Wisconsin lawmakers debated a Republican-backed bill that would require school boards to adopt policies restricting the use of wireless communication devices during instructional time at a public hearing Tuesday.
The bill’s authors, Rep. Joel Kitchens, R-Sturgeon Bay, and Sen. Rachael Cabral-Guevara, R-Appleton, spoke in support of the bill, expressing concerns about the impact of technology during class times and students’ mental health. They emphasized that the bill focuses on enforcement.
“This is not something we're doing to the school districts,” Kitchens said. “This is something we’re doing with them.”
Many Wisconsin school districts already have policies limiting phone use, with Kitchens noting that at a recent Cooperative Educational Service Agency 7 meeting, all attending superintendents indicated they had phone policies in place. Data from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction’s (DPI) listening sessions and a digital learning survey found that 90% of school districts have policies in place to restrict phone usage.
“They all have policies, but if you look at the enforcement, it's not there. What we are doing here is providing cover for those districts,” Kitchens said. “So when the parents come to the superintendent and say, ‘I think my kid needs their cell phone,’ they can say, ‘I'm sorry, state law says we can't have it in the classroom,’ so we're providing backup for that.”
Cabral-Guevara referenced a study by Common Sense Media, which found that 97% of students use their phones during school hours. She and Kitchens argued that excessive screen time contributes to declining mental health, noting that “suicide among young girls has nearly tripled” since the rise of smartphones and social media in 2010.
Sara Knueve, a DPI policy initiative advisor, cited research connecting phone use to cyberbullying as well as feelings of social isolation and anxiety.
“Schools have implemented cell phone bans during instructional time — they’ve reported declines in bullying and improvement of student engagement and behavior,” Knueve said. “This suggests district implemented restrictions can provide an inclusive and supportive atmosphere that prioritizes student wellbeing.”
Cabral-Guevara said teachers need more support, and these reinforcements would “take off the stress from the teachers to say to these students, ‘Listen, I need to take this. We need to reinforce this.’”
Under the proposal, school districts would have flexibility to craft their own policies while receiving state backing for enforcement.
Kitchens assured that enforcement would not come with additional costs. If a teacher encounters an issue with phone use, it will be up to the district to determine the next steps, according to Kitchens.
“Districts are free to restrict phone use beyond what's required in the bill, and it is hoped that many of them will elect to ban them during lunch time and for the entire school day,” Kitchens said. “There were some concerns about that, so we drafted an amendment to make it perfectly clear.”
Exceptions and concerns
The bill grants exceptions for students who need devices for medical conditions, such as diabetes management and in emergency situations. Still, some parents expressed concerns about students’ ability to communicate during school emergencies, particularly active shooter situations.
Law enforcement officials unanimously agreed that the last thing they want is for students to be on their personal devices, saying that students using phones during such incidents could clog emergency lines, Kitchens said.
Kitchens said resistance to the bill comes primarily from parents, who worry about being unable to reach their children during the school day. Kitchens explained that students will be able to contact their parents between classes and that schools would craft their own policies for handling emergencies.
He also said “reports find that while there may be some resistance initially, students support the policies. They do not mind being away from their phones as long as nobody else has theirs.”
DPI officials recommend that the bill clearly define how and when schools can prohibit device use while also preserving designated times when students may use them. Josh Robinson, DPI assistant state superintendent, emphasized the importance of local control.
“The DPI believes that local districts understand their students' needs best and should have the flexibility to create policies with input from community partners,” Robinson said.
Reports from DPI’s listening sessions found that “many districts favored local-specific district policy related to supplements instead of a blanket statewide,” Knueve said.
However, Knueve noted that “most attending the listening session called for a requirement to have a clear policy to restrict and limit cellphones during instructional time. Those policies should be developed appropriately, concisely and predictably communicated to families.”
Current state law allows school boards to prohibit student use of electronic communication devices while on school grounds. DPI recommends amending or repealing this statute to align with the final version of the bill.
Additionally, the current draft of the bill does not differentiate between district-issued wireless communication devices and non-district issued wireless communication devices. DPI recommends that the final bill clarify this distinction.
“Technology is not going away, but we must teach young people to use it responsibly,” Kitchens said. “Part of that is putting it aside when there's work to do.”
