WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 4141

Education: students; a wireless communications device policy: require the board of a school district or board of directors of a public school academy to implement. Amends 1976 PA 451 (MCL 380.1 - 380.1852) by adding sec. 1303a & repeals sec. 1303 of 1976 PA 451 (MCL 380.1303). TIE BAR WITH: SB 0495'25

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Nancy DeBoer and 2 co-sponsors

Requires every Michigan school board to adopt a written policy restricting wireless device use on school grounds by grade, with exemptions and enforcement rules posted online.

assigned PA 2 with immediate effect
#communications:technology #education:students
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 4141

Summary — HB 4141 (2025) — Wireless communications device policy for schools

Status: Defeated (Roll Call #171 — Yeas 53, Nays 45, Excused 0, Not Voting 12) on July 24, 2025.
Primary sponsor: Rep. Mark A. Tisdel. Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce; substitute versions H‑2 and H‑4 were considered.

Purpose

Require every school board (school districts and public school academies/charter schools) to implement a written “wireless communications device” policy governing student device possession and use on school grounds, with grade‑specific restrictions and specified exemptions.

Key provisions

  • Adds a new section (proposed MCL 380.1303a) to the Revised School Code and repeals existing MCL 380.1303 (which currently permits local device policies).
  • Grade-based restrictions (varied by substitute version):
    • Elementary (K–5 / “elementary school”): required prohibition on possession or use on school grounds (earlier introduced version prohibited possession; later substitutes focused on prohibiting use during specified times).
    • Middle school / grades 6–8: prohibition on using devices on school grounds during instructional time, breaks between classes, lunch, and recess.
    • High school / grades 9–12: prohibition on use during instructional time.
    • Schools enrolling multiple grade levels may comply by prohibiting device use during instructional time for all students.
  • Boards may adopt additional restrictions beyond the statutory minimum.
  • Policy requirements added by later substitutes (H‑2 / H‑4):
    • Required exemptions for medically necessary devices; district‑owned or district‑designated instructional devices; devices used in special education or provided as a 504/ADA accommodation; lesson‑specific assignments (teacher discretion).
    • H‑4 added emergency‑situation usage rules (must not interfere with emergency protocols/first responders).
    • Policies must describe enforcement mechanisms and be posted on the district/PSA website (H‑4).

Definitions (from the bill)

  • “Wireless communications device”: electronic device capable of text messaging, voice communication, entertainment, navigation, internet access, sending/receiving photos/videos, or email.
  • “Basic telephone”: limited device primarily for voice calling that cannot support third‑party apps or internet platforms — not treated as a wireless communications device under the bill.
  • “School grounds”: buildings, playing fields, or property used for school instruction or school‑sponsored events (excludes buildings primarily for adult education/college extension).

Who is affected

  • School district boards and public school academy boards (must implement policy).
  • Students in K–12 (possession/use rules vary by grade).
  • Parents, teachers, and school staff (policy enforcement and communication).
  • Potentially local school operations (development, enforcement, and communication costs).

Fiscal impact

  • No state fiscal impact. Possible minor local costs for developing/implementing policies, expected to be absorbed within existing staff resources.

Procedural / timeline highlights

  • Introduced: Feb 26, 2025 (Rep. Mark Tisdel). Referred to Education and Workforce Committee.
  • Substitute H‑2 reported/recommended (May–June 2025).
  • Substitute H‑4 adopted/amended July 24, 2025; bill read a third time and defeated the same day (Roll Call #171).

Support and opposition (recorded in committee)

  • Support: Avondale School District, Northville Christian School, Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, Michigan Association of School Social Workers (testimony).
  • Neutral: Michigan Department of Education, ACLU of Michigan (committee record).
  • Opposition: Michigan Association of School Boards (concern about loss of local control).

Context

The bill reflects a trend in several states to restrict student cell‑phone use during the school day. Proponents cite reduced distraction, bullying via social media, and improved learning/mental health outcomes; opponents cite loss of local control and concerns that bans reduce opportunities to teach responsible technology use.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.