Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Technology Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers hear competing views on requiring school districts to adopt cell‑phone‑free policies
Summary
Representative Melissa Litchfield sponsored HB 781 to require school districts to adopt cell‑phone policies and included a $250,000 grant pilot; district groups supported the goals but asked for local flexibility and technical guidance.
Representative Melissa Litchfield opened the hearing on HB 781 by urging the committee to address classroom distraction and student wellbeing. She cited research findings — including Pew Research and other summaries — about the effect of phone interruptions on focus and claimed support for classroom bans during class time: “68% of US adults say that they support a ban on middle and high school students using cell phones during class,” she said.
Litchfield described a $250,000 appropriation in her draft to underwrite pilot programs and pouches that lock phones during the school day. She framed the bill as a measured, local‑option approach: districts could adopt policies and seek grants for equipment; she said she did not intend an unfunded state mandate.
School governance organizations urged local flexibility. Becky Wilson of the New Hampshire School Boards Association said the association “supports the intention” of reducing distraction but asked the committee to avoid prescriptive mandates and to leave detail setting to local school boards and district administrators. Jerry Frew of the New Hampshire School Administrators Association said his members were not taking a position on any single cell phone bill but welcomed a subcommittee to reconcile competing proposals and advised caution about implementation timing and operational impacts.
Committee members and witnesses discussed technical practicalities. Representatives and administrators asked how exceptions for IEPs, medical needs, and emergency contact would work, and whether lockable pouches or shoe‑rack solutions would interfere with emergency communication for students or first responders. Wilson and Frew advised that districts differ widely in staffing and facilities and asked the committee to avoid overly prescriptive statutory language.
Public testimony and national examples were cited by the sponsor: Litchfield referenced Florida and California laws on smartphone restrictions, as well as school‑level initiatives such as lockable pouches. Several representatives asked for outcome data from other states, and the sponsor offered to supply comparative evidence in written form to the subcommittee. No formal action or vote was recorded at the hearing.
