The bill amends Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to establish the UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Program, a federal grant stream that pays State Educational Agencies (SEAs) to implement personal electronic device policies that prohibit student possession or use of phones, smartwatches, tablets, and similar devices during school hours. Grants are conditioned on SEAs certifying they have such a policy (developed in coordination with LEAs and stakeholders) and may be used specifically to acquire ‘secure storage methods’—lockers, lockboxes, or signal‑blocking pouches—to keep devices inaccessible during the instructional day.
This is a federal lever directing local device policy toward campuswide bans while carving out explicit exceptions for health, IDEA/504 accommodations, and individualized instructional needs. The bill ties grant allocations to Title I distribution shares (with a small‑state minimum and reallocation of unused funds) and authorizes “such sums as may be necessary.” For K–12 compliance officers, procurement leads, and special education directors, the law would create new certification duties, procurement activity, and operational workflow changes driven by federally funded infrastructure for device storage.
At a Glance
What It Does
The Secretary of Education must run a grant program that awards funds to SEAs that certify they have enacted a statewide personal electronic device prohibition for public schools during school hours. Grants are limited to purchasing secure storage solutions and are allocated to states using a Title I subpart 2 proportional formula with a 0.5% small‑state floor and realotment of unused allotments.
Who It Affects
Primary actors are State Educational Agencies (the grant recipients), Local Educational Agencies and public elementary and secondary schools (which must implement the policies), students including English learners and students with disabilities (who may qualify for individualized exceptions), and vendors supplying secure storage and device‑management solutions.
Why It Matters
The bill marks a rare federal nudge into on‑campus device management by attaching money to a particular classroom management model (a near‑universal ban). It creates procurement demand for physical storage and introduces compliance and documentation requirements around accommodations that will influence how districts operationalize IDEA/504 and technology policy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At its core, the bill adds a new Part G to Title IV that creates the UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Program. Only State Educational Agencies can receive awards; those SEAs must certify they have in effect a personal electronic device policy that prohibits students from possessing or using such devices during school hours.
The statute requires SEAs to develop these policies in coordination with the local agencies they serve and to consult educators, parents, and students during design.
The eligibility rules enumerate and limit exceptions: SEAs must allow individual exemptions for students who need devices for health reasons (with certification by a licensed healthcare provider), for students whose needs are documented in IEPs or Section 504 plans, and on an individualized basis for English learners or students who demonstrably require a device for instruction; SEAs may also permit further exceptions at their discretion. The bill expressly allows states and local districts to adopt more restrictive rules than the federal minimum, so the statute sets a floor rather than a ceiling for device policy.The application process obligates SEAs to certify two operational items: that a qualifying device policy exists and that public schools may adopt procedures enabling school staff to relay time‑sensitive communications from parents (for example, messages about forgotten items or pickup changes).
Grant funds are narrowly earmarked: SEAs must use awards to buy ‘‘secure storage methods’’—concrete, physical solutions designed to keep devices inaccessible during instructional hours. The statutory definition lists lockable lockers, secure lock boxes, magnetic pouches or signal‑blocking storage, and allows other state‑determined solutions.On funding mechanics, the bill relies on the same proportional state shares used for Title I subpart 2 to calculate each SEA’s allotment, with every small state guaranteed at least one‑half of one percent of the pool and a reallocation process for states that do not receive an allotment.
Definitions in the bill matter operationally: ‘‘school hours’’ is defined by each SEA’s start and end of the instructional day, ‘‘personal electronic device’’ includes phones, smartwatches, laptops and tablets except for school‑authorized instructional laptops that are restricted to academic use and blocked from social media and personal messaging during school hours, and ‘‘mobile phone’’ is defined broadly as any handheld device with cellular, Wi‑Fi, or Bluetooth capability. The bill authorizes ‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’ rather than a fixed appropriation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Grants go to State Educational Agencies only; Local Educational Agencies cannot apply directly for UNPLUGGED funds under this bill.
The SEA must show the device ban policy was developed in coordination with each LEA and after consulting educators, parents, and students before it can be awarded funds.
Allowable uses are tightly limited to acquiring ‘secure storage methods’—physical products intended to keep devices inaccessible—rather than training, curriculum, or enforcement staffing.
A school‑authorized laptop or tablet used solely for instruction is excluded from the definition of ‘personal electronic device’ if the device is blocked from social media, personal email, messaging, texting, and other non‑academic apps during school hours.
State allotments are calculated using each State’s share from Title I subpart 2 in the previous fiscal year; no state receives less than 0.5% of the total, and unclaimed allotments are reallotted to participating states.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creates the UNPLUGGED grant program
This section instructs the Secretary of Education to establish the UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Program and limits awards to State Educational Agencies. Practically, it turns SEAs into the program managers responsible for distributing federal dollars and overseeing statewide compliance with the device policy prerequisite.
Eligibility: required device policy and exceptions
This is the operative regulatory hook: to be eligible, an SEA must have a policy—crafted with LEAs and after consulting educators, parents, and students—that prohibits student possession or use of personal electronic devices during school hours. The statute lists explicit exception categories (medical devices certified by a licensed provider, IEP/504 accommodations, and individualized English‑learner or instructional needs) and permits SEAs to allow additional exceptions. It also contains a rule of construction clarifying that states and localities may adopt stricter rules than the federal baseline.
Application certifications and parent‑school communication
SEAs must submit an application that certifies two items: the existence of the qualifying statewide device policy and that public schools may adopt procedures allowing school staff to pass time‑sensitive communications from parents to students (for example, about forgotten items or pickup changes). That certification effectively requires SEAs and their LEAs to design operational workflows for parental messages and sets a minimum standard for how schools must provide emergency or time‑sensitive communications without relying on students’ personal devices.
Use of funds restricted to secure storage methods
Grant money is explicitly earmarked to acquire secure storage solutions—lockers, lockboxes, signal‑blocking pouches, or other storage deemed appropriate by the SEA. This narrows federal funding to capital and equipment purchases rather than training, enforcement personnel, or curricular changes, which affects bid specifications, procurement timelines, and ongoing maintenance budgets at the district level.
State allocations, small‑state minimum, and reallotment
State allotments are computed based on the proportion each State received under Title I subpart 2 in the prior fiscal year, with a statutory small‑state minimum of 0.5% of the total pool and a reallotment process for any state that does not take an allotment. Implementation will require SEAs to track Title I shares and for the Department to manage reallocation; it also means funding volumes will vary by appropriation year because the bill authorizes ‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’ without specifying a dollar amount.
Key definitions that shape coverage and enforcement
This section defines core terms: ‘personal electronic device’ is broad (phones, smartwatches, tablets, laptops) but explicitly excludes school‑authorized instructional laptops that are limited to academic use and blocked from personal apps. ‘School hours’ is pegged to each SEA’s instructional day, which leaves operational definitions to state policy. The statute’s list of acceptable secure storage methods is illustrative, giving SEAs discretion to approve other technologies while identifying likely procurement categories.
Authorization language
The bill authorizes ‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’ to carry out the program rather than setting a discrete appropriation. That phrasing leaves total funding contingent on future appropriations decisions and could affect SEA planning if Congress does not appropriate a stable or predictable amount.
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
- State Educational Agencies: receive federal funds and an administrative framework to push a statewide approach to device management, consolidating policy leadership and covering capital costs for storage solutions.
- Public schools and administrators who want a district‑wide device ban: obtain federal money to buy storage infrastructure, reducing the capital barrier to implementing a campuswide prohibition.
- Vendors of secure storage and device‑management products: create new procurement opportunities for lockable lockers, lockboxes, signal‑blocking pouches, and related installation and maintenance services.
- Students who need distraction‑free classrooms: may see reduced in‑class interruptions when policies and storage solutions are effectively implemented, potentially improving instructional focus for some learners.
- Parents seeking standardized school procedures for time‑sensitive communications: the application certification requires schools to have mechanisms for relaying urgent messages, removing the need for students to carry phones for that purpose.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local Educational Agencies and school staff: must implement operational changes (device collection, storage logistics, supervising storage areas, and parent communication workflows), which may increase staffing time and administrative burdens not covered by the equipment‑only funding.
- Students reliant on personal devices for daily communication or learning outside exceptions: could lose informal access to devices during school hours, shifting those needs to scheduled accommodations and potentially creating equity issues if district solutions are uneven.
- Special education and 504 coordinators: will carry documentation and compliance burdens to verify individualized exceptions, coordinate certifications, and defend accommodation decisions, increasing case management workloads.
- Edtech companies and digital curriculum vendors: may see reduced in‑class device usage, forcing product teams to adapt to increased offline or district‑managed device models.
- SEAs if appropriations are inconsistent: while the bill authorizes ‘such sums as necessary,’ actual appropriations could be limited or unpredictable, leaving SEAs with program mandates but uncertain funding levels for large equipment procurements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension pits the goal of reducing in‑class distractions through a uniform, federally incentivized device ban against the need to preserve individualized access, digital equity, and local discretion: the bill solves the classroom‑distraction problem with federally backed infrastructure, but implementing the exceptions and operational workflows it requires may create new administrative burdens and unequal outcomes for students who rely on devices for health, accommodations, or learning.
The bill creates a practical and legal balancing act. By conditioning federal dollars on the adoption of device bans, it shifts substantial influence over day‑to‑day school operations toward the federal level while technically leaving room for more restrictive local rules.
That carrot‑and‑stick design raises implementation questions: how granular must SEA‑LEA coordination be to satisfy the certification requirement, who bears liability if exceptions are mishandled, and what documentation suffices for medical or instructional exemptions? The statute’s exception framework is necessary but operationally complex; verifying licensed‑provider certifications, aligning IEP/504 team decisions with device‑policy processes, and handling individualized EL/instructional exceptions will impose recurring administrative costs districts must absorb.
Practical deployment of the funded storage solutions presents further tradeoffs. Secure lockers and signal‑blocking pouches require procurement, installation, maintenance, and replacement budgets; the bill funds capital purchases only, not the staffing or training to manage them.
Student privacy and property issues also arise—who controls locked devices, what chain of custody procedures do schools use, and how will schools handle lost or damaged devices? Finally, the definition that excludes school‑authorized instructional laptops only where non‑academic apps are blocked assumes technical controls that may not be available or enforceable on all devices, which could create uneven application across districts and potential challenges under IDEA or civil‑rights frameworks if access to instructional technology is reduced for some students.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.