County Boards of Education - Student Cellular Phone Use Policy - Established (No Distracted Learning Act)
HB192 requires every county board of education in Maryland to adopt a student cellular phone use policy that limits phone use during the school day. The bill distinguishes between elementary/middle school students and high school students, but in both cases it generally prohibits use of cellular phones during instructional time. For elementary and middle school students, the prohibition also covers lunch and, where applicable, passing periods. For high school students, the prohibition covers instructional time and passing periods, but not lunch.
The bill defines “instructional time” as any time during the school day except lunch, and “passing period” as the time between classes when students move through the school building or grounds. It also creates exceptions for students who need an electronic device because of an individualized education program, a Section 504 plan, or another documented health issue. Enforcement is tiered: a first violation results in a warning, a second violation allows confiscation of the phone, and later violations are handled through disciplinary action set by the county board. Confiscated phones generally must be retrieved by a parent or guardian, though the school may return the phone to the student at the end of the day if the parent or guardian says they cannot pick it up.
If enacted, the bill would add a new Section 7-136 to the Education Article and require local school systems to adopt policies consistent with the state mandate. It would not create a single statewide discipline code beyond the warning/confiscation framework, but it would set minimum requirements that county boards must follow when regulating student phone use. The act is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2025.
The available record does not include committee testimony, recorded votes, or amendments, so there is no documented formal debate in the provided materials. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears aimed at reducing classroom distraction and supporting focused learning, with built-in accommodations for students who rely on devices for disability-related or medical reasons. The main policy tension is likely between limiting distractions and preserving family access, student autonomy, and school-level flexibility in discipline.
Notable points of contention in the bill itself are the breadth of the ban for younger students, the inclusion of lunch and passing periods for elementary and middle school students, and the requirement that confiscated phones be handled through parents or guardians. Another likely issue is local control, since county boards must adopt policies but retain discretion over later-stage discipline after repeated violations. The bill’s exceptions for IEPs, Section 504 plans, and documented health needs are important safeguards and may reduce opposition from disability advocates and families concerned about necessary device access.
HB192 would add a new statewide mandate to the Education Article requiring county boards of education to adopt student cellular phone use policies. It would standardize minimum restrictions on phone use during instructional time and, for younger students, lunch and passing periods, while preserving local discretion over discipline after repeated violations. The bill also creates explicit exceptions for students with IEPs, Section 504 plans, or documented health issues, and it establishes a parent/guardian retrieval process for confiscated phones.
No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative support or opposition in the materials. From the bill’s structure, the measure appears generally pro-restriction and pro-classroom-management, with a clear focus on reducing distraction in schools. At the same time, the inclusion of disability and health exceptions suggests an effort to balance enforcement with student accommodations and practical family concerns.
The likely points of contention are whether the state should impose a uniform phone policy on all county boards, how strict the restrictions should be for elementary and middle school students, and whether confiscation and parent-only retrieval are too punitive or burdensome. Critics may argue the bill limits local flexibility and student access to phones for safety or family communication, while supporters are likely to emphasize reduced distraction, improved learning, and clearer school discipline. The carve-outs for IEPs, Section 504 plans, and health-related device use are designed to address concerns from special education and medical accommodation advocates.