AB 962 amends Education Code section 48901.7 to make the long-standing emergency exception to smartphone prohibitions contingent on an explicit provision in a school's comprehensive school safety plan (adopted under Section 32282). The bill keeps the broader requirement that districts, county offices, and charter schools adopt policies limiting or forbidding pupil smartphone use and requires periodic updates and stakeholder engagement.
Why it matters: the change moves a previously automatic exception (use during an emergency or perceived threat) behind the gate of formal safety planning. That alters how schools operationalize lockdowns, reunification, and student communication during crises, and it shifts legal and implementation work into safety-plan drafting and review — the document that will now determine whether phones stay on or are turned off in an emergency.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends the statute so a school may prohibit a pupil’s smartphone use during an emergency or perceived threat only if the school’s comprehensive safety plan explicitly addresses that prohibition. It preserves other specified exceptions (teacher permission, medical necessity, IEPs) and bars authorization to monitor students’ online activity.
Who It Affects
School districts, county boards of education, and charter school governing bodies must incorporate smartphone rules into their safety plans and update policies every five years; school safety planners, principals, teachers, and school resource officers will need to implement the resulting protocols. Students with medical needs and those with IEPs retain protected exceptions.
Why It Matters
By linking device rules to the comprehensive safety plan, AB 962 makes emergency communication protocols and student-device access the product of formal planning rather than ad hoc decisions during a crisis. That changes legal exposure, training priorities, and what stakeholders must negotiate during policy development.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 962 modifies how California schools can treat smartphones during emergencies. Under the existing scheme, districts, county offices, and charter schools were required to adopt policies limiting student smartphone use and could not categorically ban possession in certain circumstances, including emergencies.
This bill narrows that automatic emergency carve-out: schools may prohibit use during an emergency or a perceived threat only if the school’s comprehensive school safety plan explicitly contemplates and authorizes that prohibition. The change effectively makes the comprehensive plan the controlling document for device rules during crises.
The statute keeps several other design features: it still requires boards and governing bodies to adopt a smartphone policy by the statutory deadline and to update it every five years; it directs policy development to aim at evidence-based practices for learning and well-being; and it mandates meaningful stakeholder participation during policy drafting. The law also lists three other non-prohibitable circumstances—teacher/administrator permission, a licensed physician’s determination of medical necessity, and IEP requirements—and clarifies that nothing in the section authorizes schools to monitor or access pupils’ online activity.For practitioners, the practical consequence is straightforward but operationally heavy: drafting or revising comprehensive safety plans now carries the additional work of explaining how smartphone use will be handled during emergencies.
Those plans must be specific enough to satisfy the statute’s “explicitly addressed” condition; vague references to communication or general lockdown procedures are likely insufficient. Schools will therefore need to align incident command, notification procedures, student evacuation and shelter-in-place protocols, and reunification plans with their smartphone rules, and to train staff accordingly.Finally, the bill preserves individualized protections (medical and IEP-related) and teacher discretion as separate exceptions.
It also places a firm limit on surveillance: schools cannot use this provision as a basis to start monitoring students’ online behavior. That carve-out narrows one implementation avenue (remote monitoring) but leaves many operational questions — like whether teachers can collect devices during drills or how to handle off-site communications during reunification — to local policy-makers.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 962 changes the emergency exception so a school may prohibit smartphone use during an emergency or perceived threat only if that prohibition is explicitly included in the school’s comprehensive school safety plan adopted under Education Code §32282.
The bill requires local governing bodies to adopt smartphone-limiting policies and to update those policies every five years; the policies must aim to promote evidence-based smartphone practices for learning and well-being and involve significant stakeholder participation.
Three non-device-prohibition exceptions remain: teacher/administrator permission (subject to reasonable limits), a licensed physician’s medical determination, and when possession/use is required by a pupil’s IEP.
The statute expressly prohibits using this authority to monitor, collect, or otherwise access information about a pupil’s online activities, limiting surveillance-based enforcement options.
Because the emergency carve-out is conditional, schools must now ensure their comprehensive safety plans address device rules for specific emergency scenarios (lockdown, evacuation, shelter-in-place, reunification) to enforce a ban during those events.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Policy adoption, goals, and update cycle
Subdivision (a) keeps the mandate that district, county, and charter governing bodies develop and adopt a smartphone policy by the statutory deadline and re-adopt it every five years. It adds framing language: the policy’s goal is to promote evidence-based smartphone practices that support learning and well-being and must be developed with significant stakeholder input. For administrators, this means the smartphone policy should cite research or local data where possible and document the stakeholder process to withstand scrutiny.
Permissible enforcement options left to local policy
The provision allows local policies to include enforcement mechanisms that limit access to smartphones; it does not prescribe specific methods. That leaves a wide menu — from classroom storage boxes to confiscation to technology-based controls — but also transfers legal risk to districts for whatever enforcement choices they adopt. Districts should document reasons for chosen mechanisms and ensure they align with collective-bargaining agreements and student-discipline codes.
Exceptions to prohibitions and the new emergency condition
Subdivision (b) lists circumstances under which a pupil cannot be barred from possessing or using a smartphone. The statutory change is in (b)(1): use in an emergency or perceived threat is no longer categorically exempt — the exemption applies only if the school’s comprehensive safety plan explicitly addresses such use. The remainder of (b) preserves teacher or administrator permission, medical necessity as certified by a licensed physician, and IEP requirements as independent exceptions. Practically, that means school safety plans must be specific about device access during different emergency phases to enable enforcement.
Limit on monitoring pupils’ online activities
Subdivision (c) draws a bright line: the section does not authorize schools to monitor, collect, or otherwise access information related to a pupil’s online activities. That blocks surveillance-based approaches to enforce device policies (for example, remote browsing logs or app monitoring) under this statute, although other statutes or policies may govern separate monitoring capabilities. District counsel should reconcile this prohibition with existing technology agreements and acceptable-use policies.
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
- School safety planners and district administrators — they gain explicit authority to control devices during emergencies if the comprehensive safety plan includes it, allowing coordinated incident management tied to documented protocols.
- Students who need clear, consistent emergency protocols — explicit device rules in safety plans can reduce confusion during drills and actual incidents by setting expectations in advance.
- Students with medical needs and students with IEPs — the statute preserves exceptions that protect health-related and education-plan requirements, preventing blanket device bans from overriding individualized accommodations.
Who Bears the Cost
- School districts and charter governing bodies — they must revise comprehensive safety plans, run stakeholder processes, train staff, and potentially purchase or manage enforcement tools, imposing administrative and financial costs, especially on smaller districts.
- Teachers and school staff — the change increases on-the-ground enforcement responsibility and demands additional training on when to permit device use during incidents and how to implement the safety plan’s rules.
- Parents and students in communities with weakly drafted safety plans — if a plan fails to ‘explicitly address’ device use, families may find students barred from contacting help during emergencies, creating equity and safety concerns.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between control and connectivity: restricting smartphones during school hours and emergencies can reduce distractions, improve on-site incident control, and simplify command-and-control communications, but it can also hinder students’ immediate access to emergency help, family contact, and decentralized information-sharing. AB 962 leans toward local planning as the broker of that trade-off — which means the quality of planning, not uniform state rules, will determine whether the balance tips toward safety or unintended communication gaps.
AB 962 solves a clarity problem — it attaches device rules during crises to a formal planning instrument — but it also shifts decisive power to the quality of local safety plans. The statute uses the phrase “explicitly addressed” without defining the level of detail required, leaving open whether a single sentence in a plan suffices or whether operational specifics (who may use phones, at which incident phases, and how reunification communications occur) are necessary.
That ambiguity will push disputes into local governance and potentially into litigation when a device restriction during an incident is challenged.
Implementation will be uneven. Well-resourced districts with experienced emergency planners can draft detailed, evidence-informed device protocols and run substantive stakeholder processes.
Smaller or rural districts may adopt boilerplate language that fails to protect students’ ability to communicate during emergencies or that creates inconsistent practices across neighboring schools. The statute also bars monitoring students’ online activity as a means of enforcement, which constrains one technology-heavy enforcement model but does not eliminate other invasive practices (confiscation, searches) that have their own legal and equity implications.
Finally, aligning device rules with IEPs and medical determinations will require operational checklists and staff training to avoid inadvertently denying protected exceptions during high-stress incidents.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.