Indiana Gov. Braun Poised to Sign Bell-to-Bell School Cell Phone Ban

The Indiana Senate concurred with House amendments to **Senate Bill 78** on Wednesday, sending the legislation to Gov. Mike Braun for his expected signature. Authored by Sen. Jeff Raatz, R-Richmond, the bill mandates that public school districts and charter schools adopt either a "no device policy" — barring students from bringing phones to school — or a "secure storage policy" requiring devices to be powered off and inaccessible all day. It expands restrictions beyond current law, which only prohibits use during instructional time, earning Indiana a C grade on phone-free school policies.[1][2][3] Devices covered include cellphones, smartwatches connected to the internet or phones, tablets, laptops and gaming devices. Exceptions allow use for medical needs, translation, special education or emergencies, plus audio recorders for notetaking. Until July 1, 2028, students may use personal laptops or tablets for teacher-directed learning; after that, schools must provide them. The state Department of Education will issue model policies using existing resources.[2][3] Educators championed the measure, citing distractions and fights fueled by phones. "Inside the classroom, where attention and focus and human connection are essential, these devices have become a significant barrier to learning," said John O’Neal of the Indiana State Teachers Association. Jeff Butts, former Wayne Township schools superintendent representing a district of 16,000 students, estimated $275,000 for phone storage pouches. The Senate passed the bill 28-19 in January, with the House Education Committee approving it 12-0 last week.[2][3][6] Supporters like Sen. Cindy Schmitt emphasized the bill builds on 2024 laws requiring cellphone policies on school websites, such as those in New Albany Floyd County and Clarksville Community schools, which already limit devices during school hours. Raatz pointed to evidence favoring phone-free environments, while addressing local control by letting districts choose enforcement models. Bipartisan concerns over safety, costs and enforcement arose but did not derail passage.[3][5][6]