AB 235 amends Education Code section 48901.7 to expressly allow school districts, county boards of education, and charter school governing bodies to adopt either a schedule-based restriction policy or a full-day restriction policy limiting pupils’ smartphone use while on campus or under school supervision. The bill defines those two policy types, requires stakeholder input in policy development, and permits enforcement mechanisms that limit access.
The measure enumerates narrow exceptions (emergencies; teacher/administrator permission; physician determination; IEP requirements), prohibits monitoring or collecting information about pupils’ online activities, and includes the standard clause making the act a potential state‑mandated local program subject to reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates so finds. The legislative findings also encourage schools to expand media literacy and responsible technology use programs.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill obliges local education agencies to adopt a written policy that may take the form of a full-day ban (no phones during the schoolday) or a schedule-based ban (phones prohibited during class but allowed at breaks). It requires significant stakeholder participation in creating the policy and allows schools to use enforcement tools that restrict access to devices.
Who It Affects
Public school governing boards, county offices of education, and charter school authorities must develop these policies; school leaders, teachers, IT staff, and compliance officers will implement and enforce them. Pupils and parents are directly affected by the scope of allowed use and enumerated exceptions.
Why It Matters
AB 235 gives districts explicit legal cover to adopt sweeping phone restrictions while carving out emergency, medical, and individualized‑education exceptions and preserving student privacy by forbidding monitoring of online activity. It also potentially creates new implementation costs that could trigger state reimbursement procedures.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 235 changes California’s Education Code to make two types of smartphone rules an explicit option for local education authorities. The bill requires each school district board, county board, and charter governing body to develop and adopt a policy that either prohibits smartphones for the entire schoolday (a full-day restriction) or allows them only at certain times (a schedule-based restriction).
The statute instructs that policy development include significant input from pupils, parents and educators so the final approach fits each community.
The bill spells out four narrow exceptions where a pupil may possess or use a smartphone despite a local ban: emergencies or perceived threats, when a teacher or administrator grants permission, when a licensed physician deems the device necessary for health, and when the device is required by a pupil’s individualized education program. Importantly, the law also prohibits schools from monitoring, collecting, or otherwise accessing information about a pupil’s online activities, which aims to separate device‑control measures from digital surveillance.On mechanics, AB 235 defines the two policy types so districts know the permissible menu: full-day bans cover instructional time, lunches, passing periods and breaks, while schedule-based bans ban phones during specified times like instruction but permit use during lunch or free periods.
The statute allows districts to include enforcement mechanisms that limit access — the bill does not prescribe particular enforcement tactics, leaving room for local decisions about whether to confiscate devices, lock them in storage, disable signals, or use other technical controls.The bill opens two practical questions for implementers: how to translate the ban into operational procedures that respect the privacy prohibition, and how to manage costs. AB 235 contains the usual state‑mandated local program language directing the Commission on State Mandates to determine reimbursement for any state‑imposed costs, and the legislative findings encourage complementary investments in media literacy and responsible technology education.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Boards must adopt a smartphone restriction policy by July 1, 2026, and update it every five years.
The bill defines a "full-day restriction policy" as a prohibition on smartphones during the entire schoolday, including instruction, lunch, passing time and breaks.
A "schedule-based restriction policy" bans phones at specified times (for example, during class) but permits limited use at other times (such as lunch or passing periods).
Pupils may use or carry smartphones despite a local ban in four cases: emergencies or perceived threats, teacher/administrator permission, a licensed physician’s determination, or when required by an IEP.
The statute expressly bars monitoring, collecting, or otherwise accessing information about a pupil’s online activities and treats the measure as a potential state‑mandated local program subject to Commission on State Mandates reimbursement.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Encouraging media literacy alongside restrictions
The bill opens with legislative findings urging schools to expand media literacy classes, extracurriculars, and other programs that teach responsible and safe technology use. That language signals the Legislature’s intent that device restrictions be accompanied by educational measures rather than used as the sole response to student smartphone use.
Mandate to adopt a written smartphone policy; authorization of policy types
This subsection requires governing boards to develop and adopt a written policy by the statutory deadline and to update it every five years. It expressly authorizes policies to be either schedule‑based or full‑day restriction policies. Practically, that gives districts legal cover to choose anything on the spectrum from limited in‑class bans to campus‑wide full‑day prohibitions.
Policy goals and stakeholder participation
The bill requires that the policy aim to promote evidence‑based smartphone practices for pupil learning and welfare and directs significant stakeholder participation in development. For implementation teams, this means documenting outreach and input from students, parents, teachers and possibly unions or special education staff to demonstrate responsiveness to local needs.
Enumerated exceptions where device use is permitted
This subsection lists four explicit exceptions: emergencies or perceived threats, teacher/administrator permission (with reasonable limits), physician determination for health needs, and IEP‑required device use. Schools adopting strict restrictions must incorporate procedures to honor these exceptions, including verifying medical determinations or accommodating IEP provisions.
Privacy prohibition and definitions of policy types
Subdivision (c) prohibits monitoring, collecting, or otherwise accessing information about a pupil’s online activities — a bright‑line privacy protection that limits the tools schools can rely on to enforce rules. Subdivision (d) defines the two policy options (full‑day and schedule‑based), clarifying the scope of each so local policymakers can translate choices into operational rules.
State‑mandated local program clause
The bill states that, if the Commission on State Mandates finds the measure imposes costs on local agencies, reimbursement will follow the Government Code procedures. That preserves local governments’ ability to seek compensation for new obligations such as drafting policies, community engagement, and technical or enforcement expenses.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Students concerned about classroom focus: A clear local ban can reduce in‑class interruptions and create a more device‑free instructional environment, potentially improving attention and learning outcomes.
- Parents and guardians seeking clarity on safety: Enumerated emergency and medical exceptions give families predictable pathways to allow access when needed.
- School leaders and boards: The bill provides explicit statutory authority to implement strong phone restrictions, reducing legal ambiguity for districts that want to limit devices.
- Advocates of media literacy programs: The bill’s findings and encouragement for media literacy can create momentum (and justification for funding) to expand instruction on responsible technology use.
Who Bears the Cost
- School districts and charter schools: Districts must run stakeholder processes, draft or revise policies, train staff, and potentially buy or maintain equipment for enforcement or secure storage — all tasks that consume administrative time and budget.
- School IT and operations staff: Implementing technical controls (signal blockers, device management, lockers) or maintaining collection procedures increases workload and may require capital outlays.
- Teachers and building administrators: The bill permits enforcement mechanisms but leaves methods to local discretion, which can place day‑to‑day enforcement burdens on classroom staff and administrators.
- Students with limited access to devices outside school: Students who rely on smartphones for learning outside school may face reduced access during long schooldays if districts opt for full‑day bans, shifting equity issues onto families and after‑school providers.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing schools’ authority to reduce smartphone‑driven distraction and protect learning against the burdens and equity costs of enforcement and the privacy limits on oversight: stronger restrictions are easier to write but harder and costlier to enforce fairly without intrusive monitoring, while strict privacy protections limit enforcement options and may undermine the restrictions’ effectiveness.
AB 235 resolves a legal ambiguity by authorizing two named policy approaches, but it leaves substantial implementation choices to local authorities. The statute allows enforcement mechanisms that limit access yet simultaneously forbids monitoring pupils’ online activities; that creates operational uncertainty about what enforcement will look like in practice.
For example, device collection and physical lockers are clearly permissible without surveillance, but technical measures that log or inspect traffic could run afoul of the monitoring prohibition. Districts will need clear operational guidance to avoid inadvertent privacy violations when using device‑management tools.
The bill’s requirement for "significant stakeholder participation" is open to interpretation. Districts will face pressure to document meaningful outreach, and absence of guidance risks litigation or local disputes over whether the participation requirement was satisfied.
The reimbursement clause shifts financial risk to the Commission on State Mandates review process, but that process is neither quick nor guaranteed to cover all costs administrators expect. Finally, the statute does not set discipline standards or specify permissible enforcement techniques, meaning local policies could diverge widely — producing patchwork outcomes across communities and raising equity concerns when wealthier districts can buy technical solutions while others cannot.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.