Student use of cell phones during the school day could be banned at Massachusetts public schools in the near future.
Members of Lexington’s School Committee are skeptical about the potential mandate. Concerns include cost, student privacy, not preparing students for the digital world, and communication during an emergency, among other issues.
“Potential financial costs as result of successful passage of the bill is a top concern for LPS,” Kathleen Lenihan, a member of the school committee, wrote to state leaders who attended the Committee’s June 16 meeting to discuss the legislation. “Lexington is a well-resourced community, but we are not immune from the economic headwinds that are leading to operating overrides all across the state.”
The bill in question, MA S.2581 (An Act to Promote Student Learning and Mental Health), asks public school districts to restrict student use of personal electronic devices during the school day.
The House expanded on that bill with amendment H.5366, which, in addition to banning the use of personal electronic devices in schools, aims to limit youth exposure to social media.
The bills currently sit with a joint committee of conference, which will likely find a compromise between the two bills. If and when that happens, individual school districts would get to decide how phone use is restricted.
Those in favor of the legislation argue the younger generation’s compulsive use of smart phones and social media affects their ability to interact with people face-to-face and contributes to mental health issues, among other problems.
“The lack of socialization that goes on, the lack of eye-to-eye, face-to-face contact among young people in this age group has caused problems societally, not only with anxiety and depression,” Massachusetts state Rep. Ken Gordon told the School Committee he had heard during the meeting. “We’ve seen noticeable differences in the way people get along going into their early adulthood.”
Gordon and his colleagues argue phones distract students from paying attention in school and banning phone use could lead to higher test scores.
Members of Lexington’s School Committee raised a number of questions about the new legislation during its June 16 meeting when Gordon; Massachusetts state Rep. Michelle Ciccolo; and Cindy Friedman, a Massachusetts state senator, came to discuss the pending law.
School Committee members’ main concern with mandating a phone ban is the cost.
“I know no one is crying for well-resourced communities like Lexington, but the cost [of some programs] is one staff position,” Lenihan said.
School districts would have flexibility in choosing how to implement and enforce phone limits if a compromised bill passes. Lexington Public Schools leaders have not decided how the district would move forward.
Friedman noted there is room in the state budget to cover the cost of phone ban programs for school districts. Gov. Maura Healey set aside $1,000,000 last month and Attorney General Andrea Campbell launched a $500,000 “Phone Free Schools Support Grant” in May.
Gordon noted one program districts may be able to adopt, called Safe Zones, costs about $8 per student. Safe Zones is an app through which districts can create a geographic boundary around a school. When students enter the boundary, certain apps on their personal devices are blocked.
For Lexington Public Schools, which hosted 6,524 students during the 2025 to 2026 school year, Safe Zones would cost the district about $52,000.
Lenihan remained skeptical that Lexington would qualify for grants, however, arguing Lexington is the “last on the list for that kind of thing.”
Superintendent Julie Hackett did not like the idea of banning technology in a digital world.
“There’s a pull to take away cell phones, to ‘ban this, ban that,’ and at the same time, we have to prepare these kids for a new world,” she said.
School Committee chair, Larry Freeman, noted many students who receive accommodations in school for health issues and learning disabilities, among other reasons, need their cellphones. Asked what will happen to them, the state leaders said the district can choose for those students to have their phones. Lenihan and Sarah Carter, a member of the School Committee, noted that could out students for being different.
“Congratulations, lets’s announce to the world that that kid has type one diabetes…maybe they don’t want to announce to the world that they have type one diabetes,” Lenihan said. Most newer versions of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors, which many diabetics use, connect to smartphones via bluetooth.
Carter brought up how smart phones are only the tip of the iceberg in terms of technology these days, arguing this legislation would “fix the 2019 problem…not the 2026 problem.”
“My worry is that by focusing so much on cell phones, there are going to be a lot of other issues,” she said. Meta AI Glasses, which have built-in cameras, are becoming more popular and a future generation of AirPods could have cameras.
As things are at LHS, students connect to the internet on their school-issued Chromebooks or personal laptops they bring from home.
“Websites like Instagram, X, YouTube, and other social media and video games are blocked on school Chromebooks. This is not the case for home laptops though,” William Tang, a recent graduate of Lexington High School and LexObserver contributor, said.
School Committee member, Eileen Jay, noted a cell phone ban could throw parents into a tailspin in the event of an emergency.
“What happens if there is a school-wide crisis, the school has to be evacuated, and parents are going nuts because they can’t connect with their child,” she asked.
There are answers to some what-ifs, though.
Watertown Public Schools piloted a program that could be in compliance with this legislation if a compromise passes. They made students download the Doorman app, which uses Virtual Private Network technology to temporarily disable certain apps and functions on students’ cell phones through a restricted, encrypted server. The app prevents students from texting or accessing the internet.
When Watertown students enter class, they tap their phones on a “DoorTag.” Once they do so, their attendance is logged and the use of certain apps (this is up to the school district) are restricted. Watertown still allows phone calls. Teachers can monitor when students tap in and any attempts at circumventing restrictions. The app is synchronized with each school’s class schedule, so phones automatically restore full function after the last bell rings.
Watertown piloted the program for free, but if it moves forward with the Doorman program, it would cost the district about $5 per student.
There are more expensive programs, like Yondr Pouch, which Brockton has used. If a teacher catches a student on their phone for a third time, that student must put their phone in a specialized lockable pouch. Brockton’s current plan won’t be compliant if the new law passes because it allows students to have their phones, without restrictions, as long as they don’t use them.
Brockton bought 4,000 pouches, at $40 a piece, for its high school, which has an enrollment of 3,586 students. That cost the district about $137,000.
In addition to worrying about cost, Hackett wishes the phone ban didn’t have to be a mandate. She argued children don’t respond well to mandates and it would be better to create an internal culture of moving away from compulsive phone use instead.
“It would be so cool if kids said, ‘you know what, we don’t want this in our schools and this is why,’ and they ran a campaign, and they went group to group and said, ‘here’s what we’re worried about, here’s what we see could happen in the future if we don’t have this device,’” she said. “I think that’s part of the solution.”
Friedman, Gordon, and Ciccolo admitted there will be a learning curve for both teachers and students if the law passes.
“There is no way every single thing is still going to work the same, districts are going to have to figure out how to get around the things that are really important to them,” Friedman said. “I think the legislature has felt that the problems and the things that are going on in schools are so egregious [that this has to be figured out].”
If both chambers approve a compromised bill by the end of the current session on July 31, the mandate could go into effect for the 2026 to 2027 school year, which starts in less than two months.
But that’s “very unlikely,” Ciccolo said, because there are several other steps that must be taken before implementation. Among other things, the Department of Early and Secondary Education would have to draft and adopt regulations for implementation of the new law, Gordon noted. Healey would also have to sign it into law.
“We’re talking that would be beyond the school year, beginning September, right then and there,” Gordon said, echoing Ciccolo’s prediction.