Grants Aim to Ban Personal Devices in Schools

Summary#

The UNPLUGGED Schools Grant Act of 2026 would amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 by adding a federal grant program for states. Its stated goal is to support public schools in adopting policies that restrict students’ personal electronic devices during school hours. The bill has been introduced but is not law.

  • The U.S. Secretary of Education would award grants to state educational agencies with approved applications.
  • To qualify, a state must have a policy developed with local educational agencies and in consultation with educators, parents, and students. It must bar students from possessing or using personal electronic devices in public elementary and secondary schools during school hours.
  • Policies must allow exceptions for students whose health treatment or monitoring requires a device, and for students whose IEP or Section 504 plan requires access. States may allow other exceptions, including for some English learners and students with an instructional need.
  • States must use grant money for enforcement procedures and secure device storage. The grant formula is based on states’ prior-year Title I allocations, with a minimum share for each state that receives an allotment.
  • The bill would let the Education and Health and Human Services secretaries provide policy-development experts when a state asks. It would not stop states, districts, or schools from adopting more restrictive policies.

What it means for you#

  • States and school agencies: A state would not qualify for the grants unless it had the required policy. The bill does not itself require a state to apply for a grant or adopt the policy if it does not seek one.
  • Students and families: In a qualifying state, students generally could not possess or use covered personal devices at school during instructional-day hours, subject to required and optional exceptions. The ban would not cover school-authorized laptops or tablets used only for instruction and restricted from specified non-academic uses.
  • Schools and districts: Grant recipients must spend the money on enforcement procedures and secure storage. The state’s application must certify that schools and districts are permitted to set procedures for parents to pass along logistical messages and for school staff to communicate with parents and local emergency responders about time-sensitive matters.
  • General public: This is a grant and policy-eligibility bill, not a direct federal ban on student devices. It does not create a new independent agency or a guaranteed school service.

Money#

The bill authorizes Congress to appropriate “such sums as may be necessary,” but does not itself provide a dollar amount. No publicly available information.

  • If money is appropriated, the Education Secretary must allot it among states with approved applications, using the stated Title I allocation formula and minimum.
  • The bill would require grant recipients to pay for enforcement procedures and secure storage, but gives no cost estimate or staffing number.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied materials do not include the current text of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, so the existing law and any overlap with current programs could not be verified.
  • Congress has not set an appropriation amount in this bill; the available materials give no estimate of how much the program might cost.
  • The bill leaves application details to the Secretary and does not set grant timelines, enforcement standards, or rules for deciding optional exceptions.
  • The bill does not specify how schools should handle violations, or how families would challenge an exception decision.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to help schools limit device access during the instructional day, while providing grant funds for storage and enforcement.
  • A possible argument for the approach is that states would develop policies with local agencies and consult educators, parents, and students rather than apply a single detailed federal policy.
  • Required exceptions for health needs and documented disability-related needs could allow necessary device access while the general restriction is in place.

Case against#

  • One concern is that states seeking grant money would have to adopt a broad policy covering public elementary and secondary schools statewide, even though the bill does not require states to apply.
  • The bill requires exceptions for some students but leaves important procedures and other exceptions to state policy. The bill does not set a common process for those decisions.
  • Grant funding is not guaranteed by the bill. A state could face costs for storage and enforcement without knowing how much federal money, if any, would be available.