HB 1122
In CommitteeHouse
Student mobile device use
Restricting mobile device usage by public school students.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill aims to improve student focus and mental health by restricting student use of personal mobile devices during school hours. It requires the state education office to research best practices and recommend strategies, then mandates that school districts adopt policies based on those recommendations starting in the 2026–27 school year.
- Requires the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to report to the legislature by December 15, 2025, summarizing existing mobile device policies in Washington and other states, and recommending strategies for restricting device use during instructional hours.
- Directs OSPI to consult with the Washington State School Directors’ Association (WSSDA) before finalizing recommendations.
- Requires WSSDA to develop a model policy and procedures for restricting mobile device use during instructional hours, posted publicly by March 15, 2026.
- Mandates that all school districts adopt a mobile device policy by the start of the 2026–27 school year, aligned with the WSSDA model policy.
- Defines “instructional hours” and “mobile device” (excluding school-issued devices), and allows for exceptions for emergencies, disabilities, English learners, health conditions, or instructional purposes.
- Requires districts to share their mobile device policies with students and families annually.
Who is affected
- Public school students — Students in public K-12 schools will be required to limit or stop using personal mobile devices during instructional hours, which may include storing devices in designated locations or leaving them at the front of the classroom.
- School districts and local administrators — School districts must develop and implement policies for restricting mobile device use, based on state-recommended guidelines, and ensure families are informed annually.
- Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) — The office of the superintendent of public instruction must research and report on best practices for mobile device restrictions and share draft recommendations with school leaders.
- Parents and guardians — Families and guardians will receive annual notice of their school’s mobile device policy and may need to support students in adjusting to new device-use expectations.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill is grounded in peer-reviewed research showing that smartphone presence—even when unused—reduces student test performance by ~6%, suggesting a direct academic benefit from restrictions that could improve learning outcomes for most students, especially in under-resourced schools where distractions may be most pronounced.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1) (citing LSE study)By limiting device use, the bill may reduce cyberbullying, non-consensual recording, and exposure to harmful online content during school hours—key contributors to the youth mental health crisis, especially for girls and LGBTQ+ students who face disproportionate online harms.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)The requirement for OSPI to consult with WSSDA and include flexible exceptions (e.g., for disabilities, health, instruction) ensures the policy framework can be adapted to real-world needs, supporting inclusive implementation rather than rigid prohibition.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(ii), (iii)The bill draws on international evidence (e.g., France’s 2018 law banning phones in schools for students under 15) showing measurable improvements in test scores and social interaction, supporting the feasibility and effectiveness of such policies in diverse settings.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 1(3) (comparative international context)Requiring annual policy sharing with families promotes transparency and parental engagement, potentially strengthening school-home partnerships around shared expectations for focus and safety.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(b)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandating district-wide mobile device restrictions by 2026–27 may impose significant implementation costs on school districts—including staff time for policy development, training, enforcement, and equipment storage—without dedicated state funding, potentially diverting resources from core academic programs.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)The bill delegates implementation authority to local districts but requires strict alignment with a state-recommended model policy, reducing local flexibility to adapt policies to community-specific needs (e.g., rural districts with limited storage, schools serving neurodivergent students), potentially leading to one-size-fits-all enforcement that undermines equity goals.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(c)The definition excludes school-issued devices but includes *any* personal phone—even if used for accessibility tools, emergency contact, or transportation (e.g., bus tracking), or for students in foster care or experiencing homelessness who rely on phones as their only communication tool—potentially infringing on students’ autonomy and privacy without accommodations for vulnerable subgroups.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(4)(b) (mobile device definition)While the bill allows exceptions for disabilities, health conditions, and English learners, it leaves interpretation and enforcement discretion to local districts, creating inconsistent access and potential discrimination if staff misapply or overlook accommodations—especially for students with IEPs or 504 plans.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(iii) (exceptions)Requiring districts to share policies annually adds administrative burden (e.g., translation, distribution, documentation) without specifying funding, potentially straining already-overburdened front-office staff in high-need districts.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(b) (annual sharing of policy)
Who Is Most Affected
Students—especially those in middle and high school—may experience improved focus, reduced anxiety from social comparison, and better in-person social skill development, but may also feel resentment over loss of autonomy or face challenges if phones are their only access to communication, safety tools, or assistive tech.
School districts face implementation costs (training, storage, enforcement) and reduced flexibility, but may benefit from reduced behavioral incidents, improved academic metrics, and a standardized framework that lowers legal risk.
OSPI gains authority to shape national best practices but must absorb research and coordination costs; the agency may strengthen its role in evidence-based policy development, though without dedicated funding, this could strain existing staff.
Parents may appreciate clearer expectations and reduced concerns about cyberbullying or distraction, but may struggle with enforcing device discipline at home or worry about how exceptions (e.g., for disabilities) will be applied fairly.
Students with disabilities, English learners, and those experiencing homelessness may benefit from accommodations if implemented well—but are at highest risk of being penalized if exceptions are narrowly or inconsistently applied.