version that included all three of DPI’s recommendations but could not support the amendment as written.

Another member asked committee counsel whether the bill’s language could be interpreted to allow a district to adopt a more restrictive policy and thereby omit some of the exceptions the statute requires. Committee counsel responded that a district could make that argument and that there is “a little bit of ambiguity” about how successful such an argument would be.

The committee held a roll-call vote on the amendment and then on the bill as amended. The amendment passed on the roll call with the members recorded in the transcript voting aye: Representative Gustafson, Representative VanderMeer, Representative Espirios, Representative Tussler; recorded no: Representative Madison and Representative DeSantis. On the bill as amended the roll-call votes recorded in the transcript show aye votes from Representative Gustafson, Representative VanderMeer, Representative Spierz, and Representative Tussling; recorded no votes from Representative Babson and Representative DeSantis. The committee chair announced the meeting adjourned after the vote and noted other upcoming issues including AI.

Why it matters: The bill would create a statewide baseline that requires every public school district to ban the use of wireless devices during instructional time and imposes reporting requirements to state offices. Committee members who opposed the amendment and bill said the changes reduce local discretion, create potential ambiguity about required exceptions, and impose reporting duties the state did not fund. Supporters argued a uniform baseline policy is needed to address student distraction and safety during instruction.

What remains unresolved: The transcript records committee debate and committee-level approval; it does not record floor action, the governor’s position, or final enactment. The transcript also reflects an unresolved legal ambiguity about whether a district could adopt a more restrictive policy that would effectively eliminate some of the exceptions the bill mandates.