UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 30, 2026
Bottom line
The UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Act aims to improve learning environments by providing federal financial incentives and support for states to implement and enforce school-wide bans on student personal electronic device use during instructional time.
What it actually does
This bill establishes the UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Program, authorizing federal grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) to support public elementary and secondary schools in implementing policies that prohibit student possession or use of personal electronic devices during school hours. These policies must include specific exceptions for health and disability needs, and funds can be used for enforcement procedures and secure storage solutions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that restricting personal electronic devices in schools is a critical step to reduce classroom distractions, improve student focus, and enhance academic outcomes. They contend that such policies foster better in-person social interactions, reduce cyberbullying, and address growing concerns about the negative mental health impacts of excessive screen time on youth. Federal grants, they assert, are necessary to help states and schools overcome the logistical and financial hurdles of implementing these beneficial policies, particularly for secure storage and consistent enforcement.
Opponents contend
Opponents may express concerns that a blanket ban on personal electronic devices removes an important communication lifeline for students and parents, especially in emergencies or for coordinating after-school logistics. They might also argue that such federal intervention oversteps local control in education, preferring that decisions about device policies remain solely with states and local school districts. Furthermore, critics could question the practical effectiveness and significant administrative costs associated with enforcing these bans and providing secure storage for potentially thousands of devices daily.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it highly accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2, adding Part G, Section 4701 to Title IV of ESEA.
Creation of UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Program
This provision directs the Secretary of Education to create a grant program called the "Utilize No Phones in Learning to Unleash Growth in Grades and Educate Distraction-free Schools Grant Program" (UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Program). The purpose of these grants is to provide financial assistance to State educational agencies (SEAs) to help public elementary and secondary schools implement policies that restrict student use of personal electronic devices during school hours.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a dedicated federal grant program is essential to provide the necessary financial resources and technical assistance for states and schools to successfully implement and enforce policies that limit personal electronic device use, thereby improving educational environments.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that creating new federal grant programs for issues traditionally handled at the state or local level expands federal overreach and creates unnecessary administrative burdens, suggesting that states should fund such initiatives independently if they deem them necessary.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between federal support for a perceived national educational issue and the principle of local control over school policies and funding.
Section 2, adding Part G, Section 4702(a) to Title IV of ESEA.
Mandatory Personal Electronic Device Policy for Grant Eligibility
To qualify for a grant, a State educational agency must have a policy in place, developed with local agencies, educators, parents, and students, that prohibits students from possessing or using personal electronic devices in public schools during school hours. This policy must include exceptions for students with certified health conditions requiring device use and for students with disabilities whose IEPs or 504 plans document the necessity of a device. It may also permit exceptions for English learners needing devices for instruction, and other individualized student needs as determined by the SEA.
Section 2, adding Part G, Section 4704 to Title IV of ESEA.
Permitted Uses of Grant Funds
State educational agencies receiving grants under this program are required to use the funds for two primary purposes: first, to develop and implement effective procedures for enforcing the personal electronic device policy described in the bill; and second, to acquire secure storage methods for safely storing students' personal electronic devices in public elementary and secondary schools during school hours. Examples of secure storage include lockable lockers, secure lock boxes, and signal-blocking pouches.
Defines "personal electronic device" to include mobile phones, smartwatches, laptops, tablets, etc., but explicitly excludes school-authorized laptops or tablets used solely for instructional purposes and restricted from non-academic applications during school hours.
Section 2, adding Part G, Section 4706(3)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to define terms and their specific exceptions in a dedicated section to ensure clarity and precise application of the law.
Case for: This exception ensures that legitimate educational technology provided by schools for learning purposes is not inadvertently banned, allowing for continued integration of technology where it directly supports instruction and preventing disruption to modern teaching methods.
Case against: Some might argue that even school-provided devices can be distracting if not rigorously monitored, or that the 'restricted from accessing' clause might be difficult to enforce perfectly, potentially creating loopholes that undermine the overall goal of reducing distractions.
Estimated impact: Clarifies that the bill targets personal, non-instructional use of devices, not school-integrated learning technology, thereby preserving the use of educational tools.
Clarifies that the bill does not preempt or prevent states, State educational agencies, local educational agencies, or schools from implementing policies regarding personal electronic devices that are more restrictive than the policy required for grant eligibility.
Section 2, adding Part G, Section 4702(c)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include 'rules of construction' to clarify the scope of federal law and its interaction with existing or future state and local regulations, preventing unintended preemption.
Case for: This provision preserves local control and allows communities to implement stricter measures if they deem it necessary, ensuring the federal program acts as a baseline rather than a limit on local decision-making regarding school policies.
Case against: No strong case against, as it grants more flexibility to local entities. Some might argue it could lead to an uneven patchwork of policies across the nation, potentially creating confusion for students and families who move between districts or states.
Estimated impact: Ensures flexibility for local entities to go beyond the federal minimum requirements, allowing for tailored policies based on community needs and preferences.