Connecticut lawmakers are weighing whether a statewide bell-to-bell cellphone ban in schools is the next step in a growing effort to limit students’ use of phones during class time. The proposal comes as districts across the state have adopted different rules, including Meriden, where school leaders describe an “off and away” policy rather than a total in-class shutdown. At a Feb. 20 Education Committee hearing, supporters and opponents argued over whether an all-day restriction during the school day would improve focus and learning or whether it would instead remove useful tools and shift enforcement burdens to teachers and administrators.

The legislation under consideration would create a statewide framework aimed at barring phones for the duration of the school day, with a specific exception for using phones as part of designated special education plans. AP reported that advocates for bell-to-bell bans say the phones and social media apps they access are designed to be addictive and that those effects can be harmful to young people’s ability to focus and learn. Many supporters also drew from the arguments popularized by psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation, which connects phone and social media use with a rise in youth mental health disorders.

Opponents at the hearing, including some parents and students, challenged the idea that a bell-to-bell ban is necessary or that it would solve the underlying problems they associate with phone distraction. They said districts can address the issue through policies that fit local conditions, and they raised concerns that an all-day restriction could foreclose instruction, emergency communication, and practical training for using phones responsibly outside of school hours. Meriden Superintendent Mark Benigni, who opposes a statewide ban, argued that his district’s approach gives teachers room to manage technology access rather than treating all phone use as equivalent.

Benigni described Meriden’s policy as “off and away,” a phrase he said has spread through the district over time. Under the district’s approach, students can use phones in hallways and at lunch, but they are expected to put them away during class unless the teacher allows phone use for instructional purposes. The article described examples including scanning QR codes to view instructional videos for particular math problems and recording science experiments for review later. Students told the hearing that what “away” means can vary by classroom, with some teachers collecting phones in a box and others allowing devices to remain on desks face-down, while administrators said they support teachers if discipline becomes necessary.

Meriden school leaders also argued that restricting phones during class can unintentionally limit access for some students and learning goals. Susan Moore, the district’s director of instructional technology and curriculum, said Meriden’s approach supports accessibility, including for multilingual learners and students with special needs. She cited translation features and text-to-speech features as tools that help with the accessibility piece, and Benigni said the district has seen behavior and engagement improve when phones are available at defined times rather than banned continuously.

At the hearing, Rep. Lezlye Zupkus argued that statewide limits should not override decisions made by local districts. Addressing Benigni during testimony, she said, “I believe it’s local control,” and added that if something is a problem in a particular school, it should be handled there. Rep. Jennifer Leeper, the committee co-chair, responded from a safety-centered perspective, saying, “The fundamental responsibility of government is to keep people safe. And when we know a better way of keeping people safe, it’s incumbent on us to act.”

While legislators debated the policy question, other speakers described concrete experiences from districts that have adopted stricter rules. James Tierinni, a math teacher in Manchester, said the district became an early adopter of a bell-to-bell ban across all schools several years ago and described how it shifted classroom culture away from phone enforcement. Tierinni told lawmakers that when he gives out class exercises, students are better able to turn their desks and talk to each other, describing the resulting environment as more positive. He also said he hasn’t seen a phone in a year and a half, and said his view is that the negatives outweigh the positives.

Britt-Friedman, a psychologist with the Yale Child Study Center, offered a scientific argument tied to how attention is managed in school settings. At the hearing, she said, “Repeatedly engaging and disengaging from devices impairs students’ ability to learn and reduces their performance.” She also said, “Research shows that those with ADHD and other learning challenges are particularly vulnerable,” and added that even the visible presence of a smartphone can be distracting. She argued that expecting children and adolescents to regulate use of the device in a learning environment ignores their developmental limits.

Other opponents and supporters raised additional concerns, including whether a statewide approach would add burdens for teachers and administrators and whether it could reduce students’ ability to reach family members during crises. Parents told legislators that phones can function as an emergency “lifeline,” and speakers described how they were worried about restricting access when safety cannot be guaranteed. Proponents responded that emergencies are best handled by trained adults and first responders, and Regina von Gootkin, founder of the Screen Smart Initiative, told legislators that fear about phone restrictions is not supported by experts or data. She said in testimony that parents’ safety concerns are understandable, but that in an emergency, “students are safest when focused on trained adults and first responders, not texting their parents,” and added, “Fear cannot override what is actually safer for our kids.”

The hearing also included an argument about how quickly Connecticut should move from limits already in place. Rep. Irene Haines asked whether it was wise to impose new statutory restrictions shortly after Connecticut already updated school cellphone laws tied to recommendations from the state education board, and whether it was too soon to know whether the limits adopted by districts under those rules are sufficient. Joslyn DeLancey, vice president of the Connecticut Education Association, replied that the state cannot afford to wait, and said, “What we see is irreparable harm every year, every day, every month that these cellphones are being utilized.”

Meriden students and other residents described how phones are used in day-to-day schoolwork, ranging from classroom communication and submitting assignments to managing social media accounts. Addison Markoja, a senior at Meriden High School, said phones have been used in class for tasks like submitting artwork by taking pictures. Other students said their phones also help them communicate with coaches or team members outside the school building, and they described using learning apps including StudentSquare, Google Classroom, and PowerSchool. In response, proponents argued that bell-to-bell restrictions remove phones from the places students are most likely to use them in unstructured ways, including hallways and the cafeteria.

The policy debate in Connecticut is now set against a backdrop of similar fights across the country. AP reported that if lawmakers approve the bill being discussed, Connecticut would join roughly 20 states that have imposed bell-to-bell bans as officials cite concerns about adverse effects of phone use for kids. The proposal described in the hearing also would not prevent students from using phones when they are included in designated special education plans, a distinction speakers said could help preserve necessary classroom access for some learners. As legislators consider the statewide question, they also appeared to weigh whether the benefits of clearer, stricter rules outweigh the costs of reducing teacher flexibility and shifting enforcement onto schools.

sources:

  • id: src_001 url: https://apnews.com/article/schools-meriden-erin-sullivan-connecticut-mobile-phones-5f508ee261dee40e69ff5d7c64f78b87 outlet: Associated Press outlet_class: wire author: Theo Peck-suzuki/the Connecticut Mirror publication_date: 2026-03-09 title: Should CT adopt a cellphone ban in schools? Lawmakers to decide access_date: 2026-05-24 reliability_tier: 1 originating_or_republishing: originating metadata: framework_version: 1.3.0 generation_timestamp: 2026-05-24T00:00:00Z source_cluster_id: cluster_ap_2026-03-10_schools-meriden-erin-sullivan-connecticu gdelt_event_ids: [] consensus_floor_version: v1 publication_mindspec_version: msi-editorial-supervisor ai_disclosure: This article was generated algorithmically by Main Street Independent’s News Article Generator framework from the public sources listed under sources. Specification: /methodology. Human review: not_triggered. human_review_status: not_triggered human_review_triggers: [] license: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ primary_entities:
    • Connecticut General Assembly
    • Mark Benigni
    • Lezlye Zupkus
    • Jennifer Leeper
    • Jackie Britt-Friedman
    • James Tierinni primary_themes:
    • classroom technology and student focus
    • local control vs statewide rules
    • safety and access to emergency communication geographic_location: United States floor_values_engaged:
    • value: informed_citizenship intensity: 0.6
    • value: equality and fairness intensity: 0.4
    • value: truthfulness intensity: 0.5 …