Cellphone bans are coming to all Oregon public K-12 schools, and school boards have until Oct. 31 to figure it out.
Gov. Tina Kotek issued an executive order Wednesday, July 2, requiring school districts to prohibit “personal electronic devices” during “regular instructional hours.”
The Oregon Department of Education, OSBA and the Coalition of Oregon School Administrators are scrambling to define exactly what that means.
Kotek, who is also the Oregon superintendent of public instruction, has required school districts to adopt a policy by Oct. 31 and to have it in effect by Jan. 1. Many school leaders, though, are pressing to have a policy ready for the start of the school year, a challenge for the school board calendar.
As of July 2, 32 states have enacted school cellphone laws or policies, according to Ballotpedia, with 25 of them requiring some sort of ban or limit.
Research has connected cellphones to problems in school including bullying, reduced attention span, impaired social and emotional development, and lack of engagement with lessons, teachers and peers. Researchers warn that social media use, abetted by constant access to cellphones, is creating a mental health crisis in young people.
Under ORS 336.840, Oregon already requires school districts to have an electronic devices policy, but it does not require restricting cellphone use.
The 2025 Legislature attempted to ban cellphones, but testimony on House Bill 2251 showed that banning cellphones in schools isn’t as simple as saying, “No more.”
Students need cellphones for a variety of medical and academic reasons, ranging from multi-factor cybersecurity authorization for class materials to health monitoring to individualized education program requirements. Some disability advocates worry that a cellphone ban could stigmatize students who need them. Parents and students also say students need to be able to contact parents, siblings or employers.
At the same time, cellphone bans are a school staffing and budget challenge. Someone must monitor students and take away devices, and staff say they already have enough duties without adding cellphone police. Schools have found technology assists, such as Yondr lockable pouches, but those cost money at a time many districts are cutting budgets.
It also is not clear how a student cellphone ban will affect staff cellphone usage. Although a school district might want school staff to model putting cellphones away, union contracts create different rights for the adults.
OSBA and COSA worked with legislators to amend the bill, primarily to give local school leaders more leeway to craft policies that fit their communities. Oregon school districts range from a handful of students to tens of thousands with boundaries that can vary from the size of a small town to thousands of square miles.
Some school districts around the state have already adopted cellphone policies, often with extensive input from staff, students and families. Current policies range from just putting phones away during class time to locking phones away for the entire day.
Students, staff and administrators have generally said bans have improved school culture. But students have also shown an ingenious number of ways to evade school bans, making enforcement a running battle.
HB 2251 failed after lengthy debates, and Kotek issued the order a few days after the session ended.
Kotek’s order defines a portable electronic device as “any portable, electrically powered device that is capable of making and receiving calls and text messages and accessing the internet independently from the school’s network infrastructure.” The order specifically excludes laptops and other academically necessary devices, but it’s not clear if it covers smart watches.
School district policies must be clear on how devices will be stored during the day while providing for student exceptions based on medical or academic needs or individual exceptions approved by a building administrator. Policies must describe enforcement measures, but students who violate the policy cannot be punished with a loss of instruction time.
ODE said it plans to update its webpage Guidance for Personal Electronic Devices as rules are developed. ODE is offering virtual office hours 3-4 p.m. Thursday, July 10, for policy questions and input. Questions can also be emailed to [email protected].
The State Board of Education will likely adopt rules to codify the prohibition. The board is not scheduled to meet again until Sept. 18, though. ODE is expected to prepare temporary rules for adoption at that meeting so school boards have time to adopt compliant policies by the Oct. 31 deadline.
The state board will then go through its process to adopt permanent rules that may necessitate some changes to school district policies.
Kotek put off implementation until Jan. 1 to give schools time to work through the logistics, but many school leaders don’t like to change policies mid-year. For most districts, that basically means they would need to pass a policy at their August meeting.
OSBA Policy Services Director Spencer Lewis said OSBA is planning to share some guidance in early August but OSBA is waiting to see if ODE will offer a sample policy. He said he doesn’t want to put school boards in the position of passing a policy and then almost immediately needing to change it to meet ODE’s specifications.
School boards may still need to make small changes depending on the proposed temporary or permanent rules.
Lewis recommended school boards put the issue on their agendas in July if they can so that their communities have a chance to start talking about what they would like to see and their concerns about implementation.
“With this timeline, there is not a lot of opportunity to engage the community,” he said, “but the governor’s order also does not give the districts a lot of flexibility.”
– Jake Arnold, OSBA
[email protected]
