HB1055

Why does the State Board need to do something school boards and public schools have already implemented? This is unneeded.

I dont believe it is the State Board of Education’s place to be mandating local school policies.

Please let local school boards manage themselves. The state has ruined enough already

Testimony in Opposition to HB 1055 Honorable Members of the House Education Policy and Administration Committee, I am here to provide testimony opposing House Bill 1055, which seeks to grant the state board of education rulemaking authority regarding student use of cell phones and personal communication devices in schools. This legislation presents several concerns when evaluated through an inclusive intersectional lens, particularly regarding its implications for equity and access in education. 1. Equity and Access Issues While the intention behind regulating cell phone usage may be to create a focused learning environment, we must consider how such regulations disproportionately impact marginalized students. Students from lower-income backgrounds may rely on their personal devices for access to educational resources, family communication, and social support networks. By imposing strict regulations, the bill risks alienating these students, further widening the opportunity gap. Adverse Underpinnings: Digital Divide: Not all students have equal access to personal devices or reliable internet connectivity. Students who cannot afford smartphones or other communication devices may face educational disadvantages and feelings of isolation. Unintended Consequences: Students who use their devices for legitimate educational purposes may be unfairly penalized, leading to confusion and frustration. 2. Impact on Mental Health and Social Dynamics The proposed rules could also adversely affect students' mental health and social dynamics within the school environment. In an era where communication technology plays a pivotal role in fostering relationships and support networks, students who face mental health challenges, including anxiety and depression, may depend on their devices for social connections. Who Benefits: While some educators and administrators may support stricter regulations to minimize distractions, they overlook the nuanced realities of students' lives. Strict policies may cater to a perception of discipline without addressing the actual needs of students, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds. Who Does Not Benefit: Students who rely on their devices for communication with family or support services may feel marginalized. Those grappling with social anxiety or mental health issues may find further isolation due to restricted device access. 3. Diverse Student Experiences This legislation fails to account for the vast diversity in student experiences and the various reasons students use personal devices. For example, English language learners (ELL) may use translation apps for assistance, while students with disabilities may utilize devices for accommodations that facilitate learning. The bill does not differentiate between healthy and detrimental usage, potentially limiting beneficial access. Conclusion In conclusion, House Bill 1055 poses risks of exacerbating inequities rather than creating an inclusive educational environment. Rather than imposing blanket regulations, we should aspire to develop policies that are nuanced, equitable, and responsive to the diverse needs of all students. Enhanced focus on digital literacy and responsible usage, rather than outright regulation, may better serve our educational objectives. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Written Testimony in Opposition to HB 1055 My name is Curtis Hamilton. I serve as Vice Chair of the Contoocook Valley School Board. I submit this testimony on my own behalf, from the perspective of a local school board member. I want to be clear at the outset: I support the current statutory ban on student cell phones and personal communication devices during the instructional day. I believe this is sound policy, and districts across New Hampshire are already implementing it thoughtfully, with appropriate exceptions for medical, disability, and language-access needs. My concern with HB 1055 is not about the policy outcome, but about governance and necessity. School boards already have both the authority and the obligation under current law to adopt and enforce these policies. That raises a fundamental question: what problem is being solved by granting the State Board of Education additional rulemaking authority in an area already governed by statute and local policy? If districts are required to implement this ban, and are doing so, then additional state oversight risks duplicating authority rather than improving outcomes. From a school board perspective, this also raises concern about future unfunded mandates. Once rulemaking authority is granted, rules can evolve over time, potentially introducing new compliance, reporting, or enforcement requirements without legislative review or funding. Even well-intentioned rules can impose real administrative and financial burdens on districts. Local school boards are directly accountable to their communities. We are best positioned to implement statewide requirements in ways that reflect local conditions while meeting student needs. HB 1055 risks setting a precedent for expanded state oversight in areas that have long and appropriately belonged to local governance. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the committee to vote Inexpedient to Legislate on HB 1055. Respectfully submitted, Curtis Hamilton Vice Chair, Contoocook Valley School Board Speaking for myself

This decision should be made by the districts and schools themselves.

The House passed a cell phone ban in public schools last year and it has been implemented this school year. I've heard positive feedback from people across the state on this new policy so I'm not sure why we need to take away the ability of local school boards to develop their own policies around this issue.

Local elected school boards are perfectly capable of instituting policies regarding cell phones in their districts. This is not appropriate for the State Board of Education to impose.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.