Feb. 18, 2026 – The Wisconsin Legislature recently passed a law that requires school districts to adopt a policy, by July 1, 2026, that “prohibits pupils from using a wireless communication device, other than a school district-issued wireless communication device, during instructional time.”

Although most of Wisconsin’s 421 public school districts had a policy in effect, the mandate will require school boards to revise district policy before the July 1 effective date, either in enacting a ban or in implementing the exceptions the law requires.

Nearly four-fifths of the states have adopted a law, executive order, or policy governing the issue.

School districts have jumped on the legislative assignment, promising an easy transition.

“The new requirement has prompted districts to review their policies related to student cell phone use and update them to reflect the experiences of their community, beyond just the statutory requirement,” said Emily R. Turzinski of Buelow Vetter Buikema Olson & Vliet, LLC in Waukesha, whose practice focuses on advising schools.

From Pagers to Cell Phones

Under 2025 Wis. Act 42, codified at Wis. Stat. section 120.12(29), devices under the policy include a cellular phone, tablet computer, laptop computer, or a gaming device.

A school’s policy may include penalties, such as confiscating the student’s device for the rest of the school day. Districts may choose more restrictive policies than the statutory minimum, but must include four exceptions.

The exceptions, common in laws across the country, include:

• providing students access to their phones during an emergency or perceived threat;

• “[t]o manage the pupil’s health care;”

• to follow an individualized education plan (IEP) under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; or

• for educational purposes that the teacher authorizes.

The bill passed the Assembly on a 53-45 vote and the Senate 29-4.

The Act replaces Wis. Stat. section 118.258, initially enacted as 1989 Wis. Act 121 section 13, which addressed an earlier portable communication challenge – pagers.

The 1990 law required school boards to “adopt rules prohibiting a pupil from using or possessing an electronic paging or 2-way communication device while on” school premises, unless “the device is used or possessed for a medical, school, educational, vocational or other legitimate use.”

Under Wisconsin Constitution article X, section 3, the Legislature is responsible for establishing state public schools.

The elected superintendent of public instruction, established under the Constitution’s article X, section 1, supervises schools and leads the Department of Public Instruction (DPI), which oversees schools.

Keeping Up With the States

Although the first state law covering cell phone use came from Florida’s ban in 2023,^[1] Wisconsin was among 25 states that passed laws in 2025, according to Ballotpedia, which tallies a total of 39 state laws and policies.

That’s more than double the 15 states that had a law as of Feb. 11, 2025, according to DPI’s written testimony in support of the law.

The largest single category of laws governing cell phones in schools is an outright ban. Ballotpedia lists 30 states with some type of ban. Not all the bans are same.

In New Hampshire, the ban covers “from when the first bell rings to start instructional time until the dismissal bell rings to end the academic school day.”^[2]

Alabama’s law prohibits students from possessing the device in the building or grounds “during the instructional day unless the wireless communication device is turned off and stored off their person in a locker, car, or similar storage location.”^[3]

North Dakota merely requires during the school day “all personal electronic communication devices be silenced or turned off, securely stowed away, and inaccessible to students during instructional time.”^[4]

Among neighboring states, Wisconsin’s approach closest resembles Iowa’s law.

The Iowa law, passed in April 2025, requires that school boards adopt “policies regarding student use of personal electronic devices during school hours that restrict student use of such devices during classroom instructional time.”^[5]

Neighboring Minnesota is among five states whose laws merely require a school policy on the subject, not dictating what that policy should be.^[6]

The issue remains a moving target. On Feb. 10, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed House Bill 4141 (Mich. Pub. Act 2), which creates Mich. Comp. Laws section 380.1303a.

Starting in the 2026-27 school year, school boards in Michigan must have enacted policies comparable to Wisconsin’s law prohibiting device use during instructional time.

Although debate continues in Illinois, it has yet to adopt a statewide policy.

Consensus

In politically polarizing times, how can one subject unite north and south, Republican and Democrat?

Everyone knows that smartphones can be a distraction and that children in school can be easily distracted – themes that recurred in written hearing testimony about Wisconsin’s law.

Foremost among those concerns involved improving the educational environment.

“For fifty years, academic achievement in the U.S. has been steadily climbing,” Rep. Joel Kitchens (R-Sturgeon Bay), chair of the Assembly Education Committee, wrote in support of the bill. “Since 2012, it has steadily declined.”

A London School of Economics study, cited in two written submissions, concluded that “schools with restricted cell phone use saw a 6.4 percent improvement on test scores over schools that did not.”

As DPI wrote in its testimony after four listening sessions with more than 125 participants, “cell phone use, particularly for non-academic purposes like social media or texting, can disrupt students’ concentration and hinder their ability to retain information.”

School-hours restrictions on cell phone use, in contrast, have “been associated with positive social and behavioral impacts.”

Rep. Kitchens, likewise, noted “the pressures of social media are detrimental to children’s mental health as well as their education,” especially for young girls.

“Decades of research demonstrate that smartphones in schools are detrimental to students’ learning, focus, and social development,” the Mental Health Coalition of Greater La Crosse wrote in its testimony.

“Educators across our state report increased distractions, declining academic performance, and worsening mental health among students, all of which are linked to the overuse of mobile devices,” the La Crosse group added.

Some school educators expressed opposition to the bill as a barrier to training and use of modern technology, which allows classes to continue remotely in bad weather.

Most school districts already have policies in place, some written comments noted, also making the law unnecessary.

Patterns Before the Ban

DPI’s 2024-25 Digital Learning Survey yielded responses from 320 of Wisconsin’s 421 school districts, DPI summarized in its testimony.

About “90% of districts that responded to the survey already have some sort of restrictive cell phone policy in place,” DPI wrote. The districts that don’t have a policy let the individual classroom teachers decide.

The limits that districts set varied. Elementary schools were more likely to fall under a full ban. Even when schools allow devices in middle or high school, 43.4% of the district policies limited use to school common areas. Another 26.2% permitted use only in high school common areas.

About 21% of Wisconsin districts had a full ban.

An analysis of the survey by the Wisconsin Policy Forum, a statewide nonpartisan, independent policy research organization, showed that cell phone bans were most likely in rural districts and the most urban.

“Among [districts] with 500 or fewer students, 36.2% had full bans, significantly more than the statewide share.”

Urban districts also “had a markedly larger share of districts or schools with full bans at 31.8%.”

Similarly, “[d]istricts or schools with greater shares of students of color also have adopted more stringent restrictions,” the Wisconsin Policy Forum said.

“Among those with student bodies in which students of color are a majority, 32% have adopted full bans, while just 8% have a no-restrictions policy.”

Milwaukee Public Schools, which the Wisconsin Policy Forum said didn’t respond to the DPI survey, has a full phone ban.

Preparing for Compliance

Part of school district governance is reviewing policies after laws change, Turzinski explained, and that process began soon after the new law’s enactment.

Although many districts already had policies “closely aligned with the requirements of the statute,” Turzinski said, “several other districts reach[ed] out immediately after the statute was passed to analyze whether their existing policy aligned with the statutory requirements or whether revisions were necessary.”

Variations will continue to exist between districts, based on the individual community’s desires and the school board’s approach in response to their constituents, Turzinski said.

Under Wis. Stat. section 120.13, “local school districts have relatively broad authority to ‘do all things reasonable to promote the cause of education,’” Turzinski said.

Her statewide practice gives her a view of the range of responses districts choose based on local concerns.

“Because each individual community has different perspectives and priorities, local school boards tend to make policy decisions that acknowledge the wants and needs of their community, in conjunction with their legal obligations,” Turzinski said.

The exceptions allowed by statute will help districts enact local preferences.

Both school district timely review for compliance with the new law and many district policies similar to the new mandate “should result in an easy transition to compliance,” Turzinski said.

Endnotes

[1] Fla. Stat. section 1006.07(f).

[2] 2025 N.H. Laws chapter 141 (H.B. 2), codified at N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. section 189:1-a, V.

[3] 2025 Ala. Laws chapter 386 (HB166), section 3, codified at Ala. Code section 16-1B-3.

[4] 2025 N.D. Laws chapter 174 (H.B. 1160) and chapter 175 (S.B. 2354), codified at N.D. Cent. Code section 15.1-07-41.

[5] 2025 Iowa Acts chapter 36 (H.F. 782) codified at Iowa Code section 279.88.

[6] 2024 Minn. Laws chapter 109 (S.F. No. 3567), codified at Minn. Stat. section 121A.75; Ballotpedia, State Policies on Cellphone Use in K-12 Public Schools, https://ballotpedia.org/State_policies_on_cellphone_use_in_K-12_public_schools (last visited Feb. 12, 2026).