Communication Devices in Schools
HB25-1135 requires Colorado’s charter schools, district charter schools, the Colorado School for the Deaf and the Blind, and local boards of education to adopt and implement a policy governing student possession and use of communication devices during the school day. The bill defines “communication device” broadly to include cell phones, smartwatches, and other devices capable of calling, texting, or internet access, while excluding school-issued or school-required laptops and tablets. It also directs the Department of Education to publish accessible resources and research to help schools develop these policies.
The required policies must, at a minimum, describe any limits or exceptions for possession and use during the school day, and schools may tailor rules by grade level, emergency response needs, instructional use, and online learning settings. The bill expressly protects device access when needed for disability accommodations under the ADA, an IEP, a Section 504 plan, or to monitor a medical condition. Schools must post their policies on their websites, and schools that already had a compliant policy in place by August 31, 2025, are exempt from the new requirement.
The bill adds a new section to Colorado law, C.R.S. 22-1-149, creating a statewide policy mandate for public schools and charter schools regarding student communication devices. It does not impose one uniform ban; instead, it requires each covered school entity to adopt its own policy and consider a list of factors, including emergencies, age-appropriate restrictions, staff training, public input, costs, media literacy, and social-emotional learning. The measure also creates explicit exceptions for disability accommodations and medical needs, and it preserves local flexibility for schools that already adopted policies before the statutory deadline.
The overall sentiment appears broadly supportive, with strong bipartisan backing in both chambers and relatively few dissenting votes. The bill passed House and Senate committee votes unanimously or nearly unanimously, and it cleared third reading in both chambers with comfortable margins. That voting pattern suggests general agreement with the goal of reducing distractions and addressing student well-being, while still allowing local districts to design their own rules.
The main points of contention appear to be the degree of local control versus statewide mandate, and how restrictive school policies should be for different age groups and learning settings. The bill anticipates these concerns by allowing schools to consider elementary, middle, and high school differences, online programs, emergency use, and instructional exceptions. Another likely area of concern is implementation burden, including staff training, enforcement, and potential costs, which the bill specifically instructs schools to consider. Disability advocates and families of students with medical needs are also protected by explicit exceptions, reducing conflict over access for accommodations.