Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school to, no later than July 1, 2026, develop and adopt, and update every 5 years, a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that local educational agency. Under existing law, a pupil shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under specified circumstances, including, among others, when the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupils individualized education program.

This bill, commencing July 1, 2027, 2028, would require the above-described policy to continue to apply only to pupils in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive. The bill would require the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school that serves pupils in transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, or grades 1 to 8, inclusive, to, no later than July 1, 2027, 2028, develop and adopt, and update at least every 5 years, adopt a policy that prohibits the use of smartphones by those pupils while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that local educational agency, as provided. The bill bill, commencing July 1, 2028, would prohibit instruction provided to pupils in transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, and any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, from requiring the use of a smartphone by a pupil. The bill bill, commencing January 1, 2027, would require (1) a pupil in any grade to also be allowed to possess or use a smartphone when the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupils plan developed pursuant to the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 1973 and (2) a policy adopted or updated pursuant to these provisions be included in a pupil handbook, if one is provided. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

This bill would require the State Department of Education, on or before January 1, 2028, 2029, to submit to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, and post on their internet website, a report that contains (1) a description of the pupil smartphone policies of at least 30 chosen selected local educational agencies that have provided consent to participate and that are representative of the demographic and geographic diversity of the state, including a copy of each policy, as provided, (2) the results of a survey of those local educational agencies, which the bill would require the department to conduct, and (3) recommended best practices for future local educational agency pupil smartphone use policies. The bill would authorize the department to collaborate with specified organizations with relevant expertise in preparing the report. The bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2032. 2033.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school to, no later than July 1, 2026, develop and adopt, and update every 5 years, a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that local educational agency. Under existing law, a pupil shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under specified circumstances, including, among others, when the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupils individualized education program.

This bill, commencing July 1, 2027, would require the above-described policy to continue to apply only to pupils in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive. The bill would instead require the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school that serves pupils in transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, or grades 1 to 8, inclusive, to, no later than July 1, 2027, develop and adopt, and update at least every 5 years, a policy that prohibits the use of smartphones by those pupils while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that local educational agency. The bill would require the adopted policy to be made available to the State Department of Education upon request. The bill would state that the goal of the policy is to create a bell-to-bell ban of smartphone use to support pupil learning and well-being. agency, as provided. The bill would prohibit instruction provided to pupils in transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, and any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, from requiring the use of a smartphone by a pupil. The bill would require a pupil in any grade to also be allowed to possess or use a smartphone when the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupils plan developed pursuant to the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would constitute a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school to, no later than July 1, 2026, develop and adopt, and update every 5 years, a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that local educational agency.

Existing law requires the governing board of a school district, a county board of education, and the governing body of a charter school to, no later than July 1, 2026, develop and adopt, and update every 5 years, a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that local educational agency.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation that would impose a bell-to-bell restriction on pupils use of smartphones during the schoolday.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 1644 (Muratsuchi) - Pupils: use of smartphones: prohibition: report

Bill Summary:

This bill requires the governing board or body of a local educational agency (LEA) to adopt a policy that prohibits the use of smartphones for students in transitional kindergarten (TK) through grade 8, inclusive.

Fiscal Impact:

• The California Department of Education (CDE) estimates General Fund costs of $141,000 and .75 of a position to comply with the bill’s requirements. There could be additional one-time General Fund costs ranging from $25,000 to $50,000 to procure survey technology and conduct data management activities on the information received from LEAs regarding their cell phone policies.
• This bill could result in one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for LEAs to adopt or update their smartphone policies and issue guidance to parents, including enforcement mechanisms that restrict access to smartphones. There may be additional ongoing costs for LEAs depending on the enforcement mechanisms that are adopted.

Background:

Existing law requires, no later than July 1, 2026, an LEA to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that school district, county office of education (COE), or charter school. The law requires this policy to be updated every 5 years and for pupils to not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under any of the following circumstances:

1. Unless explicitly addressed in a comprehensive school safety plan, in the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger;
2. When a teacher or administrator of the school district, COE, or charter school grants permission to a pupil to possess or use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator;
3. When a licensed physician and surgeon determines that the possession or use of a smartphone is necessary for the health or well-being of the pupil; and
4. When the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s individualized education program.

Existing law authorizes the governing board of each school district, or its designee, to regulate the possession or use of any electronic signaling device that operates through the transmission or receipt of radio waves, including, but not limited to, paging and signaling equipment, by pupils of the school district while the pupils are on campus, while attending school-sponsored activities, or while under the supervision and control of school district employees.

Existing law requires that no pupil may be prohibited from possessing or using an electronic signaling device that is determined by a licensed physician and surgeon to be essential for the health of the pupil and use of which is limited to purposes related to the health of the pupil.

Proposed Law:

This bill recasts the existing requirement for the governing board of a school district, county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school to adopt and update its policy to prohibit or limit the use of smartphones, to require that the adopted policy apply only to pupils in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, commencing July 1, 2028. The bill also amends the existing requirement for the governing board of a school district, county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school to update its smartphone use policy every five years to instead require that it be updated at least every five years.

This bill encourages governing boards and bodies, in the creating and updating of their smartphone use policies, to adopt a bell-to-bell ban on smartphones for all pupils, including the time from the start of the schoolday until final dismissal, including class, time between classes, lunch, and recess.

This bill requires the governing board of a school district, county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school that serves pupils in transitional kindergarten (TK), kindergarten, or grades 1 to 8 inclusive, no later than July 1, 2028, to develop and adopt a policy that prohibits the use of smartphones by pupils in TK, kindergarten, and grades 1 to 8 inclusive, while those pupils are at a schoolsite or under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that school district, COE, or charter school.

This bill specifies that the policy shall apply to time from the start of the schoolday until final dismissal, including class, time between class, lunch, and recess, and requires that the goal of the policy be to create a bell-to-bell ban of smartphone use for those pupils to support pupil learning and well-being. The bill authorizes the developed and adopted policies to include enforcement mechanisms that restrict access to smartphones.

This bill requires that the policy include at least one method for parents and guardians to contact their pupils while smartphones are prohibited during the school day. It authorizes such methods to include, but not be limited to, contacting the pupil through employees of the LEA.

This bill prohibits instruction provided to pupils in TK, kindergarten, and any of grades 1 to 8 inclusive from requiring the use of a smartphone by a pupil, commencing July 1, 2028. The bill also clarifies that the existing circumstances under which a pupil shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone include when the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s education plan developed pursuant to Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (United States Code (USC) Title 29 § 794).

This bill requires that the smartphone use policy adopted or updated pursuant to this bill be included in the pupil handbook, if one is provided.

This bill requires the CDE to examine the adopted pupil smartphone policies of at least 30 selected LEAs that have provided consent to participate. It requires the CDE to ensure that selected LEAs are representative of the demographic and geographic diversity of the state, including but not limited to the following:

1. LEAs with schools in urban, suburban, and rural settings.
2. LEAs that are large- and small-sized school districts.
3. LEAs that are school districts or COEs with traditional public schools.
4. LEAs that are charter schools.
5. LEAs with schools that serve pupils in elementary, middle, and high schools.

This bill requires the CDE to survey each selected LEA and obtain the following information related to the LEA’s pupil smartphone policy: the way that stakeholder input occurred when the LEAs developed or updated the policy; the enforcement methods that the policy includes and the effectiveness of those methods; and initial challenges or successes that have arisen since the policy was enacted. The bill also requires the CDE to consult with relevant stakeholder groups of the selected LEAs, as specified.

This bill requires CDE, on or before January 1, 2029, to submit to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, and post on their website, a report with all of the following information: a description of the pupil smartphone use policies of selected LEAs, including a copy of each LEA’s policy language where possible; the results of the surveys; and CDE’s recommended best practices for future LEA pupil smartphone use policies.

Related Legislation:

SB 1128 (Stern, 2026) prohibits LEAs from requiring a pupil in kindergarten to take home a school issued electronic device. The bill also requires the CDE to develop and post on its internet website, model policies for the age-appropriate use of school-issued electronic devices in schools, as specified. SB 1128 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 3216 (Hoover), Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024, requires, by July 1, 2026, an LEA governing board or body to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use of smartphones by its students while students are at school or under the supervision of the school, with certain exceptions.

Staff Comments:

Existing law requires LEAs to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee. This bill recasts that requirement to provide that the adopted policy shall apply only to pupils in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, commencing July 1, 2028. Further, this bill requires LEAs to adopt a policy that prohibits the use of smartphones for students in transitional kindergarten (TK) through grade 8, inclusive. According to the author, “AB 1644 is a bipartisan bill to enact a school bell-to-bell smartphone ban for California schools. Research clearly shows that excessive smartphone use leads to negative academic and mental health outcomes, including reduced focus, increased depression and anxiety, and lower overall social and emotional well-being. Schools that have adopted bell-to-bell smartphone bans report improved academic outcomes, especially in disadvantaged communities, as well as a reduction in cyberbullying and other disciplinary problems.”

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Senator Sasha Renée Pérez, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: July 1, 2026

Subject:

SUMMARY

This bill requires the governing board or body of a local educational agency (LEA) to adopt a policy to prohibit pupil smartphone use for pupils in transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, and grades 1 to 8, inclusive, and requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to conduct a statewide study and report on LEA smartphone policies.

BACKGROUND

Existing law:

1. Requires, no later than July 1, 2026, an LEA to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that school district, county office of education (COE), or charter school. Requires this policy to be updated every 5 years. Requires a pupil to not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under any of the following circumstances:
2. Unless explicitly addressed in a comprehensive school safety plan, in the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger;
3. When a teacher or administrator of the school district, COE, or charter school grants permission to a pupil to possess or use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator;
4. When a licensed physician and surgeon determines that the possession or use of a smartphone is necessary for the health or well-being of the pupil; and
5. When the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s individualized education program (IEP). (Education Code (EC) § 48901.7)
6. Authorizes the governing board of each school district, or its designee, to regulate the possession or use of any electronic signaling device that operates through the transmission or receipt of radio waves, including, but not limited to, paging and signaling equipment, by pupils of the school district while the pupils are on campus, while attending school-sponsored activities, or while under the supervision and control of school district employees. (EC § 48901.5)
7. Requires that no pupil may be prohibited from possessing or using an electronic signaling device that is determined by a licensed physician and surgeon to be essential for the health of the pupil and use of which is limited to purposes related to the health of the pupil. (EC § 48901.5)

ANALYSIS

This bill:

Smartphone use policy:

1. Recasts the existing requirement for the governing board of a school district, county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school to adopt and update its policy to prohibit or limit the use of smartphones, to require that the adopted policy apply only to pupils in any of grades 9 to 12, inclusive, commencing July 1, 2028.
2. Amends the existing requirement for the governing board of a school district, county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school to update its smartphone use policy every five years to instead require that it be updated at least every five years.
3. Strongly encourages governing boards and bodies, in the creating and updating of their smartphone use policies, to adopt a bell-to-bell ban on smartphones for all pupils, including the time from the start of the schoolday until final dismissal, including class, time between classes, lunch, and recess.
4. Requires governing board of a school district, county board of education, or the governing body of a charter school that serves pupils in transitional kindergarten (TK), kindergarten, or grades 1 to 8 inclusive, no later than July 1, 2028, to develop and adopt a policy that prohibits the use of smartphones by pupils in TK, kindergarten, and grades 1 to 8 inclusive, while those pupils are at a schoolsite or under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that school district, COE, or charter school.
   1. Specifies that the policy shall apply to time from the start of the schoolday until final dismissal, including class, time between class, lunch, and recess.
   2. Requires that the goal of the policy be to create a bell-to-bell ban of smartphone use for those pupils to support pupil learning and well-being.
   3. Authorizes the developed and adopted policies to include enforcement mechanisms that restrict access to smartphones.
5. Requires that the policy adopted or updated pursuant to #4 above includes at least one method for parents and guardians to contact their pupils while smartphones are prohibited during the school day. Authorizes such methods to include, but not be limited to, contacting the pupil through employees of the LEA.
6. Prohibits instruction provided to pupils in TK, kindergarten, and any of grades 1 to 8 inclusive from requiring the use of a smartphone by a pupil, commencing July 1, 2028.
7. Clarifies that the existing circumstances under which a pupil shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone include when the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s education plan developed pursuant to Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (United States Code (USC) Title 29 § 794).
8. Requires that the smartphone use policy adopted or updated pursuant to this bill be included in the pupil handbook, if one is provided.

Report on smartphone use policies:

1. Requires the CDE to examine the adopted pupil smartphone policies of at least 30 selected LEAs that have provided consent to participate. Requires the CDE to ensure that selected LEAs are representative of the demographic and geographic diversity of the state, including but not limited to all of the following:
   1. LEAs with schools in urban, suburban, and rural settings.
   2. LEAs that are large- and small-sized school districts.
   3. LEAs that are school districts or COEs with traditional public schools.
   4. LEAs that are charter schools.
   5. LEAs with schools that serve pupils in elementary, middle, and high schools.
2. Requires the CDE to survey each selected LEA and obtain the following information related to the LEA’s pupil smartphone policy:
   1. The way that stakeholder input occurred when the LEAs developed or updated the policy.
   2. The enforcement methods that the policy includes and the effectiveness of those methods.
   3. Initial challenges or successes that have arisen since the policy was enacted.
3. Requires the CDE to consult with relevant stakeholder groups of the selected LEAs, including, but not limited to, the following:
   1. Currently credentialed public school teachers and classified staff.
   2. School district, COE, or schoolsite administrators.
   3. Pupils enrolled in the LEA.
   4. Parents or guardians of students enrolled in the LEA.
4. Requires CDE, on or before January 1, 2029, to submit to the appropriate policy and fiscal committees of the Legislature, and post on their website, a report with all of the following information:
   1. A description of the pupil smartphone use policies of selected LEAs, including a copy of each LEA’s policy language where possible.
   2. The results of the surveys conducted pursuant to #10 above.
   3. The CDE’s recommended best practices for future LEA pupil smartphone use policies.
5. Authorizes the CDE, in preparing its report, to collaborate with organizations that have relevant expertise, including but not limited to, survey design, data collection and analysis, and educational or technology policies.
6. Defines “local educational agency” as a school district, COE, or charter school.
7. Sunsets the provisions of this bill pertaining to the CDE examination and report on January 1, 2033.

STAFF COMMENTS

1. Need for the bill. According to the author, “AB 1644 is a bipartisan bill to enact a school bell-to-bell smartphone ban for California schools. Research clearly shows that excessive smartphone use leads to negative academic and mental health outcomes, including reduced focus, increased depression and anxiety, and lower overall social and emotional well-being. Schools that have adopted bell-to-bell smartphone bans report improved academic outcomes, especially in disadvantaged communities, as well as a reduction in cyberbullying and other disciplinary problems.”
2. Bell-to-bell smartphone use bans. This bill requires the governing board of an LEA that serves students in TK, kindergarten, and grades 1 to 8, inclusive, to adopt a policy that prohibits the use of smartphones by students in those grade levels while they are at a schoolsite or under the supervision or control of an LEA employee. The bill also specifies that this prohibition must apply to the start of the schoolday until final dismissal, including class, time between classes, lunch, and recess— aligning with the bill’s stated goal of a “bell-to-bell ban.”

In recent years, 35 states have enacted legislation or policies to limit or outright ban the use of smartphones or cellphones during school hours, with some variations based on what grade spans or applicable time periods. For instance:

Florida: In May 2023, the Florida State Legislature passed HB 379—the nation’s first statewide student cell phone or wireless communications device ban. The law prohibits students from using a wireless communications device during instructional time, except when expressly directed by a teacher solely for educational purposes. It also required district school boards to adopt rules governing the use of a wireless communications device by a student while the student is on school property or in attendance at a school function.

Alaska: In March 2025, the Alaska State Legislature passed HB 57, requiring school districts to establish a policy that regulates the possession and use of non-school-issued wireless telecommunications devices during regular school hours, including lunch and passing periods.

Hawaii: In February 2026, the Hawaii State Department of Education adopted a policy prohibiting elementary and middle school students from using their cellphones during the school day. For high school students, the prohibition policy applies to cellphone use during instructional time but allows schools to exercise discretion regarding the use of cell phones outside of instructional time, including before and after school hours, designated breaks, recesses, lunch, and free periods.

In February 2025, National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the United States Department of Education reported that 77% US public schools surveyed as part of the School Pulse Panel (SPP) had policies prohibiting students from using cell phones during any class, with a higher percentage of elementary schools (86%) implementing such a policy compared to high/secondary schools (55%).

1. California’s student smartphone use policies. In 2019, California authorized the governing boards of LEAs to adopt policies to limit or prohibit student use of smartphones while a student is on a schoolsite or is under the supervision of an LEA employee (AB 272 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 42, Statutes of 2019)). In 2024, that authorization became a requirement, thus requiring LEAs, to develop and adopt a smartphone use policy by July 1, 2026, and update that policy every five years thereafter (AB 3216 (Hoover; Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024)). In accordance with the statute, LEAs solicited significant stakeholder engagement in the years that followed to ensure that the adopted policies were responsive to the unique needs and desires of students, parents, and educators in each community. The adopted smartphone use policies ranged from limiting student smartphone use during instructional time, depending on grade level, to policies that ostensibly served as bell-to-bell bans.

This bill would maintain the applicability of these adopted policies for students in grades 9 through 12, inclusive, but would require the governing boards and bodies of LEAs to adopt a separate policy that explicitly prohibits smartphone use for students in TK, kindergarten, and grades 1 to 8, inclusive.

The Committee may wish to consider whether establishing an outright “bell-to-bell ban” for students in kindergarten and grades 1 through 8 after an extensive stakeholder engagement process that allowed schools to set a policy that worked best for their community may lead the public to perceive an LEA’s or the state’s view of community input as a perfunctory exercise rather than a substantive action.

1. Arguments in support. In a letter of support submitted to this Committee, Common Sense Media notes the following:

“A growing body of research shows that unrestricted smartphone access undermines academic engagement, increases anxiety, and fuels cyberbullying and social comparison. New national data reinforces these findings. Recent educator surveys on school phone policies, researchers have found that as bell-to-bell bans expand, educators are seeing meaningful improvements in student behavior and social interaction. Bell-to-bell policies are rapidly becoming the national norm, rising from 60% to 74% of schools in just one year—one of the fastest shifts in school policy nationwide […]

“California’s educators and families deserve a clear, statewide framework that supports learning and well-being. AB 1644 delivers that clarity while aligning the state with national best practices and emerging research.”

1. Arguments in opposition. In a letter of opposition submitted to this Committee, the California School Boards Association notes the following:

“Although we appreciate and understand the intent behind this effort, this bill effectively eliminates local control and the ability of local school district and county boards of education to determine the best policy that meets the needs of their students, their families and the greater school community. These decisions are best made at the local level by people who understand, reside, are invested in, and accountable to the communities they serve. This legislation is counter to the precepts of local control by taking the decision-making process out of the hands of duly elected local governing boards.”

1. Prior and related legislation.

SB 1128 (Stern, 2026) prohibits LEAs from requiring a pupil in kindergarten to take home a school issued electronic device. The bill also requires the CDE to develop and post on its internet website, model policies for the age-appropriate use of school-issued electronic devices in schools, as specified. SB 1128 is pending a hearing in the Assembly Education Committee.

AB 3216 (Hoover, Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024) requires the governing body of a school district, COE, or a charter school to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones, except in specified circumstances.

AB 272 (Muratsuchi, Chapter 42, Statutes of 2019) provides that a student shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under specified circumstances, and authorizes governing bodies to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use of smartphones by students while at school.

SB 1253 (Figueroa, Chapter 253, Statutes of 2002) allows school district governing boards to regulate the possession and use of electronic signaling devices (cell phones, pagers, etc.) by pupils while on campus or attending school functions.

SUPPORT

Bright Light Strategies
CFT – A Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO
Common Sense Media
Distraction-Free Schools California
End Chronic Disease
TechNet

OPPOSITION

California School Boards Association

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1644

Author:(Muratsuchi, et al.)

As Amended Ver:April 28, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires local education agencies (LEAs) to enact a bell-to-bell ban on student smartphone use if they serve students in transitional kindergarten (tk) to eighth grade, and encourages LEAs that serve students in ninth through twelfth grades to do the same. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to conduct a statewide study on LEA smartphone policies.

Major Provisions

1. Requires, by July 1, 2027, the governing body of an LEA that serves students in tk-8^th grade to adopt a policy that prohibits smartphone by students while they are at a schoolsite or under the supervision of an LEA employee. Specifies that this includes the time from the start of the schoolday until final dismissal, including class, time between class, lunch, and recess, thereby creating a bell-to-bell ban of smartphone use.
2. Encourages LEAs that serve students in 9-12^th grade to adopt a bell-to-bell ban on student smartphone use.
3. Authorizes bell-to-bell bans to include enforcement mechanisms, and be updated as frequently as needed.
4. Requires a student to not be prohibited from using a smartphone under any of the following circumstances:
   1. In the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger;
   2. When a teacher or administrator grants permission to a student to use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator;
   3. When a licensed physician or surgeon determines that smartphone use is necessary for the student's health or well-being; and
   4. When smartphone use is required in a pupil's individualized education program (IEP).
5. Requires bell-to-bell bans to include at least one method for parents and guardians to contact students while smartphones are prohibited, such as contact through LEA employees.
6. Clarifies that these provisions do not authorize monitoring, collecting, or otherwise accessing any information related to a pupil's online activities.
7. Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to conduct a report on existing smartphone policies. Require the report to include a description of stakeholder engagement that went into development, enforcement methods of the policy, and initial challenges or successes that arose from policy enactment. Require the CDE to issue recommendations by Jan 1, 2028, of best practices for smartphone policies based on their report.

COMMENTS

Current law requires LEAs to develop phone policies with significant community engagement by July 1, 2026. In 2024, the Legislature required all LEAs to develop a policy that would limit or prohibit cell phone use in schools (AB 3216 (Hoover), Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024). When crafting these policies LEAs are required to solicit significant stakeholder input to ensure the final policy meets the unique needs of students, parents, and educators in their community. For LEAs with students in tk-8^th grades, this bill would replace the locally-developed policy with a bell-to-bell ban by July 1, 2027; LEAs with students 9^th-12^th grade may maintain their locally-developed policy, but are encouraged to adopt a bell-to-bell ban.

Reports indicate that many LEAs invested significant time and resources, and solicited extensive stakeholder engagement, when crafting policies in response to AB 3216. For example, Poway Unified School District distributed a survey to students, families, and staff, and received over 12,000 responses, and held focus groups with the Parent-Superintendent Advisory Council and the Student-Superintendent Advisory Council. Similarly, San Diego Unified distributed a survey that received 2,236 responses, engaged 60 students in focus groups, and received input from the Parent Teacher Association and staff.

Examples from California schools demonstrate the variety of current phone policies. In a 2026 amicus curiae brief for TIKTOK INC vs Rob Bonta, Attorney General for California (case number 5:25-cv-09789-EJD), the Association of California School Administrators interviewed school district administrators across the state on school smartphone polices. Their results demonstrate that districts are designing and implementing a wide variety phone policies. Example policies include bell-to-bell bans, limits during instructional time, and different requirements for younger versus older students.

As these policies are largely new, research on the breadth and impact of school smartphone policies is lacking. Careful consideration of which policies have been tried, and to what effect, would be instrumental in developing best practices and evidence-based recommendations.

Support for smartphone restrictions appears to be growing. The Brookings Institute reviewed multiple surveys on school smartphone use and found that interest in restrictions has grown in the last 3 years (Saavedra, 2026). Perhaps surprisingly, they found 76% of teens favored some restrictions on phone use during school, compared to 93% of adults. A 2025 Rand Survey found that 60% of students support some restrictions on cell phone use during classes. However, only 10% of surveyed students supported a full bell-to-bell ban on smartphone use in school.

Research demonstrates the impact of smartphone use on children. The U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory in 2023 about the impact of social media, most commonly accessed by smartphones, on youth mental health. The Surgeon General called for urgent action to better understand the full impact of social media, maximize its benefits, minimize its harms, and create safer online environments to protect children.

Some researchers have suggested a correlation between increased technology and smartphone use and the rising rates of teenage anxiety and depression. The widely cited book iGen, authored by San Diego State psychology professor Dr. Jean Twenge, presents evidence of an increase in depression and suicide among American teenagers that may be caused by increased mobile device screen time and social media use.

Moreover, an increasing body of research focuses on the impact of technology on student outcomes in grades K-12. A 2015 Discussion Paper from the London School of Economics and Political Science, Center for Economic Performance, explored the effects of banning cell phone use in English city schools in 2013. The paper found that student test scores improved following the ban, particularly among the most disadvantaged and underachieving pupils. The data suggests that low-achieving students are more likely to be distracted by mobile phones, while high achievers are less affected by the mobile phone policy.

The risks and benefits of smartphone use vary by grade level. Some research suggests that young children may be particularly affected by smartphone use. Reporting by Common Sense Media shows that 25% of children have a personal cell phone by age 8, and 91% of a personal cell phone by age 14. Research in the journal Pediatrics demonstrated that children who own a smartphone earlier in life are at a higher risk of depression, obesity, and sleep deficits (Barzilay et al., 2025). One study in adolescents aged 12-18 found an association between prolonged smartphone use and experiencing loneliness and depressive mood, which was stronger in middle school students than in older teenagers (Kim et al., 2026). The research coalition Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) found that increased use of social media, which is often accessed by smartphone, is significantly associated with a thinner cerebral cortex – the part of the brain responsible for attention, memory, and emotional control – in children aged 10-13 (Nagata et al., 2026). The national campaign Wait until 8^th advocates for parents and children to put off getting a smartphone until at least 8^th grade.

Research also suggests that teenagers are negatively impacted by smartphone use, especially as it relates to social media (Barthorpe et al., 2020; Twenge, 2017). However, high school students are also more likely to rely on a smartphone for social connection with their peers, or communication with parents or guardians as they become more independent.

To account for the differing needs of younger and older students, some districts, such San Diego Unified, have adopted policies that prohibit smartphones in younger grades and limit smartphones in high school. In developing its smartphone policy, Poway Unified surveyed over 7,000 families on their opinion on smartphone use. They found that at the elementary level, only 29% of parents and guardians agreed that students should have phone access during the school day. However, at the high school level, 52% agreed. In summarizing their data, the authors note, "Family support for student cell phone access increases as students progress through grade levels… This pattern suggests that family perspectives on cell phone use are closely tied to developmental expectations and increasing student independence."

According to the Author

AB 1644 builds upon existing law by requiring schools to adopt clear, consistent ‘bell-to-bell’ policies that limit student use of smart phones throughout the school day, with appropriate exceptions for safety, health, and educational purposes.

Arguments in Support

According to the organization TechNet, “Excessive smartphone use is strongly linked to negative academic and mental health outcomes, including reduced focus, increased anxiety and depression, and lower overall well-being. The U.S. Surgeon General has warned of significant risks associated with youth social media use, and even the presence of a phone can impair attention. Early evidence shows that clear, consistently enforced restrictions improve academic performance, reduce behavioral issues, and support student well-being, underscoring the need for stronger, uniform policies."

"AB 1644 establishes clear boundaries on smartphone use during the school day to support student focus, strengthen school climate, and improve academic outcomes. By limiting device use, it reduces distractions that undermine learning, mental health, and meaningful student engagement.”

Arguments in Opposition

According to the Association of California School Administrators, “LEAs have just recently completed, or are finalizing, their mandatory policy adoption process for student smartphone use pursuant to AB 3216 (Hoover; Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024). It included extensive stakeholder engagement, as required, and the adoption of board policies with a July 1, 2026 deadline. LEAs shared they have worked intentionally to refine their policies based on pilot program outcomes, feedback from parents, students and staff, academic studies on student smartphone use, as well as cost analyses to purchase and maintain tools such as pouches, lockers or other access-restricting devices during part or all of the school day. Despite these deliberate and resource-intensive processes, AB 1644 creates a ‘do-over’ just one year later, creating unnecessary frustration and confusion for those stakeholders and administrators in LEAs that did not establish “bell to bell” smartphone restrictions for all grade levels.”

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, "One-time General Fund costs of an unknown amount but likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the CDE to conduct the required examination of at least 30 LEA smartphone policies, report to the Legislature, and provide technical assistance.

One-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to LEA governing boards and bodies to adopt updated policies imposing a bell-to-bell smartphone ban for pupils in grades kindergarten through eight by July 1, 2027.

Current law does not require LEAs to update existing smartphone use policies until July 1, 2031. Additionally, the bill allows an LEA's policy to include enforcement mechanisms to restrict access to smartphones, which may incur increased costs depending on the mechanism employed by an LEA."

VOTES

ASM EDUCATION: 8-0-1

YES: Patel, Hoover, Bonta, Castillo, Garcia, Lowenthal, Pellerin, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarez

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Hoover, Aguiar-Curry, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Fong, Mark González, Krell, Pacheco, Pellerin, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

UPDATED

VERSION: April 28, 2026

CONSULTANT: Sarah Cate Hawthorne / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0002668

Date of Hearing: May 6, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1644

Author:(Muratsuchi) – As Amended Ver:April 28, 2026

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill strongly encourages a local educational agency’s (LEA) governing board or body to adopt an entire school day bell-to-bell smartphone ban for high school pupils. The bill requires an LEA serving pupils in grades kindergarten through eight, to adopt no later than July 1, 2027, a smartphone use policy prohibiting the use of smartphones by pupils for the entire school day and prohibits instruction for pupils in grades kindergarten through eight from requiring use of a smartphone by a pupil.

The bill also requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to examine at least 30 adopted LEA smartphone policies, conduct surveys of each LEA whose policy is examined, and report to the Legislature and post on its internet website, on or before January 1, 2028, regarding its findings and recommended best practices.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. One-time General Fund costs of an unknown amount but likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for the CDE to conduct the required examination of at least 30 LEA smartphone policies, report to the Legislature, and provide technical assistance.
2. One-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to LEA governing boards and bodies to adopt updated policies imposing a bell-to-bell smartphone ban for pupils in grades kindergarten through eight by July 1, 2027.

Current law does not require LEAs to update existing smartphone use policies until July 1, 2031. Additionally, the bill allows an LEA’s policy to include enforcement mechanisms to restrict access to smartphones, which may incur increased costs depending on the mechanism employed by an LEA.

If the Commission on State Mandates determines the bill’s requirements to be a reimbursable state mandate, the state would need to reimburse these costs to schools or provide funding through the K-12 Mandate Block Grant.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office recently warned of General Fund structural deficits of around $35 billion per year in the 2027-28 fiscal year and ongoing.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

AB 1644 builds upon existing law by requiring schools to adopt clear, consistent ‘bell-to-bell’ policies that limit student use of smart phones throughout the school day, with appropriate exceptions for safety, health, and educational purposes.

1. Background. AB 3216 (Hoover), Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024, requires, by July 1, 2026, an LEA governing board or body to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use of smartphones by its students while students are at school or under the supervision of the school, with certain exceptions.

This bill mandates a bell-to-bell ban for smartphone use policies in an LEA serving pupils in grades kindergarten through eight, no later than July 1, 2027, and requires the CDE to examine updated policies and report the Legislature and post on its internet website its findings and recommendations by January 1, 2028.

Analysis Prepared by: Aaron Heredia / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Darshana R. Patel, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1644 (

Author:Muratsuchi) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2026

SUBJECT: Pupils: use of smartphones: prohibition

SUMMARY: Requires the governing board of a local education agency (LEA) to adopt a policy to prohibit the use of smartphones by its students, thereby creating a bell-to-bell ban on smartphone use. Specifically, this bill:

1. Repeals, on July 1, 2027, existing law that:
   1. Requires LEAs to create a policy that limits or prohibits smartphone use on schoolsites by July 1, 2026, except under specified conditions, and update the policy every 5 years thereafter;
   2. Requires LEAs to include stakeholder input to ensure the policy is responsive to the unique needs and desires of students, parents, and educators in each community; and
   3. Authorizes the policy to include enforcement mechanisms.
2. Requires, no later than July 1, 2027, the governing body of an LEA to adopt a policy that prohibits students from using smartphones while the students are at a schoolsite or under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of the LEA.
3. Requires development of the policy to involve significant stakeholder participation in order to ensure that the policy is responsive to the unique needs and desires of students, parents, and educators in each community. Authorizes the policy to include enforcement mechanisms that restrict access to smartphones.
4. Requires the policy to be updated every five years.
5. Requires a pupil to not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under any of the following circumstances:
   1. In the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger;
   2. When a teacher or administrator of the school district, county office of education (COE), or charter school grants permission to a pupil to possess or use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator;
   3. When a licensed physician and surgeon determines that the possession or use of a smartphone is necessary for the health or well-being of the pupil; and
   4. When the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s individualized education program (IEP).
6. Clarifies that the governing board of an LEA may be subject to monitoring and auditing by the California Department of Education (CDE) to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. Requires an LEA to make the policy available to the department upon request.
7. Clarifies that these provisions do not authorize monitoring, collecting, or otherwise accessing any information related to a pupil’s online activities.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires, no later than July 1, 2026, an LEA to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that school district, COE, or charter school. Requires this policy to be updated every 5 years. Requires a pupil to not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under any of the following circumstances:
2. In the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger;
3. When a teacher or administrator of the school district, COE, or charter school grants permission to a pupil to possess or use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator;
4. When a licensed physician and surgeon determines that the possession or use of a smartphone is necessary for the health or well-being of the pupil; and
5. When the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s IEP. (Education Code (EC) 48901.7)
6. Authorizes the governing board of each school district, or its designee, to regulate the possession or use of any electronic signaling device that operates through the transmission or receipt of radio waves, including, but not limited to, paging and signaling equipment, by pupils of the school district while the pupils are on campus, while attending school-sponsored activities, or while under the supervision and control of school district employees. (EC 48901.5)
7. Requires that no pupil may be prohibited from possessing or using an electronic signaling device that is determined by a licensed physician and surgeon to be essential for the health of the pupil and use of which is limited to purposes related to the health of the pupil. (EC 48901.5)

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has been keyed as a possible state-mandated local program by the Office of Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. According to the author, “AB 1644 builds upon existing law by requiring schools to adopt clear, consistent ‘bell-to-bell’ policies that limit student use of smart phones throughout the school day, with appropriate exceptions for safety, health, and educational purposes.”

Current law requires LEAs to develop phone policies with significant community engagement by July 1, 2026. In 2024, the Legislature required all LEAs to develop a policy that would limit or prohibit cell phone use in schools (AB 3216 (Hoover), Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024). When crafting these policies LEAs are required to solicit significant stakeholder input to ensure the final policy meets the unique needs of students, parents, and educators in their community. This bill would replace these locally-developed policies with a statewide requirement for all LEAs to prohibit smartphone use during school by July 1, 2027.

Reports indicate that many LEAs invested significant time and resources, and solicited extensive stakeholder engagement, when crafting policies. For example, Poway Unified School District distributed a survey to students, families, and staff when developing their phone policy, and held focus groups with the Parent-Superintendent Advisory Council and the Student-Superintendent Advisory Council. A report released in April, 2026 revealed the survey received over 12,000 responses.

Similarly, a press release issued on July 8, 2025 by San Diego Unified lists the following forms of community engagement that went into their phone policy:

• A survey administered during the final week of school gathered feedback from 2,236 respondents, generating 1,647 qualitative data points;
• 60 students participated in focus groups and policy development sessions through the Student Advisory Board;
• Extensive collaboration with the Parent Teacher Association; and
• Staff input on policy framework development.

The final policy adopted by San Diego Unified included a bell-to-bell ban for K-8^th grade students; for high school students, cell phone use is banned during instructional time but allowed during lunch and passing periods.

Examples from California schools demonstrate the variety of current phone policies. In a 2026 amicus curiae brief for TIKTOK INC vs Rob Bonta, Attorney General for California (case number 5:25-cv-09789-EJD), the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) interviewed various school district administrators across the state. They surveyed, among other items, school polices surrounding cell phone use and the school environment. A sampling of these policies is described below, without endorsement, to demonstrate the variety of ways districts are designing and implementing phone policies:

• Large Suburban District located in the Inland Empire: Their policy prohibits cellphone use for middle school students at all times, and limits use for high school students during non-instructional periods.

District administrators expressed concerns about having the ability or tools to limit phones in school, despite the problems phones create on campus. An administrator shared that “the problem is social media” because it creates a distraction in the learning environment, “even when phones are not in the classroom.”

Several schools in the districts reported positive effects of having a cellphone policy. Prior to implementing a cellphone use policy, administrators reported having “over 100 expulsions” throughout the year. After implementing the cellphone use policy, districts saw a decrease in disciplinary matters. Several students shared that they did not realize how much of a distraction phones had become in their daily lives. Without their phones, the administrator observed that students could enjoy group projects and build friendships with each other.

While the district expected parents to be upset about the restrictions, they did not receive complaints or resistance.

• Large Urban District located in the San Francisco Bay Area: This district shared that its school board would be presented with options to implement a formal district-wide student smartphone ban in March 2026.

The district ran a pilot program at one of its middle schools that required students to keep their phones in their bags the entire day “from bell to bell”. The district conducted a parent survey to explain the reason behind the pilot program. None of the district administrators received complaints from parents about the restrictions.

Since implementing the pilot, principals reported a “significant decrease” in disciplinary referrals and incidents involving cyberbullying and social media activity during unstructured time. Additionally, students now “noticeably engage with each other” during non-instructional time.

• Small Rural District in Southern California: Their policy limits cellphone use for students during the day. The district shared that the cellphone device itself was not an issue, but rather what the phone enabled, including access to social media.

While parents were mostly supportive of limited phone use during instructional time, some parents still wanted their children to have their phones for emergencies.

• Large Suburban District in Southern California: Their policy restricts cell phones during instructional periods but allows students to access their phones in case of emergencies. In addition to phones, the district required smart watches to always be in airplane mode. Their policy was informed by responses to a community engagement survey.
• Small Suburban District in Southern California: Their policy reduces cellphone use during instructional periods.
• Small Urban District in the San Francisco Bay Area: This district implemented a phone policy for the first time during the 2025 – 2026 school year. While implementation began smoothly, issues arose involving students with health issues, specifically students who needed access to their phones for medical reasons or IEP support.

Nearly 100 days into the change, staff observed improved student interactions and a decline in physical fights. Staff also noted the disappearance of harmful TikTok challenge incidents that posed safety risks. Some staff expressed the view that schools should treat smartphone usage like smoking and advocate for a “zero-tolerance” approach.

• Medium Urban District in the San Francisco Bay Area: Their initial policy restricted phone use to instructional time. The district intends to change the policy to restrict phones from “bell-to-bell.” Without the full restrictions, children experienced difficulty interacting with others “outside of their devices.”

Students did not seem to be aware of how much they used their phones and the seriousness of the impact. An administrator shared that the “vast majority” of issues reported to her involved phone-related incidents, primarily with social media postings carrying into in-person conflicts. During lunch time, students appeared isolated because they were on their phones. The district managed incidents involving viral trends, including the trend that encouraged students to vandalize school property. For example,

students posted videos online of themselves tearing paper towel dispensers

off the bathroom walls and shattering mirrors.

• Large Rural District on the Central Coast: Their policy stipulated “no phone during instruction.” Administrators expressed particular concern about the impact of social media on students in special education, including those with physical and emotional disabilities. These students may be more vulnerable to distraction and less equipped to exercise judgment when exposed to violent, sexual, or otherwise inappropriate content.

As these policies are largely new, research on the breadth and impact of school cell phone and smart device policies is lacking. Careful consideration of which policies have been tried, and to what effect, would be instrumental in developing best practices and evidence-based recommendations. Staff recommends the bill be amended to require the CDE to study the variety of smartphone school policies California and their impacts on student outcomes and the school environment.

A noticeable trend in existing polices is that multiple school districts changed their policies after initial implementation. To ensure LEAs remain able to respond to make changes as they see fit, staff recommends the bill be amended to allow LEAs to update their smartphone policies more frequently than every five years.

The role of stakeholder input is unclear. In keeping with current law, this bill requires LEAs to solicit significant stakeholder input when crafting cell phone policies, and to consider the unique needs of students, parents, and educators in their community. However, considering that there is only one outcome of the proposed policy – a prohibition on cell phone use during school hours – it is unclear what role the stakeholder input would play.

Numerous states enacted bell-to-bell phone bans in 2025. Most states have policies that seek to limit phone use in school to some extent, and states without full bans typically allow schools to set their own policies, which may include bans. A national survey of 1,100 parents and 400 teenagers by the Brookings Institute found that, as of October 2025, 98% of teens attend school with some phone restrictions and 55% attend a school with bell-to-bell phone bans (Saavedra, 2026).

In 2025, at least 10 states implemented versions of a bell-to-bell phone ban in schools:

Sources: Civic IQ; Ballotpedia. SY: school year

Support for cell phone restrictions appears to be growing. The Brookings Institute recently reviewed multiple surveys on cell phone use in school (Saavedra, 2026). Perhaps surprisingly, they found 76% of teens expressed a preference for some form of restrictions on phone use during the school day, compared to 93% of adults. Over the last 2-3 years, interest in cell phone restrictions has increased.

A 2025 Rand Survey found that 60% of students support some restrictions on cell phone use during classes. However, only 10% of surveyed students supported a full bell-to-bell ban on smartphone use in school.

Proposed ballot initiative would require limiting smartphone use in schools. In November 2025, a statewide initiative titled “The California Kids AI Safety Act” was proposed. The Act would, among other provisions, prohibit students from using internet-enabled devices such as smartphones “during instructional time or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of [the LEA].” The initiative has received media attention but has not yet reached the required number of signatures to be included on the ballot.

Enforcement of smartphone policies remains a challenge. A key issue in school smartphone policies is enforcement. The public-market firm Civic IQ identified three common ways schools enforce phone policies, including pouches or lockers that students secure phones in when entering or leaving school; phone caddies in individual classrooms; or policy only (e.g., “off-and-away”)

Investment in phone-storage solutions, such as pouches and lockers, can be very expensive for districts. However, relying on teachers to police phones in classrooms creates a higher burden for educators and takes away from instructional time.

Regardless of policy and enforcement methods, students will likely find ways to circumvent the rules. For example, students who are required to place their phones in pouches sometimes bring in “dummy phones” that are broken or outdated, and place these in the pouches while keeping their real device on their person. Research provided by the Brookings Institute shows that 25-30% of teenagers use phones during core academic classes, despite school restrictions (Saavedra, 2026). However, the same study suggests that schools with harsher restrictions, such as bell-to-bell bans, may see fewer policy violations.

Research demonstrates the impact of smartphone use on children. The U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory in 2023 about the impact of social media use on the mental health of young people. The Surgeon General called for urgent action from policymakers, technology companies, researchers, families, and young people to better understand the full impact of social media, maximize its benefits, minimize its harms, and create safer online environments to protect children.

A 2019 Pew Research study found that most U.S. teens consider anxiety and depression to be significant issues among their peers, regardless of whether they experience these conditions (Horowitz and Graf, 2019). Concern about mental health is widespread across gender, racial, and socio-economic lines.

Furthermore, a 2020 article in the Journal of Affective Disorders indicated that more time spent on social media was linked to an increased risk of self-harm and depression, as well as lower self-esteem among 13–15-year-old girls (Barthorpe et al., 2020). Similar findings were observed for both weekday and weekend use.

Some researchers have suggested a correlation between increased technology and smartphone use and the rising rates of teenage anxiety and depression. The widely cited book iGen, authored by San Diego State psychology professor Dr. Jean Twenge, presents evidence of an increase in depression and suicide among American teenagers that may be caused by increased mobile device screen time and social media use.

Moreover, an increasing body of research focuses on the impact of technology on student outcomes in grades K-12. A 2015 Discussion Paper from the London School of Economics and Political Science, Center for Economic Performance, explored the effects of banning cell phone use in English city schools in 2013. The paper found that student test scores improved following the ban, particularly among the most disadvantaged and underachieving pupils. The data suggests that low-achieving students are more likely to be distracted by mobile phones, while high achievers are less affected by the mobile phone policy.

The risks and benefits of smartphone use vary by grade level. Some research suggests that young children may be particularly affected by smartphone use. Reporting by Common Sense Media shows that 25% of children have a personal cell phone by age 8, and 91% of a personal cell phone by age 14. Research in the journal Pediatrics demonstrated that children who own a smartphone earlier in life are at a higher risk of depression, obesity, and sleep deficits (Barzilay et al., 2025). One study in adolescents aged 12-18 found an association between prolonged smartphone use and experiencing loneliness and depressive mood, which was stronger in middle school students than in older teenagers (Kim et al., 2026). The research coalition Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) found that increased use of social media, which is often accessed by smartphone, is significantly associated with a thinner cerebral cortex – the part of the brain responsible for attention, memory, and emotional control – in children aged 10-13 (Nagata et al., 2026). The national campaign Wait until 8^th advocates for parents and children to put off getting a smartphone until at least 8^th grade.

Research also suggests that teenagers are negatively impacted by smartphone use, especially as it relates to social media (Barthorpe et al., 2020; Twenge, 2017). However, high school students are also more likely to rely on a smartphone for social connection with their peers, or communication with parents or guardians as they become more independent.

In developing its smartphone policy, Poway Unified School District (PUSD) surveyed over 7,000 families on their opinion on smartphone use. They found that at the elementary level, only 29% of parents and guardians agreed that students should have phone access during the school day. However, at the high school level, 52% agreed. The authors summarize their data:

Family support for student cell phone access increases as students progress through grade levels. Family responses show a clear upward trend in agreement [with school-day cell phone use] from elementary to high school. At the elementary level, most families express disagreement (56.9%), while agreement increases at the middle level and becomes more evenly distributed. By high school, agreement (52.4%) surpasses disagreement (35.1%), indicating that families are more supportive of student access as students mature. This pattern suggests that family perspectives on cell phone use are closely tied to developmental expectations and increasing student independence.

To account for the differing needs of younger and older students in their communities, some California schools have adopted policies that prohibit smartphone use in younger grades and limit smartphone use in high school (see example polices above). To protect the most vulnerable students, while still allowing LEAs to accommodate the needs of older students if desired,

Data re-graphed from Student Cell Phone Use in Schools: Stakeholder

Feedback and Considerations for

Policy Development. PUSD, 2026

staff recommends the bill be amended to require a bell-to-bell ban on smartphone use for schools serving children in kindergarten through 8^th grade, and recommend a bell-to-bell ban for schools serving children in 9^th through 12^th grade.

Arguments in support. According to the organization TechNet, “Smartphone use among students is nearly universal, with 95% of teens having access and many reporting constant online activity. This has become increasingly disruptive in schools, as device use during class and throughout the day reduces attention, learning, and peer interaction. While California authorized restrictions through AB 272 and now requires schools to adopt policies by July 1, 2026, under AB 3216, enforcement remains inconsistent. Other states have moved toward stricter, schoolwide limits, including bell-to-bell restrictions.

Excessive smartphone use is strongly linked to negative academic and mental health outcomes, including reduced focus, increased anxiety and depression, and lower overall well-being. The U.S. Surgeon General has warned of significant risks associated with youth social media use, and even the presence of a phone can impair attention. Early evidence shows that clear, consistently enforced restrictions improve academic performance, reduce behavioral issues, and support student well-being, underscoring the need for stronger, uniform policies.

AB 1644 establishes clear boundaries on smartphone use during the school day to support student focus, strengthen school climate, and improve academic outcomes. By limiting device use, it reduces distractions that undermine learning, mental health, and meaningful student engagement.”

Arguments in opposition. According to the Association of California School Administrators, “Our organization’s engagement on student smartphone use policies reflects extensive consideration for student mental health and well-being, local educational agencies’ (LEAs) responsibility for school site safety, as well as local school community concerns. Regrettably, AB 1644 would reverse the work now being completed by many LEAs pursuant to a recently enacted law with fewer considerations for differences in grade levels, stakeholder voices, and time needed to implement additional changes.

LEAs have just recently completed, or are finalizing, their mandatory policy adoption process for student smartphone use pursuant to AB 3216 (Hoover; Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024). It included extensive stakeholder engagement, as required, and the adoption of board policies with a July 1, 2026 deadline. LEAs shared they have worked intentionally to refine their policies based on pilot program outcomes, feedback from parents, students and staff, academic studies on student smartphone use, as well as cost analyses to purchase and maintain tools such as pouches, lockers or other access-restricting devices during part or all of the school day. Despite these deliberate and resource-intensive processes, AB 1644 creates a ‘do-over’ just one year later, creating unnecessary frustration and confusion for those stakeholders and administrators in LEAs that did not establish “bell to bell” smartphone restrictions for all grade levels.”

Recommended Committee amendments. Staff recommends that the bill be amended as follows:

• Limit the bell-to-bell-ban to schools serving students in transitional kindergarten through 8^th grade. Require the policy to include at least one method by which parents and guardians can contact students during the school day. Prohibit K-8 instruction from requiring the use of a smartphone by students.
• Strongly encourage high schools (9-12) to adopt a bell-to-bell ban that complies with the K-8 ban provisions.
• Authorize schools to update their phone policies every five years or sooner, as needed.
• Require the CDE to conduct a report on existing smartphone policies. Require the report to include a description of stakeholder engagement that went into development, enforcement methods of the policy, and initial challenges or successes that arose from policy enactment. Require the CDE to issue recommendations by Jan 1, 2028, of best practices for smartphone policies based on their report.

Related legislation AB 1700 (Lowenthal) of the 2025-26 Session would establish an eSafety commission responsible for online safety.

AB 272 (Muratsuchi), Chapter 42, Statutes of 2019, provides that a student shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under specified circumstances, and authorizes governing bodies to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use of smartphones by students while at school.

AB 3216 (Hoover), Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024, requires, rather than allows, a governing board of an LEA, COE, or a charter school no later than July 1, 2026, to develop, adopt, and update every five years a policy, as specified, to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee of that LEA, COE, and charter school.

SB 976 (Skinner), Chapter 321, Statutes of 2024, prohibits operators of “internet-based services or applications” from providing “addictive feeds,” as those terms are defined, to minors without parental consent and from sending notifications to minors at night and during school hours without parental consent, as provided. This bill requires operators to make available to parents a series of protective measures for controlling access to and features of the platform for their children. This bill also requires reporting on data regarding children on their platforms, as specified.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Technet

American Academy of Pediatricians, California

39 individuals

Opposition

Association of California School Administrators

Analysis Prepared by: Sarah Cate Hawthorne / ED. / (916) 319-2087

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Darshana R. Patel, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1644 (

Author:Muratsuchi) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2026

SUBJECT: Pupils: use of smartphones: prohibition

SUMMARY: Requires the governing board of a local education agency (LEA) to adopt a policy to prohibit the use of smartphones by its students, thereby creating a bell-to-bell ban on smartphone use. Specifically, this bill:

1. Repeals, on July 1, 2027, existing law that:
   1. Requires LEAs to create a policy that limits or prohibits smartphone use on schoolsites by July 1, 2026, except under specified conditions, and update the policy every 5 years thereafter;
   2. Requires LEAs to include stakeholder input to ensure the policy is responsive to the unique needs and desires of students, parents, and educators in each community; and
   3. Authorizes the policy to include enforcement mechanisms.
2. Requires, no later than July 1, 2027, the governing body of an LEA to adopt a policy that prohibits students from using smartphones while the students are at a schoolsite or under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of the LEA.
3. Requires development of the policy to involve significant stakeholder participation in order to ensure that the policy is responsive to the unique needs and desires of students, parents, and educators in each community. Authorizes the policy to include enforcement mechanisms that restrict access to smartphones.
4. Requires the policy to be updated every five years.
5. Requires a pupil to not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under any of the following circumstances:
   1. In the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger;
   2. When a teacher or administrator of the school district, county office of education (COE), or charter school grants permission to a pupil to possess or use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator;
   3. When a licensed physician and surgeon determines that the possession or use of a smartphone is necessary for the health or well-being of the pupil; and
   4. When the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s individualized education program (IEP).
6. Clarifies that the governing board of an LEA may be subject to monitoring and auditing by the California Department of Education (CDE) to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. Requires an LEA to make the policy available to the department upon request.
7. Clarifies that these provisions do not authorize monitoring, collecting, or otherwise accessing any information related to a pupil’s online activities.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires, no later than July 1, 2026, an LEA to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that school district, COE, or charter school. Requires this policy to be updated every 5 years. Requires a pupil to not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under any of the following circumstances:
2. In the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger;
3. When a teacher or administrator of the school district, COE, or charter school grants permission to a pupil to possess or use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator;
4. When a licensed physician and surgeon determines that the possession or use of a smartphone is necessary for the health or well-being of the pupil; and
5. When the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s IEP. (Education Code (EC) 48901.7)
6. Authorizes the governing board of each school district, or its designee, to regulate the possession or use of any electronic signaling device that operates through the transmission or receipt of radio waves, including, but not limited to, paging and signaling equipment, by pupils of the school district while the pupils are on campus, while attending school-sponsored activities, or while under the supervision and control of school district employees. (EC 48901.5)
7. Requires that no pupil may be prohibited from possessing or using an electronic signaling device that is determined by a licensed physician and surgeon to be essential for the health of the pupil and use of which is limited to purposes related to the health of the pupil. (EC 48901.5)

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has been keyed as a possible state-mandated local program by the Office of Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. According to the author, “AB 1644 builds upon existing law by requiring schools to adopt clear, consistent ‘bell-to-bell’ policies that limit student use of smart phones throughout the school day, with appropriate exceptions for safety, health, and educational purposes.”

Current law requires LEAs to develop phone policies with significant community engagement by July 1, 2026. In 2024, the Legislature required all LEAs to develop a policy that would limit or prohibit cell phone use in schools (AB 3216 (Hoover), Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024). When crafting these policies LEAs are required to solicit significant stakeholder input to ensure the final policy meets the unique needs of students, parents, and educators in their community. This bill would replace these locally-developed policies with a statewide requirement for all LEAs to prohibit smartphone use during school by July 1, 2027.

Reports indicate that many LEAs invested significant time and resources, and solicited extensive stakeholder engagement, when crafting policies. For example, Poway Unified School District distributed a survey to students, families, and staff when developing their phone policy, and held focus groups with the Parent-Superintendent Advisory Council and the Student-Superintendent Advisory Council. A report released in April, 2026 revealed the survey received over 12,000 responses.

Similarly, a press release issued on July 8, 2025 by San Diego Unified lists the following forms of community engagement that went into their phone policy:

• A survey administered during the final week of school gathered feedback from 2,236 respondents, generating 1,647 qualitative data points;
• 60 students participated in focus groups and policy development sessions through the Student Advisory Board;
• Extensive collaboration with the Parent Teacher Association; and
• Staff input on policy framework development.

The final policy adopted by San Diego Unified included a bell-to-bell ban for K-8^th grade students; for high school students, cell phone use is banned during instructional time but allowed during lunch and passing periods.

Examples from California schools demonstrate the variety of current phone policies. In a 2026 amicus curiae brief for TIKTOK INC vs Rob Bonta, Attorney General for California (case number 5:25-cv-09789-EJD), the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) interviewed various school district administrators across the state. They surveyed, among other items, school polices surrounding cell phone use and the school environment. A sampling of these policies is described below, without endorsement, to demonstrate the variety of ways districts are designing and implementing phone policies:

• Large Suburban District located in the Inland Empire: Their policy prohibits cellphone use for middle school students at all times, and limits use for high school students during non-instructional periods.

District administrators expressed concerns about having the ability or tools to limit phones in school, despite the problems phones create on campus. An administrator shared that “the problem is social media” because it creates a distraction in the learning environment, “even when phones are not in the classroom.”

Several schools in the districts reported positive effects of having a cellphone policy. Prior to implementing a cellphone use policy, administrators reported having “over 100 expulsions” throughout the year. After implementing the cellphone use policy, districts saw a decrease in disciplinary matters. Several students shared that they did not realize how much of a distraction phones had become in their daily lives. Without their phones, the administrator observed that students could enjoy group projects and build friendships with each other.

While the district expected parents to be upset about the restrictions, they did not receive complaints or resistance.

• Large Urban District located in the San Francisco Bay Area: This district shared that its school board would be presented with options to implement a formal district-wide student smartphone ban in March 2026.

The district ran a pilot program at one of its middle schools that required students to keep their phones in their bags the entire day “from bell to bell”. The district conducted a parent survey to explain the reason behind the pilot program. None of the district administrators received complaints from parents about the restrictions.

Since implementing the pilot, principals reported a “significant decrease” in disciplinary referrals and incidents involving cyberbullying and social media activity during unstructured time. Additionally, students now “noticeably engage with each other” during non-instructional time.

• Small Rural District in Southern California: Their policy limits cellphone use for students during the day. The district shared that the cellphone device itself was not an issue, but rather what the phone enabled, including access to social media.

While parents were mostly supportive of limited phone use during instructional time, some parents still wanted their children to have their phones for emergencies.

• Large Suburban District in Southern California: Their policy restricts cell phones during instructional periods but allows students to access their phones in case of emergencies. In addition to phones, the district required smart watches to always be in airplane mode. Their policy was informed by responses to a community engagement survey.
• Small Suburban District in Southern California: Their policy reduces cellphone use during instructional periods.
• Small Urban District in the San Francisco Bay Area: This district implemented a phone policy for the first time during the 2025 – 2026 school year. While implementation began smoothly, issues arose involving students with health issues, specifically students who needed access to their phones for medical reasons or IEP support.

Nearly 100 days into the change, staff observed improved student interactions and a decline in physical fights. Staff also noted the disappearance of harmful TikTok challenge incidents that posed safety risks. Some staff expressed the view that schools should treat smartphone usage like smoking and advocate for a “zero-tolerance” approach.

• Medium Urban District in the San Francisco Bay Area: Their initial policy restricted phone use to instructional time. The district intends to change the policy to restrict phones from “bell-to-bell.” Without the full restrictions, children experienced difficulty interacting with others “outside of their devices.”

Students did not seem to be aware of how much they used their phones and the seriousness of the impact. An administrator shared that the “vast majority” of issues reported to her involved phone-related incidents, primarily with social media postings carrying into in-person conflicts. During lunch time, students appeared isolated because they were on their phones. The district managed incidents involving viral trends, including the trend that encouraged students to vandalize school property. For example,

students posted videos online of themselves tearing paper towel dispensers

off the bathroom walls and shattering mirrors.

• Large Rural District on the Central Coast: Their policy stipulated “no phone during instruction.” Administrators expressed particular concern about the impact of social media on students in special education, including those with physical and emotional disabilities. These students may be more vulnerable to distraction and less equipped to exercise judgment when exposed to violent, sexual, or otherwise inappropriate content.

As these policies are largely new, research on the breadth and impact of school cell phone and smart device policies is lacking. Careful consideration of which policies have been tried, and to what effect, would be instrumental in developing best practices and evidence-based recommendations. Staff recommends the bill be amended to require the CDE to study the variety of smartphone school policies California and their impacts on student outcomes and the school environment.

A noticeable trend in existing polices is that multiple school districts changed their policies after initial implementation. To ensure LEAs remain able to respond to make changes as they see fit, staff recommends the bill be amended to allow LEAs to update their smartphone policies more frequently than every five years.

The role of stakeholder input is unclear. In keeping with current law, this bill requires LEAs to solicit significant stakeholder input when crafting cell phone policies, and to consider the unique needs of students, parents, and educators in their community. However, considering that there is only one outcome of the proposed policy – a prohibition on cell phone use during school hours – it is unclear what role the stakeholder input would play.

Numerous states enacted bell-to-bell phone bans in 2025. Most states have policies that seek to limit phone use in school to some extent, and states without full bans typically allow schools to set their own policies, which may include bans. A national survey of 1,100 parents and 400 teenagers by the Brookings Institute found that, as of October 2025, 98% of teens attend school with some phone restrictions and 55% attend a school with bell-to-bell phone bans (Saavedra, 2026).

In 2025, at least 10 states implemented versions of a bell-to-bell phone ban in schools:

Sources: Civic IQ; Ballotpedia. SY: school year

Support for cell phone restrictions appears to be growing. The Brookings Institute recently reviewed multiple surveys on cell phone use in school (Saavedra, 2026). Perhaps surprisingly, they found 76% of teens expressed a preference for some form of restrictions on phone use during the school day, compared to 93% of adults. Over the last 2-3 years, interest in cell phone restrictions has increased.

A 2025 Rand Survey found that 60% of students support some restrictions on cell phone use during classes. However, only 10% of surveyed students supported a full bell-to-bell ban on smartphone use in school.

Proposed ballot initiative would require limiting smartphone use in schools. In November 2025, a statewide initiative titled “The California Kids AI Safety Act” was proposed. The Act would, among other provisions, prohibit students from using internet-enabled devices such as smartphones “during instructional time or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of [the LEA].” The initiative has received media attention but has not yet reached the required number of signatures to be included on the ballot.

Enforcement of smartphone policies remains a challenge. A key issue in school smartphone policies is enforcement. The public-market firm Civic IQ identified three common ways schools enforce phone policies, including pouches or lockers that students secure phones in when entering or leaving school; phone caddies in individual classrooms; or policy only (e.g., “off-and-away”)

Investment in phone-storage solutions, such as pouches and lockers, can be very expensive for districts. However, relying on teachers to police phones in classrooms creates a higher burden for educators and takes away from instructional time.

Regardless of policy and enforcement methods, students will likely find ways to circumvent the rules. For example, students who are required to place their phones in pouches sometimes bring in “dummy phones” that are broken or outdated, and place these in the pouches while keeping their real device on their person. Research provided by the Brookings Institute shows that 25-30% of teenagers use phones during core academic classes, despite school restrictions (Saavedra, 2026). However, the same study suggests that schools with harsher restrictions, such as bell-to-bell bans, may see fewer policy violations.

Research demonstrates the impact of smartphone use on children. The U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory in 2023 about the impact of social media use on the mental health of young people. The Surgeon General called for urgent action from policymakers, technology companies, researchers, families, and young people to better understand the full impact of social media, maximize its benefits, minimize its harms, and create safer online environments to protect children.

A 2019 Pew Research study found that most U.S. teens consider anxiety and depression to be significant issues among their peers, regardless of whether they experience these conditions (Horowitz and Graf, 2019). Concern about mental health is widespread across gender, racial, and socio-economic lines.

Furthermore, a 2020 article in the Journal of Affective Disorders indicated that more time spent on social media was linked to an increased risk of self-harm and depression, as well as lower self-esteem among 13–15-year-old girls (Barthorpe et al., 2020). Similar findings were observed for both weekday and weekend use.

Some researchers have suggested a correlation between increased technology and smartphone use and the rising rates of teenage anxiety and depression. The widely cited book iGen, authored by San Diego State psychology professor Dr. Jean Twenge, presents evidence of an increase in depression and suicide among American teenagers that may be caused by increased mobile device screen time and social media use.

Moreover, an increasing body of research focuses on the impact of technology on student outcomes in grades K-12. A 2015 Discussion Paper from the London School of Economics and Political Science, Center for Economic Performance, explored the effects of banning cell phone use in English city schools in 2013. The paper found that student test scores improved following the ban, particularly among the most disadvantaged and underachieving pupils. The data suggests that low-achieving students are more likely to be distracted by mobile phones, while high achievers are less affected by the mobile phone policy.

The risks and benefits of smartphone use vary by grade level. Some research suggests that young children may be particularly affected by smartphone use. Reporting by Common Sense Media shows that 25% of children have a personal cell phone by age 8, and 91% of a personal cell phone by age 14. Research in the journal Pediatrics demonstrated that children who own a smartphone earlier in life are at a higher risk of depression, obesity, and sleep deficits (Barzilay et al., 2025). One study in adolescents aged 12-18 found an association between prolonged smartphone use and experiencing loneliness and depressive mood, which was stronger in middle school students than in older teenagers (Kim et al., 2026). The research coalition Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) found that increased use of social media, which is often accessed by smartphone, is significantly associated with a thinner cerebral cortex – the part of the brain responsible for attention, memory, and emotional control – in children aged 10-13 (Nagata et al., 2026). The national campaign Wait until 8^th advocates for parents and children to put off getting a smartphone until at least 8^th grade.

Research also suggests that teenagers are negatively impacted by smartphone use, especially as it relates to social media (Barthorpe et al., 2020; Twenge, 2017). However, high school students are also more likely to rely on a smartphone for social connection with their peers, or communication with parents or guardians as they become more independent.

In developing its smartphone policy, Poway Unified School District (PUSD) surveyed over 7,000 families on their opinion on smartphone use. They found that at the elementary level, only 29% of parents and guardians agreed that students should have phone access during the school day. However, at the high school level, 52% agreed. The authors summarize their data:

Family support for student cell phone access increases as students progress through grade levels. Family responses show a clear upward trend in agreement [with school-day cell phone use] from elementary to high school. At the elementary level, most families express disagreement (56.9%), while agreement increases at the middle level and becomes more evenly distributed. By high school, agreement (52.4%) surpasses disagreement (35.1%), indicating that families are more supportive of student access as students mature. This pattern suggests that family perspectives on cell phone use are closely tied to developmental expectations and increasing student independence.

To account for the differing needs of younger and older students in their communities, some California schools have adopted policies that prohibit smartphone use in younger grades and limit smartphone use in high school (see example polices above). To protect the most vulnerable students, while still allowing LEAs to accommodate the needs of older students if desired,

Data re-graphed from Student Cell Phone Use in Schools: Stakeholder

Feedback and Considerations for

Policy Development. PUSD, 2026

staff recommends the bill be amended to require a bell-to-bell ban on smartphone use for schools serving children in kindergarten through 8^th grade, and recommend a bell-to-bell ban for schools serving children in 9^th through 12^th grade.

Arguments in support. According to the organization TechNet, “Smartphone use among students is nearly universal, with 95% of teens having access and many reporting constant online activity. This has become increasingly disruptive in schools, as device use during class and throughout the day reduces attention, learning, and peer interaction. While California authorized restrictions through AB 272 and now requires schools to adopt policies by July 1, 2026, under AB 3216, enforcement remains inconsistent. Other states have moved toward stricter, schoolwide limits, including bell-to-bell restrictions.

Excessive smartphone use is strongly linked to negative academic and mental health outcomes, including reduced focus, increased anxiety and depression, and lower overall well-being. The U.S. Surgeon General has warned of significant risks associated with youth social media use, and even the presence of a phone can impair attention. Early evidence shows that clear, consistently enforced restrictions improve academic performance, reduce behavioral issues, and support student well-being, underscoring the need for stronger, uniform policies.

AB 1644 establishes clear boundaries on smartphone use during the school day to support student focus, strengthen school climate, and improve academic outcomes. By limiting device use, it reduces distractions that undermine learning, mental health, and meaningful student engagement.”

Arguments in opposition. According to the Association of California School Administrators, “Our organization’s engagement on student smartphone use policies reflects extensive consideration for student mental health and well-being, local educational agencies’ (LEAs) responsibility for school site safety, as well as local school community concerns. Regrettably, AB 1644 would reverse the work now being completed by many LEAs pursuant to a recently enacted law with fewer considerations for differences in grade levels, stakeholder voices, and time needed to implement additional changes.

LEAs have just recently completed, or are finalizing, their mandatory policy adoption process for student smartphone use pursuant to AB 3216 (Hoover; Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024). It included extensive stakeholder engagement, as required, and the adoption of board policies with a July 1, 2026 deadline. LEAs shared they have worked intentionally to refine their policies based on pilot program outcomes, feedback from parents, students and staff, academic studies on student smartphone use, as well as cost analyses to purchase and maintain tools such as pouches, lockers or other access-restricting devices during part or all of the school day. Despite these deliberate and resource-intensive processes, AB 1644 creates a ‘do-over’ just one year later, creating unnecessary frustration and confusion for those stakeholders and administrators in LEAs that did not establish “bell to bell” smartphone restrictions for all grade levels.”

Recommended Committee amendments. Staff recommends that the bill be amended as follows:

1. Limit the bell-to-bell ban to schools serving students in transitional kindergarten through 8^th grade.
2. Recommend that schools serving students in grades 9-12 implement a bell-to-bell ban.
3. Authorize schools to update their phone policies every five years or sooner, as needed.
4. Remove the authorization for teachers in transitional kindergarten through 8^th grade to allow smartphone use.
5. Clarify that teachers or administrators in 9^th-12^th schools that have enacted a bell-to-bell ban may grant permission for a student to possess or use a smartphone only for a specific educational purpose.
6. Require the CDE to study the variety of cell phone policies in California schools and their impacts on student outcomes and the school environment.

Related legislation AB 1700 (Lowenthal) of the 2025-26 Session would establish an eSafety commission responsible for online safety.

AB 272 (Muratsuchi), Chapter 42, Statutes of 2019, provides that a student shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under specified circumstances, and authorizes governing bodies to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use of smartphones by students while at school.

AB 3216 (Hoover), Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024, requires, rather than allows, a governing board of an LEA, COE, or a charter school no later than July 1, 2026, to develop, adopt, and update every five years a policy, as specified, to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee of that LEA, COE, and charter school.

SB 976 (Skinner), Chapter 321, Statutes of 2024, prohibits operators of “internet-based services or applications” from providing “addictive feeds,” as those terms are defined, to minors without parental consent and from sending notifications to minors at night and during school hours without parental consent, as provided. This bill requires operators to make available to parents a series of protective measures for controlling access to and features of the platform for their children. This bill also requires reporting on data regarding children on their platforms, as specified.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Technet

American Academy of Pediatricians, California

39 individuals

Opposition

Association of California School Administrators

Analysis Prepared by: Sarah Cate Hawthorne / ED. / (916) 319-2087

Date of Hearing: April 15, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Darshana R. Patel, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1644 (

Author:Muratsuchi) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2026

SUBJECT: Pupils: use of smartphones: prohibition

SUMMARY: Requires the governing board of a local education agency (LEA) to adopt a policy to prohibit the use of smartphones by its students, thereby creating a bell-to-bell ban on smartphone use. Specifically, this bill:

1. Repeals, on July 1, 2027, existing law that:
   1. Requires LEAs to create a policy that limits or prohibits smartphone use on schoolsites by July 1, 2026, except under specified conditions, and update the policy every 5 years thereafter;
   2. Requires LEAs to include stakeholder input to ensure the policy is responsive to the unique needs and desires of students, parents, and educators in each community; and
   3. Authorizes the policy to include enforcement mechanisms.
2. Requires, no later than July 1, 2027, the governing body of an LEA to adopt a policy that prohibits students from using smartphones while the students are at a schoolsite or under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of the LEA.
3. Requires development of the policy to involve significant stakeholder participation in order to ensure that the policy is responsive to the unique needs and desires of students, parents, and educators in each community. Authorizes the policy to include enforcement mechanisms that restrict access to smartphones.
4. Requires the policy be updated every five years.
5. Requires a pupil to not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under any of the following circumstances:
   1. In the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger;
   2. When a teacher or administrator of the school district, county office of education (COE), or charter school grants permission to a pupil to possess or use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator;
   3. When a licensed physician and surgeon determines that the possession or use of a smartphone is necessary for the health or well-being of the pupil; and
   4. When the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s individualized education program (IEP).
6. Clarifies that the governing board of an LEA may be subject to monitoring and auditing by the California Department of Education (CDE) to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. Requires an LEA to make the policy available to the department upon request.
7. Clarifies that these provisions do not authorize monitoring, collecting, or otherwise accessing any information related to a pupil’s online activities.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires, no later than July 1, 2026, an LEA to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that school district, COE, or charter school. Requires this policy be updated every 5 years. Requires a pupil to not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under any of the following circumstances:
2. In the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger;
3. When a teacher or administrator of the school district, COE, or charter school grants permission to a pupil to possess or use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator;
4. When a licensed physician and surgeon determines that the possession or use of a smartphone is necessary for the health or well-being of the pupil; and
5. When the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s individualized education program (IEP). (Education Code (EC) 48901.7)
6. Authorizes the governing board of each school district, or its designee, to regulate the possession or use of any electronic signaling device that operates through the transmission or receipt of radio waves, including, but not limited to, paging and signaling equipment, by pupils of the school district while the pupils are on campus, while attending school-sponsored activities, or while under the supervision and control of school district employees. (EC 48901.5)
7. Requires that no pupil may be prohibited from possessing or using an electronic signaling device that is determined by a licensed physician and surgeon to be essential for the health of the pupil and use of which is limited to purposes related to the health of the pupil. (EC 48901.5)

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has been keyed as a possible state-mandated local program by the Office of Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. According to the author, “AB 1644 builds upon existing law by requiring schools to adopt clear, consistent ‘bell-to-bell’ policies that limit student use of smart phones throughout the school day, with appropriate exceptions for safety, health, and educational purposes.”

Current law requires locally-developed phone policies by July 1, 2026. In 2024, the Legislature required all LEAs to develop a policy that would limit or prohibit cell phone use in schools (AB 3216 (Hoover), Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024). LEAs are required to solicit significant stakeholder input to ensure the final policy meets the unique needs of students, parents, and educators in their community. These policies are required to be crafted no later than July 1, 2026, and be updated every five years.

This bill would replace these locally-developed policies with a statewide requirement for all LEAs to prohibit smartphone use during school by July 1, 2027.

Example phone policies from California schools. In a 2026 amicus curiae brief for TIKTOK INC vs Rob Bonta, Attorney General for California (case number 5:25-cv-09789-EJD), the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) interviewed various school district administrators across the state. They surveyed, among other items, school polices surrounding cell phone use and the school environment. A sampling of these policies is described below, without endorsement, to demonstrate the variety of ways districts are designing and implementing phone policies:

• Large Urban District located in the San Francisco Bay Area: This district shared that its school board would be presented with options to implement a formal district-wide student smartphone ban in March 2026.

The district ran a pilot program at one of its middle schools that required students to keep their phones in their bags the entire day “from bell to bell”… The district conducted a parent survey to explain the reason behind the pilot program. None of the district administrators received complaints from parents about the restrictions.

Since implementing the pilot, principals reported a “significant decrease” in disciplinary referrals and incidents involving cyberbullying and social media activity during unstructured time. Additionally, students now “noticeably engage with each other” during non-instructional time.

• Large Suburban District located in the Inland Empire: Their policy restricts cellphones for middle school students at all times, and limits use for high school students during non-instructional periods.

District administrators expressed concerns about having the ability or tools to limit phones in school despite the problems phones create on campus. An administrator shared that “the problem is social media” because it creates a distraction in the learning environment “even when phones are not in the classroom.”

Several schools in the districts reported positive effects of having a cellphone policy. Prior to implementing a cellphone use policy, administrators reported having “over 100 expulsions” throughout the year. After implementing the cellphone use policy, districts saw a decrease in disciplinary matters. Several students shared that they did not realize how much of a distraction phones became in their daily lives. Without their phones, the administrator observed that students could enjoy group projects and build friendships with each other.

While the district expected parents to be upset about the restrictions, they did not receive complaints or resistance.

• Small Rural District in Southern California: Their policy limits cellphone use for students during the day. The district shared that the cellphone device itself was not an issue, but rather, what the phone enabled, including access to social media.

While parents were mostly supportive of limited use of phones during instructional time, some parents still wanted their children to have their phones for emergencies.

• Large Suburban District in Southern California: Their policy restricts cell phones during instructional periods but allows students to access their phones in case of emergencies. In addition to phones, the district required smart watches to always be in airplane mode.

Their policy was informed by responses to a community engagement survey.

• Small Suburban District in Southern California: Their policy reduces cellphone use during instructional periods.
• Small Urban District in the San Francisco Bay Area: This district implemented a phone policy for the first time during the 2025 – 2026 school year.

While implementation began smoothly, issues arose involving students with health issues, specifically students who needed access to their phones for medical reasons or IEP support.

Nearly 100 days into the change, staff observed improved student interactions and a decline in physical fights. Staff also noted the disappearance of harmful TikTok challenge incidents that posed safety risks. Some staff expressed the view that schools should treat smartphone usage like smoking and advocate for a “zero-tolerance” approach.

• Large Rural District on the Central Coast: Their policy stipulated “no phone during instruction.” Administrators expressed particular concern about the impact of social media on students in special education, including those with physical and emotional disabilities. These students may be more vulnerable to distraction and less equipped to exercise judgment when exposed to violent, sexual, or otherwise inappropriate content.
• Medium Urban District in the San Francisco Bay Area: Their initial policy restricted phone use to instructional time. The district intends to change the policy to restrict phones from “bell-to-bell.” Without the full restrictions, children experienced difficulty interacting with others “outside of their devices.”

Students did not seem to be aware of how much they used their phones and the seriousness of the impact. An administrator shared that the “vast majority” of issues reported to her involved phone-related incidents, primarily with social media postings carrying into in-person conflicts. During lunch time, students appeared isolated because they were on their phones. The district managed incidents involving viral trends, including the trend that encouraged students to vandalize school property. For example,

students posted videos online of themselves tearing paper towel dispensers

off the bathroom walls and shattering mirrors.

As these policies are largely new, research on the breadth and impact of school cell phone and smart device policies is lacking. Careful consideration of which policies have been tried, and to what effect, would be instrumental in developing best practices and evidence-based recommendations. Staff recommends the bill be amended to require the CDE to study the variety of cell phone policies in California schools and their impacts on student outcomes and the school environment.

A noticeable trend in existing polices is that multiple school districts changed their policies after initial implementation, often to create stricter regulations. To ensure LEAs remain able to respond to make changes as they see fit, staff recommends the bill be amended to allow LEAs to update their smartphone policies more frequently than every five years.

The role of stakeholder input is unclear. In keeping with current law, this bill requires LEAs to solicit significant stakeholder input when crafting cell phone policies, and to consider the unique needs of students, parents, and educators in their community. However, considering that there is only one outcome of the proposed policy – a prohibition on cell phone use during school hours – it is unclear what role the stakeholder input would play.

Numerous states enacted bell-to-bell phone bans in 2025. The 2025-26 school year saw at least 10 states implement versions of a bell-to-bell phone ban in schools:

Sources: Civic IQ; Ballotpedia. SY: school year

However, most states have policies that seek to limit phone use in school to some extent, and states without full bans typically allow schools to set their own policies, which may include bans. A national survey of 1,100 parents and 400 teenagers by the Brookings Institute found that, as of October 2025, 98% of teens attend school with some phone restrictions and 55% attend a school with bell-to-bell phone bans (Saavedra, 2026).

Support for cell phone restrictions appears to be growing. The Brookings Institute recently reviewed multiple surveys on cell phone use in school (Saavedra, 2026). Perhaps surprisingly, they found 76% of teens expressed a preference for some form of restrictions on phone use during the school day, compared to 93% of adults. Over the last 2-3 years, interest in cell phone restrictions has increased.

While a 2025 Rand Survey did find that 60% of students support some restrictions on cell phone use during classes, only 10% support full bell-to-bell policies.

Proposed ballot initiative would require limiting smartphone use in schools. In November 2025, a statewide initiative titled “The California Kids AI Safety Act” was proposed. The Act would, among other provisions, prohibit students from using internet-enabled devices such as smartphones “during instructional time or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of [the LEA].” The initiative has received media attention but has not yet reached the required number of signatures to be included on the ballot.

Enforcement of smartphone policies remains a challenge. A key issue in school smartphone policies is enforcement. The public-market firm Civic IQ identified three common ways schools enforce phone policies:

• Pouches or lockers that students secure phones in when entering or leaving school;
• Phone caddies in individual classrooms; or
• Policy only (e.g., “off-and-away”)

Investment in phone-storage solutions, such as pouches and lockers, can be very expensive for districts. However, relying on teachers to police phones in classrooms creates a higher burden for educators and takes away from instructional time.

Regardless of policy and enforcement methods, students will likely find ways to circumvent the rules. For example, students who are required to place their phones in pouches sometimes bring in “dummy phones” that are broken or outdated, and place these in the pouches while keeping their real device on their person. Research provided by the Brookings Institute shows that 25-30% of teenagers use phones during core academic classes, despite school restrictions (Saavedra, 2026). However, the same study suggests that schools with harsher restrictions, such as bell-to-bell bans, may see fewer policy violations.

Research demonstrates the impact of smartphone use on children. The U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory in 2023 about the impact of social media use on the mental health of young people. The Surgeon General called for urgent action from policymakers, technology companies, researchers, families, and young people to better understand the full impact of social media, maximize its benefits, minimize its harms, and create safer online environments to protect children.

A 2019 Pew Research study found that most U.S. teens consider anxiety and depression to be significant issues among their peers, regardless of whether they experience these conditions (Horowitz and Graf, 2019). Concern about mental health is widespread across gender, racial, and socio-economic lines.

Furthermore, a 2020 article in the Journal of Affective Disorders indicated that more time spent on social media was linked to an increased risk of self-harm and depression, as well as lower self-esteem among 13–15-year-old girls (Barthorpe et al., 2020). Similar findings were observed for both weekday and weekend use.

Some researchers have suggested a correlation between increased technology and smartphone use and the rising rates of teenage anxiety and depression. A widely cited book by Dr. Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at San Diego State, iGen, presents evidence of an increase in depression and suicide among American teenagers that may be caused by increased mobile device screen time and social media use.

Moreover, an increasing body of research focuses on the impact of technology on student outcomes in grades K-12. A 2015 Discussion Paper from the London School of Economics and Political Science, Center for Economic Performance, explored the effects of banning cell phone use in English city schools in 2013. The paper found that student test scores improved following the ban, particularly among the most disadvantaged and underachieving pupils. The data suggests that low-achieving students are more likely to be distracted by mobile phones, while high achievers are less affected by the mobile phone policy.

Young children may be particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of smartphones. Young children may be particularly affected by smartphone use. Reporting by Common Sense Media shows that 25% of children have a personal cell phone by age 8, and 91% of a personal cell phone by age 14.

Research in the journal Pediatrics demonstrated that children who own a smartphone earlier in life are higher risk of depression, obesity, and sleep deficits (Barzilay et al., 2025). The national campaign Wait until 8^th advocates for parents and children to put off getting a smart phone until at least 8^th grade.

High school student are more likely to rely on a smartphone for social connection with their peers, or communication with parents or guardians as they become more independent. To accommodate the differing societal norms between high school and younger students, staff recommends the bill be amended to require the bell-to-bell ban for schools serving children in kindergarten through 8^th grade, and recommend a ban for schools serving children in 9^th through 12^th grade.

Arguments in support. According to the organization TechNet, “Smartphone use among students is nearly universal, with 95% of teens having access and many reporting constant online activity. This has become increasingly disruptive in schools, as device use during class and throughout the day reduces attention, learning, and peer interaction. While California authorized restrictions through AB 272 and now requires schools to adopt policies by July 1, 2026, under AB 3216, enforcement remains inconsistent. Other states have moved toward stricter, schoolwide limits, including bell-to-bell restrictions.

Excessive smartphone use is strongly linked to negative academic and mental health outcomes, including reduced focus, increased anxiety and depression, and lower overall well-being. The U.S. Surgeon General has warned of significant risks associated with youth social media use, and even the presence of a phone can impair attention. Early evidence shows that clear, consistently enforced restrictions improve academic performance, reduce behavioral issues, and support student well-being, underscoring the need for stronger, uniform policies.

AB 1644 establishes clear boundaries on smartphone use during the school day to support student focus, strengthen school climate, and improve academic outcomes. By limiting device use, it reduces distractions that undermine learning, mental health, and meaningful student engagement.”

Recommended Committee amendments. Staff recommends that the bill be amended as follows:

1. Limit the bell-to-bell ban to schools serving students in transitional kindergarten through 8^th grade.
2. Recommend that schools serving students in grades 9-12 implement a bell-to-bell ban.
3. Authorize schools to update their phone policies every five years or sooner, as needed.
4. Clarify that teachers or administrators may grant permission for a student to possess or use a smartphone only for a specific educational purpose.
5. Require the CDE to study the variety of cell phone policies in California schools and their impacts on student outcomes and the school environment.

Related legislation AB 1700 (Lowenthal) of the 2025-26 Session would establish an eSafety commission responsible for online safety.

AB 272 (Muratsuchi), Chapter 42, Statutes of 2019, provides that a student shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under specified circumstances, and authorizes governing bodies to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use of smartphones by students while at school.

AB 3216 (Hoover), Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024, requires, rather than allows, a governing board of an LEA, COE, or a charter school no later than July 1, 2026, to develop, adopt, and update every five years a policy, as specified, to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee of that LEA, COE, and charter school.

SB 976 (Skinner), Chapter 321, Statutes of 2024, prohibits operators of “internet-based services or applications” from providing “addictive feeds,” as those terms are defined, to minors without parental consent and from sending notifications to minors at night and during school hours without parental consent, as provided. This bill requires operators to make available to parents a series of protective measures for controlling access to and features of the platform for their children. This bill also requires reporting on data regarding children on their platforms, as specified.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Technet

39 individuals

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Sarah Cate Hawthorne / ED. / (916) 319-2087

Date of Hearing: April 8, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Darshana R. Patel, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1644 (

Author:Muratsuchi) – As Amended Ver:March 19, 2026

SUBJECT: Pupils: use of smartphones: prohibition

SUMMARY: Requires the governing board of a local education agency (LEA) to adopt a policy to prohibit the use of smartphones by its students, thereby creating a bell-to-bell ban on smartphone use. Specifically, this bill:

1. Repeals, on July 1, 2027, existing law that:
   1. Requires LEAs to create a policy that limits or prohibits smartphone use on schoolsites by July 1, 2026, except under specified conditions, and update the policy every 5 years thereafter;
   2. Requires LEAs to include stakeholder input to ensure the policy is responsive to the unique needs and desires of students, parents, and educators in each community; and
   3. Authorizes the policy to include enforcement mechanisms.
2. Requires, no later than July 1, 2027, the governing body of an LEA to adopt a policy that prohibits students from using smartphones while the students are at a schoolsite or under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of the LEA.
3. Requires development of the policy to involve significant stakeholder participation in order to ensure that the policy is responsive to the unique needs and desires of students, parents, and educators in each community. Authorizes the policy to include enforcement mechanisms that restrict access to smartphones.
4. Requires the policy be updated every five years.
5. Requires a pupil to not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under any of the following circumstances:
   1. In the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger;
   2. When a teacher or administrator of the school district, county office of education (COE), or charter school grants permission to a pupil to possess or use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator;
   3. When a licensed physician and surgeon determines that the possession or use of a smartphone is necessary for the health or well-being of the pupil; and
   4. When the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s individualized education program (IEP).
6. Clarifies that the governing board of an LEA may be subject to monitoring and auditing by the California Department of Education (CDE) to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section. Requires an LEA to make the policy available to the department upon request.
7. Clarifies that these provisions do not authorize monitoring, collecting, or otherwise accessing any information related to a pupil’s online activities.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires, no later than July 1, 2026, an LEA to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of that school district, COE, or charter school. Requires this policy be updated every 5 years. Requires a pupil to not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under any of the following circumstances:
2. In the case of an emergency, or in response to a perceived threat of danger;
3. When a teacher or administrator of the school district, COE, or charter school grants permission to a pupil to possess or use a smartphone, subject to any reasonable limitation imposed by that teacher or administrator;
4. When a licensed physician and surgeon determines that the possession or use of a smartphone is necessary for the health or well-being of the pupil; and
5. When the possession or use of a smartphone is required in a pupil’s individualized education program (IEP). (Education Code (EC) 48901.7)
6. Authorizes the governing board of each school district, or its designee, to regulate the possession or use of any electronic signaling device that operates through the transmission or receipt of radio waves, including, but not limited to, paging and signaling equipment, by pupils of the school district while the pupils are on campus, while attending school-sponsored activities, or while under the supervision and control of school district employees. (EC 48901.5)
7. Requires that no pupil may be prohibited from possessing or using an electronic signaling device that is determined by a licensed physician and surgeon to be essential for the health of the pupil and use of which is limited to purposes related to the health of the pupil. (EC 48901.5)

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has been keyed as a possible state-mandated local program by the Office of Legislative Counsel.

COMMENTS:

Need for the bill. According to the author, “AB 1644 builds upon existing law by requiring schools to adopt clear, consistent ‘bell-to-bell’ policies that limit student use of smart phones throughout the school day, with appropriate exceptions for safety, health, and educational purposes.”

Current law requires locally-developed phone policies by July 1, 2026. In 2024, the Legislature required all LEAs to develop a policy that would limit or prohibit cell phone use in schools (AB 3216 (Hoover), Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024). LEAs are required to solicit significant stakeholder input to ensure the final policy meets the unique needs of students, parents, and educators in their community. These policies are required to be crafted no later than July 1, 2026, and be updated every five years.

This bill would replace these locally-developed policies with a statewide requirement for all LEAs to prohibit smartphone use during school by July 1, 2027.

Example phone policies from California schools. In a 2026 amicus curiae brief for TIKTOK INC vs Rob Bonta, Attorney General for California (case number 5:25-cv-09789-EJD), the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA) interviewed various school district administrators across the state. They surveyed, among other items, school polices surrounding cell phone use and the school environment. A sampling of these policies is described below, without endorsement, to demonstrate the variety of ways districts are designing and implementing phone policies:

• Large Urban District located in the San Francisco Bay Area: This district shared that its school board would be presented with options to implement a formal district-wide student smartphone ban in March 2026.

The district ran a pilot program at one of its middle schools that required students to keep their phones in their bags the entire day “from bell to bell”… The district conducted a parent survey to explain the reason behind the pilot program. None of the district administrators received complaints from parents about the restrictions.

Since implementing the pilot, principals reported a “significant decrease” in disciplinary referrals and incidents involving cyberbullying and social media activity during unstructured time. Additionally, students now “noticeably engage with each other” during non-instructional time.

• Large Suburban District located in the Inland Empire: Their policy restricts cellphones for middle school students at all times, and limits use for high school students during non-instructional periods.

District administrators expressed concerns about having the ability or tools to limit phones in school despite the problems phones create on campus. An administrator shared that “the problem is social media” because it creates a distraction in the learning environment “even when phones are not in the classroom.”

Several schools in the districts reported positive effects of having a cellphone policy. Prior to implementing a cellphone use policy, administrators reported having “over 100 expulsions” throughout the year. After implementing the cellphone use policy, districts saw a decrease in disciplinary matters. Several students shared that they did not realize how much of a distraction phones became in their daily lives. Without their phones, the administrator observed that students could enjoy group projects and build friendships with each other.

While the district expected parents to be upset about the restrictions, they did not receive complaints or resistance.

• Small Rural District in Southern California: Their policy limits cellphone use for students during the day. The district shared that the cellphone device itself was not an issue, but rather, what the phone enabled, including access to social media.

While parents were mostly supportive of limited use of phones during instructional time, some parents still wanted their children to have their phones for emergencies.

• Large Suburban District in Southern California: Their policy restricts cell phones during instructional periods but allows students to access their phones in case of emergencies. In addition to phones, the district required smart watches to always be in airplane mode.

Their policy was informed by responses to a community engagement survey.

• Small Suburban District in Southern California: Their policy reduces cellphone use during instructional periods.
• Small Urban District in the San Francisco Bay Area: This district implemented a phone policy for the first time during the 2025 – 2026 school year.

While implementation began smoothly, issues arose involving students with health issues, specifically students who needed access to their phones for medical reasons or IEP support.

Nearly 100 days into the change, staff observed improved student interactions and a decline in physical fights. Staff also noted the disappearance of harmful TikTok challenge incidents that posed safety risks. Some staff expressed the view that schools should treat smartphone usage like smoking and advocate for a “zero-tolerance” approach.

• Large Rural District on the Central Coast: Their policy stipulated “no phone during instruction.” Administrators expressed particular concern about the impact of social media on students in special education, including those with physical and emotional disabilities. These students may be more vulnerable to distraction and less equipped to exercise judgment when exposed to violent, sexual, or otherwise inappropriate content.
• Medium Urban District in the San Francisco Bay Area: Their initial policy restricted phone use to instructional time. The district intends to change the policy to restrict phones from “bell-to-bell.” Without the full restrictions, children experienced difficulty interacting with others “outside of their devices.”

Students did not seem to be aware of how much they used their phones and the seriousness of the impact. An administrator shared that the “vast majority” of issues reported to her involved phone-related incidents, primarily with social media postings carrying into in-person conflicts. During lunch time, students appeared isolated because they were on their phones. The district managed incidents involving viral trends, including the trend that encouraged students to vandalize school property. For example,

students posted videos online of themselves tearing paper towel dispensers

off the bathroom walls and shattering mirrors.

As these policies are largely new, research on the breadth and impact of school cell phone and smart device policies is lacking. Careful consideration of which policies have been tried, and to what effect, would be instrumental in developing best practices and evidence-based recommendations. Staff recommends the bill be amended to require the CDE to study the variety of cell phone policies in California schools and their impacts on student outcomes and the school environment.

A noticeable trend in existing polices is that multiple school districts changed their policies after initial implementation, often to create stricter regulations. To ensure LEAs remain able to respond to make changes as they see fit, staff recommends the bill be amended to allow LEAs to update their smartphone policies more frequently than every five years.

The role of stakeholder input is unclear. In keeping with current law, this bill requires LEAs to solicit significant stakeholder input when crafting cell phone policies, and to consider the unique needs of students, parents, and educators in their community. However, considering that there is only one outcome of the proposed policy – a prohibition on cell phone use during school hours – it is unclear what role the stakeholder input would play.

Numerous states enacted bell-to-bell phone bans in 2025. The 2025-26 school year saw at least 10 states implement versions of a bell-to-bell phone ban in schools:

Sources: Civic IQ; Ballotpedia. SY: school year

However, most states have policies that seek to limit phone use in school to some extent, and states without full bans typically allow schools to set their own policies, which may include bans. A national survey of 1,100 parents and 400 teenagers by the Brookings Institute found that, as of October 2025, 98% of teens attend school with some phone restrictions and 55% attend a school with bell-to-bell phone bans (Saavedra, 2026).

Support for cell phone restrictions appears to be growing. The Brookings Institute recently reviewed multiple surveys on cell phone use in school (Saavedra, 2026). Perhaps surprisingly, they found 76% of teens expressed a preference for some form of restrictions on phone use during the school day, compared to 93% of adults. Over the last 2-3 years, interest in cell phone restrictions has increased.

While a 2025 Rand Survey did find that 60% of students support some restrictions on cell phone use during classes, only 10% support full bell-to-bell policies.

Proposed ballot initiative would require limiting smartphone use in schools. In November 2025, a statewide initiative titled “The California Kids AI Safety Act” was proposed. The Act would, among other provisions, prohibit students from using internet-enabled devices such as smartphones “during instructional time or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee or employees of [the LEA].” The initiative has received media attention but has not yet reached the required number of signatures to be included on the ballot.

Enforcement of smartphone policies remains a challenge. A key issue in school smartphone policies is enforcement. The public-market firm Civic IQ identified three common ways schools enforce phone policies:

• Pouches or lockers that students secure phones in when entering or leaving school;
• Phone caddies in individual classrooms; or
• Policy only (e.g., “off-and-away”)

Investment in phone-storage solutions, such as pouches and lockers, can be very expensive for districts. However, relying on teachers to police phones in classrooms creates a higher burden for educators and takes away from instructional time.

Regardless of policy and enforcement methods, students will likely find ways to circumvent the rules. For example, students who are required to place their phones in pouches sometimes bring in “dummy phones” that are broken or outdated, and place these in the pouches while keeping their real device on their person. Research provided by the Brookings Institute shows that 25-30% of teenagers use phones during core academic classes, despite school restrictions (Saavedra, 2026). However, the same study suggests that schools with harsher restrictions, such as bell-to-bell bans, may see fewer policy violations.

Research demonstrates the impact of smartphone use on children. The U.S. Surgeon General issued an advisory in 2023 about the impact of social media use on the mental health of young people. The Surgeon General called for urgent action from policymakers, technology companies, researchers, families, and young people to better understand the full impact of social media, maximize its benefits, minimize its harms, and create safer online environments to protect children.

A 2019 Pew Research study found that most U.S. teens consider anxiety and depression to be significant issues among their peers, regardless of whether they experience these conditions (Horowitz and Graf, 2019). Concern about mental health is widespread across gender, racial, and socio-economic lines.

Furthermore, a 2020 article in the Journal of Affective Disorders indicated that more time spent on social media was linked to an increased risk of self-harm and depression, as well as lower self-esteem among 13–15-year-old girls (Barthorpe et al., 2020). Similar findings were observed for both weekday and weekend use.

Some researchers have suggested a correlation between increased technology and smartphone use and the rising rates of teenage anxiety and depression. A widely cited book by Dr. Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at San Diego State, iGen, presents evidence of an increase in depression and suicide among American teenagers that may be caused by increased mobile device screen time and social media use.

Moreover, an increasing body of research focuses on the impact of technology on student outcomes in grades K-12. A 2015 Discussion Paper from the London School of Economics and Political Science, Center for Economic Performance, explored the effects of banning cell phone use in English city schools in 2013. The paper found that student test scores improved following the ban, particularly among the most disadvantaged and underachieving pupils. The data suggests that low-achieving students are more likely to be distracted by mobile phones, while high achievers are less affected by the mobile phone policy.

Young children may be particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of smartphones. Young children may be particularly affected by smartphone use. Reporting by Common Sense Media shows that 25% of children have a personal cell phone by age 8, and 91% of a personal cell phone by age 14.

Research in the journal Pediatrics demonstrated that children who own a smartphone earlier in life are higher risk of depression, obesity, and sleep deficits (Barzilay et al., 2025). The national campaign Wait until 8^th advocates for parents and children to put off getting a smart phone until at least 8^th grade.

High school student are more likely to rely on a smartphone for social connection with their peers, or communication with parents or guardians as they become more independent. To accommodate the differing societal norms between high school and younger students, staff recommends the bill be amended to require the bell-to-bell ban for schools serving children in kindergarten through 8^th grade, and recommend a ban for schools serving children in 9^th through 12^th grade.

Arguments in support. According to the organization TechNet, “Smartphone use among students is nearly universal, with 95% of teens having access and many reporting constant online activity. This has become increasingly disruptive in schools, as device use during class and throughout the day reduces attention, learning, and peer interaction. While California authorized restrictions through AB 272 and now requires schools to adopt policies by July 1, 2026, under AB 3216, enforcement remains inconsistent. Other states have moved toward stricter, schoolwide limits, including bell-to-bell restrictions.

Excessive smartphone use is strongly linked to negative academic and mental health outcomes, including reduced focus, increased anxiety and depression, and lower overall well-being. The U.S. Surgeon General has warned of significant risks associated with youth social media use, and even the presence of a phone can impair attention. Early evidence shows that clear, consistently enforced restrictions improve academic performance, reduce behavioral issues, and support student well-being, underscoring the need for stronger, uniform policies.

AB 1644 establishes clear boundaries on smartphone use during the school day to support student focus, strengthen school climate, and improve academic outcomes. By limiting device use, it reduces distractions that undermine learning, mental health, and meaningful student engagement.”

Recommended Committee amendments. Staff recommends that the bill be amended as follows:

1. Limit the bell-to-bell ban to schools serving students in transitional kindergarten through 8^th grade.
2. Recommend that schools serving students in grades 9-12 implement a bell-to-bell ban.
3. Authorize schools to update their phone policies every five years or sooner, as needed.
4. Clarify that teachers or administrators may grant permission for a student to possess or use a smartphone only for a specific educational purpose.
5. Require the CDE to study the variety of cell phone policies in California schools and their impacts on student outcomes and the school environment.

Related legislation AB 1700 (Lowenthal) of the 2025-26 Session would establish an eSafety commission responsible for online safety.

AB 272 (Muratsuchi), Chapter 42, Statutes of 2019, provides that a student shall not be prohibited from possessing or using a smartphone under specified circumstances, and authorizes governing bodies to adopt a policy to limit or prohibit the use of smartphones by students while at school.

AB 3216 (Hoover), Chapter 500, Statutes of 2024, requires, rather than allows, a governing board of an LEA, COE, or a charter school no later than July 1, 2026, to develop, adopt, and update every five years a policy, as specified, to limit or prohibit the use by its pupils of smartphones while the pupils are at a schoolsite or while the pupils are under the supervision and control of an employee of that LEA, COE, and charter school.

SB 976 (Skinner), Chapter 321, Statutes of 2024, prohibits operators of “internet-based services or applications” from providing “addictive feeds,” as those terms are defined, to minors without parental consent and from sending notifications to minors at night and during school hours without parental consent, as provided. This bill requires operators to make available to parents a series of protective measures for controlling access to and features of the platform for their children. This bill also requires reporting on data regarding children on their platforms, as specified.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Technet

39 individuals

Opposition

None on file.

Analysis Prepared by: Sarah Cate Hawthorne / ED. / (916) 319-2087