HB0755, the “Phones Away for the School Day Act,” would require every county board of education in Maryland to adopt and implement, by the 2026–2027 school year, a policy prohibiting student use of personal electronic devices during school day hours. The bill defines personal electronic devices broadly to include portable devices used to receive, send, or record voice, image, or text content, but excludes devices provided by a school for instructional purposes and medical devices needed for a student’s health care. It also defines the school day as the full period from the start to the end of the school day and requires devices to be stored in a manner determined by the county board so they are not carried on the student’s person.
The bill includes exceptions for device use required by a student’s individualized education program (IEP) or Section 504 plan, and it requires each school to designate one or more telephones that students may use to contact a parent, guardian, or other responsible adult during the school day if needed. County board policies would also have to include disciplinary measures for violations, but those measures could not include suspension or expulsion solely for violating the device policy. The act would take effect July 1, 2026.
If enacted, HB0755 would amend the Education Article by adding a new section governing county board policies on student personal electronic device use. It would create a statewide mandate for local school systems to adopt phone-restriction policies, while leaving implementation details such as storage methods and discipline to county boards. The bill would affect students, parents, school administrators, and local education agencies, and it would likely require schools to adjust classroom management, communication procedures, and enforcement practices.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. That withdrawal suggests the proposal did not advance to a floor vote or final committee action. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at reducing classroom distraction and limiting noninstructional phone use, while preserving accommodations for disability-related and health-related needs.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be the breadth of the ban, the requirement that devices be stored throughout the entire school day, and how strictly schools should enforce the policy. Supporters would likely emphasize reduced distraction, improved learning conditions, and clearer school rules, while critics may raise concerns about student safety, family communication, local control, and the practicality of enforcement. The explicit prohibition on suspension or expulsion for a violation suggests an effort to avoid overly punitive discipline, which may have been intended to address concerns about disproportionate consequences.
HB0755 would add a new section to the Education Article requiring county boards of education to adopt student personal electronic device restrictions, thereby creating a statewide framework for local school phone policies. It would not ban devices provided for instruction or medically necessary devices, and it would preserve use required by an IEP or 504 plan. The bill would also require schools to provide an alternative phone for student-to-adult communication and would limit discipline by prohibiting suspension or expulsion solely for a policy violation.
There is little direct evidence of debate because no committee transcript or vote record is available, and the bill was withdrawn by the sponsor in the House. The bill’s structure suggests a generally school-discipline and classroom-management oriented approach, with built-in exceptions for disability and health needs, but the withdrawal indicates it did not reach a point of formal legislative consensus. Overall, the available record suggests the proposal was not advanced to enactment and may have faced unresolved concerns or lacked sufficient support to proceed.
Likely areas of contention include whether a statewide mandate is appropriate versus leaving phone rules to local school systems, how broad the prohibition should be, and whether requiring storage of devices all day is too restrictive. Parents and students may object to reduced access for safety or family communication, while educators and supporters may favor the policy as a way to reduce distraction and improve classroom focus. Another likely issue is enforcement: the bill requires disciplinary measures but bars suspension or expulsion solely for a violation, which may prompt questions about whether schools would have enough tools to ensure compliance.