HR-1275-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Bruce Westerman (R-AR)
What it does
This bill would require two federal actions targeting mobile device use in K-12 schools. First, it would direct the Surgeon General, in consultation with HHS, to conduct and publish a study on how mobile devices affect student learning, academic achievement, educational outcomes, and mental health. Second, it would require the Department of Education, in consultation with HHS, to create a pilot grant program awarding funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) so participating schools can purchase secure storage containers and install lockers to keep students' mobile devices away during the school day.
Who benefits
K-12 students who may experience improved focus and mental health outcomes if mobile device use is reduced. Teachers and school administrators who would gain federal resources and research backing for device-free classroom policies. Parents who support limiting phone access during school hours. Manufacturers and suppliers of secure storage containers and lockers, who would receive new business from grant-funded purchases. Researchers and public health professionals who would gain a federally funded data set on device use and student outcomes.
Who is hurt
Local educational agencies and schools that do not receive pilot grants but face pressure to adopt similar policies without funding. Students and families who rely on mobile devices for safety communication, disability accommodations, or emergency contact during the school day. Telecommunications companies and app developers whose school-hours usage could decline. Schools in lower-income districts that may lack the infrastructure to implement locker or storage systems even with grants. Teachers who use mobile devices as instructional tools and may face restrictions under policies encouraged by the bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a growing body of research — including a 2023 UNESCO report finding that phone bans improved learning outcomes in schools across multiple countries — shows that mobile device use in schools is linked to reduced attention, lower academic performance, and worsening adolescent mental health. They contend that the federal government has a legitimate role in funding research and providing resources to LEAs that want to act but lack the financial means, and that the pilot program's voluntary, grant-based structure respects local control while giving schools the tools to create distraction-free learning environments.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that school device policies are inherently local decisions and that federal involvement — even through voluntary grants — risks nudging districts toward a one-size-fits-all approach that may not suit every community's needs. They contend that the evidence on device bans is mixed: some studies show neutral or context-dependent effects, and blanket restrictions may disadvantage students who use devices for accessibility tools, language translation, or safety. Critics also argue that the pilot program's funding could be better directed toward proven academic interventions rather than physical storage infrastructure.
Constitutional context
The bill uses Congress's Spending Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) to attach conditions to federal education grants, a well-established mechanism upheld under South Dakota v. Dole (1987). The Tenth Amendment is relevant because education is traditionally a state function, but the bill's voluntary, grant-based structure — rather than a mandate — is designed to stay within the incentive side of the Dole line rather than crossing into coercion.
Checks and balances
The Executive Branch (Department of Education and HHS) gains administrative authority to design the pilot program and set grant conditions; Congress retains oversight through appropriations and reporting requirements, and participating LEAs retain discretion over whether to apply.
Historical precedent
The federal government has previously used conditional grant programs to shape school policy — most notably through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (1965) and Race to the Top (2009) — but no directly analogous federal program targeting mobile device storage in schools has been enacted.