HB 525, the Maryland Phone-Free Schools Act, requires each county board of education to adopt and implement a policy limiting or prohibiting student use of electronic communication devices during the academic school day. The policy must be in place by the 2027-2028 school year and generally bars students from using or carrying devices such as cell phones, tablets, laptops, smart watches, wireless earbuds, and similar communication-enabled devices during the school day, including instructional time, lunch, recess, and passing periods. It also restricts student access to social media platforms during the school day and requires schools to set rules for storing devices so they are not on the student’s person.
The bill creates several exceptions to the device ban. Students may use devices for disability-related accommodations, documented health needs, emergency events when authorized, instructional use directed by staff, language translation tools when school-issued devices are unavailable or insufficient, and caregiving responsibilities approved by a principal. County boards must involve parents, students, educators, and community stakeholders in developing and revising the policy, and they must publish the policy in multiple languages and make it available through student handbooks, websites, and school events.
The bill also requires each county board to adopt tiered disciplinary measures for violations, but it prohibits suspension or expulsion solely for violating the device policy. In addition, county boards must report implementation data to the Maryland State Department of Education, including policy details, stakeholder engagement, disciplinary referrals, restorative practices, school climate impacts, and exemption data. The Department must compile and publish statewide reports, maintain copies of local policies, and adopt regulations to carry out the law.
The bill’s impact is to add a new statewide framework in the Education Article governing student electronic device use in public schools, while leaving local boards to design the specific policy details within state-set limits. It affects county boards of education, school administrators, students, parents, and the State Department of Education by imposing new policy, enforcement, reporting, and transparency obligations. The law does not apply to the Maryland School for the Blind or the Maryland School for the Deaf.
Overall, the bill appears to have been enacted without recorded committee transcript debate or vote data in the provided materials, so the available record suggests no documented public controversy in this dataset. The structure of the bill indicates a policy goal of reducing distractions and limiting social media use during school hours while preserving accommodations and educational flexibility. Likely points of tension, based on the text itself, are enforcement, student discipline, local implementation differences, and balancing phone restrictions against accessibility, health, translation, and caregiving needs.
HB 525 adds Section 7-137 to the Education Article, creating a new statewide mandate for county boards of education to adopt student electronic communication device policies. It requires local school systems to prohibit or limit student use of devices during the academic school day, define storage requirements, restrict social media use, and establish tiered discipline, while also setting exceptions for disability accommodations, health needs, emergencies, instructional use, translation tools, and caregiving responsibilities. The bill also requires recurring reporting to MSDE and authorizes the Department to issue regulations, increasing state oversight of local school device policies.
The bill’s text reflects a generally supportive policy approach toward phone-free schools, emphasizing reduced distraction, classroom focus, and school climate while preserving exceptions for equity and safety. Because no committee transcripts or vote records were provided, there is no documented recorded debate in the supplied materials. Based on the enacted language, the measure appears to have had enough support to pass and be signed into law, suggesting a favorable legislative reception overall.
The main points of contention implied by the bill are how strictly schools should restrict devices, how to enforce the policy fairly, and how to avoid disproportionate discipline. The bill addresses these concerns by requiring stakeholder engagement, multilingual publication, tiered discipline, and reporting on disciplinary referrals disaggregated by student subgroup. Another likely area of concern is the breadth of exceptions—especially for disabilities, health issues, translation needs, and caregiving responsibilities—which may require local discretion and could lead to uneven implementation across counties.