State board urges local districts to limit student cell phone use during school day

The Alabama State Board of Education on Feb. 8 adopted a resolution encouraging local school boards to limit the use of cellular telephones and other electronic communication devices on school property during the school day.

The resolution, passed by a raised-hand vote during the board’s meeting in Montgomery, cites national studies about classroom disruption and refers to section 16-1-27 of the Alabama Code of 1975 as the statutory authority that allows local boards to regulate electronic devices on school property.

Board members presented the resolution as advisory rather than mandatory. Dr. Mackey, a staff member with the Alabama State Department of Education, told the board the resolution is intended to prompt local boards to “revisit those policies and possibly update them,” noting many policies date to the pre‑smartphone era. “The cell phone is simply the tool through which students are accessing social media,” Dr. Mackey said. He said the department found some district-level examples showing reduced disciplinary incidents after restrictions were adopted.

Board member Miss Bell asked Dr. Mackey to “share more about the resolution and the focus that the fact that it’s locally focused,” and he emphasized that the Legislature previously delegated decision authority on electronic-device rules to local boards. Dr. Mackey said Montgomery County instituted a ban earlier this year and that principals reported discipline problems decreased by about a third, a figure he described as one local district’s articulation of observed change.

The resolution “strongly encourages each local board of education to adopt a policy limiting the use of cellular telephones and other electronic communication devices while on school property that is consistent with section 16-1-27 of the Alabama Code of 1975,” and asks local boards to provide training and support so staff understand and implement any change.

Board members framing the measure stressed local control. A board member who spoke in favor noted the issue is part of a national discussion about screen time, social media algorithms and student well‑being, and said the board should urge districts to consider policy updates but not set a statewide rule.

What the resolution does and does not do: it is nonbinding guidance from the state board to local boards. It does not change state law or impose penalties; local boards retain authority to decide whether and how to restrict devices. The board did not set an effective date, fiscal estimate, or enforcement mechanism; the resolution calls only for policy review and training at the local level.

Clerical actions recorded at the meeting show the motion to adopt the resolution carried by a show of hands; the transcript does not record a roll-call tally or any recorded “no” votes.

Local officials and school systems that choose to act will determine the operational details — for example, whether restrictions apply only during instructional time, on buses, at after‑school activities, or across entire campuses. Dr. Mackey acknowledged parents’ concerns about after‑school contact and said those are matters for local boards to work out.

The board’s action brings attention to device policies statewide, but any change affecting students’ day‑to‑day access to phones will be decided at the district or school level.