One Size Does Not Fit All: The State’s use of a hammer banning cell phones in public schools when a screwdriver is needed

I do not usually post about school board or state legislative issues, but this one really has my attention and directly impacts all public school students. The state legislature is attempting to pass a state-wide bell-to-bell cell phone ban. Again, this would apply to our public school students and not our private school students. I am not opposed to the use of cell phones being restricted during the school day, but I want our local school boards, school administrations, teachers, and students to have input in the best ways to accomplish this. I also do not want to assume that this is a problem of equal magnitude in every district. Finally, I am bothered by the use of pseudo-science to support such a heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all piece of legislation.

If you want to read SB302, you can find it here. https://www.kslegislature.gov/li/b2025_26/measures/documents/sb302_00_0000.pdf

There is a corresponding bill in the house titled HB 2421. Testimony for the Senate Bill is due today at noon, but the House bill testimony is not due until Friday the 16th. Instructions for submitting testimony are found at:

https://www.kslegislature.gov/li/b2025_26/committees/ctte_h_ed_1/

Here is the testimony I submitted for the Senate Bill:

TESTIMONY TO SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

From: Lisa Larson-Bunnell, Parent of a middle-school child, concerned citizen, and local attorney of Shawnee, KS / USD 232 DeSoto School District

Email:  llb4shawnee@gmail.com

Bill Number: Bill SB 302

OPPONENT

Written testimony only

Date of hearing: January 15, 2026

Dear Chair Erickson and members of the committee,

I am writing to express my concern with the proposed legislation banning the use of cell phones in schools. I had a chance to review the proposal and have several concerns that I have listed below. This is not an exhaustive list.

1) These are matters that are best managed locally. Our school districts across the state have wildly diverse needs and these matters are best managed by local school administrations and school boards. Additionally, this proposed legislation goes against the Kansas Board of Education who recommended local school boards should address this issue.

 2) The data relied on to support this bill is not dependable or reproducible. A good study on this issue would identify schools who had declining metrics that they believe were tied to the use of cell phones. The study would then have an intervention narrowly tailored to the issue, a timeframe for which the intervention was deployed, and the same data measured after the intervention. It would also be honest about other factors that could have led to the improved metrics. The current studies I have seen lack scientific rigor or reproducibility. The proposed ban is heavy handed and the equivalent of using a hammer when a screwdriver is needed. This level of state-wide interference is not supported by reliable data.

 3) The definition of “instructional time” is overly broad. Time between classes and during lunch hours is not instructional time. The use of this phrase is misleading. If the purpose of the bell-to-bell ban, which is what it should be called, is to prevent cyber bullying, please know that cyber-bullying is a 24/7 risk. We all need to ask ourselves, “what is wrong with students using phones to communicate between classes and at lunch?”

 4) The definition of “personal electronic communication device” is overly broad. Most people who hear about this bill will not envision that this legislation goes well beyond cell phones. The definition is overly broad and includes ANY device such as cell phones, tablets, computers, watches, wireless headphones, and any other device that has the capability to call or generate text (written) communications. I am not only concerned that this includes devices for which there are legitimate uses during the school day, but also that our technological landscape is such that this definition will be outdated as soon as they are published. Technological advancements are too fast, and many of these devices could be beneficial as current or future teaching tools.

5) The carve out for 504 plans and medical needs clearly demonstrates legitimate uses for these devices during the school day, yet those uses will be limited to students who will now face stigma for having access to a phone. Aside from the social stigma, this bill presupposes that all students that could benefit from a 504 plan have one, and that students have easy access to healthcare providers. We know both of those things are not trueand these carve outs are not broad enough to support all legitimate uses.

 I am also not sure that the current carve-outs do enough to allow schools to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The ADA requires schools to provide reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities. For instance, a student who is partially hearing impaired may rely on commercially available earbuds and a cell phone as a hearing assistive device. This is more common now that the federal hearing aid regulations have loosened. Does someone who has been hearing impaired since birth now need to go to a doctor and get a new note to permit this? My reading of the current legislation suggests yes. This need for a new, explicit note would be a violation of the ADA since the school district was aware of the hearing disability.

6) Social control vs. teaching responsible use of technology. A cell phone ban in schools is like trying to stop a storm by closing the windows. It might reduce the immediate disruption inside the room, but it does not address the weather outside or teach anyone how to navigate it. Phones, like weather, are a constant reality. Students will face them everywhere beyond school walls. Instead of pretending the storm is not there, schools are better off teaching students how to read the forecast, carry an umbrella, and know when to seek shelter, developing judgment, self-control, and resilience rather than relying on temporary cover.

 7) Last line of defense. While cell phones can be used for nefarious purposes such as cyber bullying, they are also often the last line of defense for our kids and are used to catch not only juvenile, but adult offenders in our schools. I am sure this committee is familiar with the April 2021 incident involving a substitute teacher who was caught by a student’s cell phone making a series of bizarre speeches and kicking a male student in the groin and encouraging other students to do likewise. Imagine if these behaviors were not recorded. How likely do you think it would be that the offender would have been held accountable without the video evidence? It is more likely that they would have been permitted to continue teaching. The legislation offering a phone at the school where kids can call their parents is not an adequate substitute.

 8) This ban can exacerbate the school to prison pipeline. I fully admit that this will affect a minority of students, but it can have a devastating impact. Here is how it would work. A student commits a crime for which the court places them on probation. That is, they can avoid incarceration if they meet the obligations set forth by the judge for probation. The conditions for probation are statutory and found in K.S.A.§3823.01 et seq. For the sake of this illustration, assume the crime was not a major felony such as murder or assault (sexual or otherwise). The student later gets caught with a cell phone prompting a visit to the principal’s office or with the school’s disciplinary officer. It is a statutorycondition of probation that the kid have no disciplinary issues at school to keep them out of jail. It is also a condition that all referrals for discipline be reported to the probation officer and the court. These communications are often made by School Resource Officers. So, now that cell phone possession has turned into a probation violation and the judge is fully within their rights to revoke the probation and incarcerate the student. This is not hypothetical, this is how our system works. There is variation from county to county on how these violations will be enforced. Some courts will treat this as a “technical violation” indicating that probation should not be revoked. But judges are not required to treat it as such. It is an uncomfortable truth that our (not just Kansas) criminal justice system is not always fair or logical. Possessing a cell phone in school should never lead to someone being stripped of their freedom, even if doing so is a technical violation of an overly broad probation structure that is not narrowly tailored to protect the public’s interests.

To be clear, I am not opposed to all cell phone bans, but I request that they be narrowly tailored and respond to the specific needs of our students. That is, they are best managed at the local level. Please do not allow this legislation out of committee in its current form.

Respectfully Submitted on January 14, 2026, to S.education@senate.ks.gov