Committee adopts teacher-directed exception to bill limiting student cell phone use

The House Education Policy and Administration Committee on Thursday approved an amendment to Senate Bill 206, a measure that would require public schools to adopt policies limiting student use of cell phones and other personal communication devices during the school day. The committee adopted amendment 2249h, which creates a superintendent-approved exception for teacher-directed instruction, and then voted the bill "ought to pass as amended." Both votes were 9 yeas, 8 nays, 1 not voting.

Supporters told the committee they want statewide rules because teachers and administrators say local policies have been ineffective. "We have already had a bill passed through the House on consent and through the Senate on consent regarding cell phones," Representative Litchfield said, adding testimony and survey data that she said show extensive disruption and mental-health concerns. "Over 90 percent of educators feel students' mental health is a serious issue at their school," she said, and cited a figure that "83% support prohibiting cell phone personal device usage during the entire school day."

The amendment that passed narrowed the bill by explicitly permitting districts to authorize cell-phone use for "teacher-directed" or teacher-led instruction when the superintendent approves an exception. Proponents argued that language protects classroom lessons that legitimately rely on students' devices, such as photography or field-data collection, while keeping broad limits on personal use.

Opponents said the bill is overly prescriptive and undermines local control. "It's one thing to say that school districts shall develop a policy about cell phone use," Representative Selig said. "But the level to which this bill prescribes what must be included... takes away local control." Several members also raised equity concerns: if a district relies on students' personal devices for instruction, some students might be left out when families cannot afford smartphones or faster laptops.

Committee members debated language choices during the amendment process: whether to say "teacher-led," "teacher-directed," or simply "instructional use." Representative Hall urged adding a clear exception for instructional use to ensure small schools and charters can conduct lessons that require devices. Representative Murray and others warned that the phrase "personal communication device" could unintentionally sweep in laptops used for classroom work in districts that lack a 1:1 device program.

A brief Republican caucus occurred before the final amendment vote. After the meeting, Representative Cornell said she supported the bell-to-bell prohibition but could not back the bill unless an instructional exception was included.

Amendment and final votes followed a roll call. The amendment (2249h) was adopted, 9 yays to 8 nays, with one member not voting. The committee then voted the bill "ought to pass as amended," 9 yays to 8 nays, 1 not voting.

What happens next: the bill, as amended, moves forward in the legislative process; the amendment leaves implementation details to local superintendents and district policies. Supporters framed the legislation as a response to classroom disruption and student mental-health concerns; opponents emphasized local control and unequal access to devices as open implementation issues.