House Education hears H.54 to require bell-to-bell phone-free schools and limit school-directed social media use

MONTPELIER, Vt. — Lawmakers in the House Education Committee on Wednesday heard a walkthrough of H.54, a bill that would require Vermont public and independent schools to adopt “bell-to-bell” policies prohibiting students’ use of cell phones and personal electronic devices from arrival until dismissal and would bar schools from asking, requiring or permitting students to use social media for school activities.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Martina Barsnow, told the committee the measure is intended to support students’ academic focus and mental health and to reduce distraction and harms associated with social media. "This bill is but 1 piece of a rather large puzzle that legislatures all over the country are trying to fit together to help keep our kids safe and healthy," Barsnow said.

Barsnow and Legislative Council staff walked the committee through the bill’s text and definitions. H.54 would add a new subchapter to Title 16, Chapter 9. Key provisions explained to the committee include: a definition of "cell phone," a broader definition of "electronic device," and a three-part definition of "social media" that requires a platform to (a) permit accounts or profiles, (b) enable user-generated content viewable by others, and (c) primarily serve as a medium for user interaction.

Under the proposed statute, each school’s governing body would be required to develop, adopt and implement a policy that either prohibits students from bringing personal electronic devices to school or requires devices be deposited in a designated secure area while on campus. The sponsor emphasized the policy may allow different storage methods chosen by districts rather than mandating a specific product or system.

The bill includes two explicit exceptions: (1) possession or use of a device when a licensed physician or advanced practice registered nurse documents it as medically necessary; and (2) possession or use when required by a student’s individualized education program (IEP) or 504 plan. Committee members asked how frequently those exceptions might be claimed and whether an expected increase in medical notes or IEP modifications had been observed in other states; Barsnow said she did not have data on changes to medical or IEP rates and suggested the committee could examine other states’ experiences.

H.54 also prohibits schools, supervisory unions and districts from using social media to communicate directly with students or requiring students to use social media for homework, athletics, clubs or other school-sponsored activities. The sponsor said the intent is not to bar schools from having a presence on social media but to prevent schools from effectively requiring students to access third-party social platforms as a condition of participation. "There are a number of suitable alternative communications methods," Barsnow said, pointing to school landlines, district-connected email addresses, Google Docs and team-specific closed apps.

Sponsors and staff cited examples from Vermont and other districts to illustrate implementation: Barsnow cited a Champlain Valley school that set up a phone-free study team and a Memorial South Supervisory Union that adopted a bell-to-bell policy with minimal cost, noting the union reported bullying/harassment claims in one August–December period fell from nine the prior year to two after implementation. She said roughly "8 to 10" Vermont schools or districts already had phone-free policies but did not provide a complete count.

Committee members raised several practical and legal questions: whether student-created social media accounts for student groups could be treated as a school-permitted activity, how to define the scope of "electronic device" to avoid capturing benign items, how independent (private) schools are covered (the bill includes independent and public schools), and what enforcement or state-level attestation mechanism might exist if districts do not adopt policies. Legislative Council staff noted the bill’s definitions are limited to the new subchapter and suggested language could be refined to avoid unintended coverage of non-target devices.

Kathleen James of Legislative Council conducted a line-by-line walk-through of the draft, identifying the newly added statute sections (numbered in the draft as sections 581–583) and the bill’s effective-date language. The draft sets the bill’s findings to take effect on July 1, 2025; the transcript records that the effective date for the requirement that schools adopt the policies was stated as December 1 but the year was not fully specified in the hearing record.

No vote or formal committee action occurred; the hearing was an introduction and question-and-answer walk-through. Sponsors said the committee will have opportunities for further debate and to receive testimony at future meetings.

The committee discussion highlighted three ongoing implementation topics for further work: (1) narrowing and clarifying device and platform definitions to avoid unintended coverage of benign devices or student-driven activities; (2) designing an enforcement or attestation mechanism so parents or students have a recourse if districts do not adopt policies; and (3) compiling model policies and implementation toolkits (the sponsor pointed to resources such as the Phone Free Schools Movement and model language from the Becca Schmidt Foundation).

The House Education Committee will take up additional testimony and any amendments at later meetings before any vote on H.54.