Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Devices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Terry Williams introduces S.21 to ban student phones during school day and bar required social media use
Summary
Sen. Terry Williams told the Education Committee S.21 would require "bell-to-bell" phone-free policies in Vermont schools, bar schools from requiring or using social media to communicate directly with students, and include medical and IEP exceptions; legislative counsel explained statutory definitions, scope, and phased effective dates.
Senator Terry Williams (Rutland District) introduced S.21 to the Education Committee on Feb. 6, proposing statewide "bell-to-bell" policies that would prohibit student possession and use of cell phones and personal electronic devices from arrival to dismissal and bar schools from requiring or integrating social media for communication with students. "This bill has 2 main provisions. First, it directs all of our schools public and independent to adopt and implement a policy prohibiting the use of cell phones and personal electronic devices during the entirety of a school day," Williams said.
Williams framed the bill as responding to student mental-health concerns and classroom distraction, citing survey findings that many students use social media several times daily and that health authorities have recommended limits. He described the policy as easing the policing burden on teachers and called the approach "bell to bell" so the rule applies from the arrival bell to the dismissal bell. The bill includes two explicit exceptions: approved medical use (supported by documentation from a licensed physician or APRN) and uses required by an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or 504 plan.
Beth St. James of the Office of Legislative Counsel walked the committee through the bill text and definitions, noting the proposal creates a new subchapter in Title 16 and provides precise definitions for "cell phone," "electronic device," "social media," "school," and "student." She told the committee that the bill’s findings and a general effective-date provision would take effect on July 1 but that the device-policy and social-media prohibitions are written to take effect on Dec. 1, 2025. "The social media, prohibitions would not take effect until 12/01/2025," she said.
Members asked practical questions about costs and implementation. The sponsor said low-cost storage options exist and that districts need flexibility to choose methods (examples cited in committee discussion included device lockers or inexpensive pouches). Members and counsel discussed statutory wording choices — whether to use permissive language ("may"), a directive ("shall"), or other formulations — and the counsel recommended avoiding language such as "should" because it creates ambiguity about legal obligations.
The proposal also prohibits schools and supervisory unions from using social media to communicate directly with students or from requiring students to use social media for school activities, homework, sports teams, clubs, or other school-sponsored activities. Counsel clarified the bill text addresses communication with students; it does not, as written in the provision reviewed, prohibit communication between schools and parents via social media. No formal vote was taken; the item was introduced and the committee discussed taking testimony and policy details.
