According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), HB 1481 is expected to have no significant fiscal implications for the state. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is tasked under the bill with developing and publishing model policy language for school districts and charter schools to adopt regarding student use of personal communication devices. However, the LBB assumes that any associated administrative or operational costs for the TEA can be absorbed within existing agency resources, and thus does not anticipate additional appropriations or funding needs at the state level.

Similarly, the bill is not expected to impose significant fiscal costs on local government entities, including school districts and open-enrollment charter schools. While the bill does require these entities to adopt, implement, and enforce new policies—potentially including storage procedures and parental notifications for confiscated devices—the LBB concludes that these requirements will not create a substantial financial burden. Most districts already have some form of policy in place regulating device use, so the changes would primarily involve policy updates rather than entirely new systems or infrastructure.

In sum, the fiscal implications of HB 1481 are expected to be minimal at both the state and local levels, with costs deemed manageable within existing budgets. This fiscal neutrality likely contributes to the bill’s viability and appeal among lawmakers, as it aligns with efforts to enhance campus discipline and student focus without necessitating new spending.

HB 1481 mandates that all Texas public school districts and open-enrollment charter schools adopt and implement written policies prohibiting students from using personal communication devices while on school property during the school day. It permits enforcement through confiscation and disposal of devices, while providing exceptions for documented disability accommodations, medical directives, and legal safety requirements. The bill reflects a growing national trend toward limiting device use in classrooms and is intended to address concerns over digital distraction, mental health, and classroom management.

While these goals are understandable and even commendable, HB 1481 raises significant concerns when evaluated through a liberty-oriented policy lens. Chief among these concerns is the bill’s top-down approach. By mandating a uniform prohibition statewide, the legislation overrides the authority of local school boards, administrators, teachers, and—more importantly—parents. Decisions about how students interact with technology during the school day should be made at the most local level possible, based on community norms and values. Local control is a foundational tenet of both limited government and effective education policy. This bill dismisses that principle in favor of centralized uniformity.

The bill also infringes upon individual liberty and parental rights. Parents are best positioned to determine appropriate boundaries for their children's use of personal technology, particularly as students grow older and begin preparing for digitally integrated workplaces and higher education. HB 1481 denies families the opportunity to make those decisions in partnership with schools and imposes a one-size-fits-all mandate. Even with its thoughtful exemptions for disability accommodations and medical needs, the core issue remains: the state supplants family judgment and local discretion.

Moreover, HB 1481 undermines the development of personal responsibility in students. Rather than guiding students toward responsible and mature use of technology—skills they will need throughout their lives—the bill imposes blanket restrictions that encourage compliance rather than thoughtful decision-making. In effect, it promotes external control at the expense of internal discipline, shortchanging students of critical digital literacy and self-regulation opportunities.

The bill also raises property rights concerns. The inclusion of provisions allowing school districts to confiscate and dispose of personal devices with only a 90-day notice to parents, and without a mandated return process, sets a troubling precedent for how student-owned property may be handled in public institutions. Even if schools provide notice, the idea that publicly funded institutions may seize and dispose of privately owned devices, often of considerable value, without due process, violates the principle of respect for private property.

From a limited government perspective, HB 1481 stands in direct contradiction to the belief that the state should act only where necessary and defer to local governance wherever possible. This bill takes an area traditionally governed by local policies—student conduct and classroom management—and inserts a broad state mandate. There is no compelling evidence that statewide uniformity is necessary or superior to localized approaches. Indeed, many districts have already adopted tailored, thoughtful device policies that reflect the needs of their specific student populations.

In fiscal terms, while the bill is cost-neutral and does not impose a significant burden on state or local budgets, this alone does not justify the centralization of authority and reduction of liberty it entails. The policy’s minimal fiscal impact is not enough to offset its maximum reach into family decision-making, student autonomy, and local educational governance.

Ultimately, HB 1481 is a policy with well-meaning intentions but flawed execution. It responds to a real challenge—managing technology use in schools—but does so in a way that sacrifices liberty, personal agency, and local wisdom in favor of blanket regulation. As with its Senate counterpart, SB 2365, the bill reflects a growing appetite for statewide mandates that disregard the diversity of communities and the importance of individual responsibility. For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on HB 1481.

• Individual Liberty: The bill restricts a student's ability to use their own personal communication devices during the school day, regardless of the student's maturity, age, or responsible behavior. Even when parents support or permit device use for communication, educational purposes, or emergencies, this bill removes that discretion from families. The mandate ignores parental judgment and student needs, thereby infringing on the liberty of both groups. By instituting a uniform ban with limited exceptions, the bill curtails personal freedom in a public institution without tailoring the restriction to individual conduct or context.
• Personal Responsibility: Rather than cultivating digital discipline and teaching students how to use technology responsibly, the bill defaults to prohibition. It offers no incentives or frameworks for helping students learn how to manage distractions or use devices in constructive ways. Especially for middle and high school students preparing for post-secondary environments where technology is ubiquitous, the bill removes opportunities for students to exercise judgment and develop maturity. A liberty-aligned policy would instead encourage schools to integrate responsible use training and promote self-regulation, not eliminate the choice altogether.
• Free Enterprise: Though the bill does not regulate businesses directly, it may have indirect implications for the educational technology market. By banning student use of personal devices while maintaining access to school-issued technology, the bill potentially steers demand toward state-approved vendors or platforms. This subtle favoritism could reduce consumer choice among families who prefer private, independently chosen educational apps or tools, and tilt the competitive balance toward government-favored providers. While not a central concern, this aspect touches on economic liberty and market neutrality.
• Private Property Rights: The bill allows for the confiscation and eventual disposal of student-owned personal devices, provided that the school district gives 90 days’ written notice to the parent. This provision raises serious concerns about respect for private property. Students or their families may have invested hundreds of dollars into these devices, and the absence of a mandatory return process or due process protection introduces the risk of arbitrary or unfair loss of property. This sets a dangerous precedent in a public setting, where government entities are granted authority over privately owned items without strong procedural safeguards.
• Limited Government: Perhaps the most significant liberty principle affected is Limited Government. The bill mandates a one-size-fits-all policy for every public school and charter school in Texas, stripping away the discretion of local school boards, educators, and parents. It centralizes authority in the state and treats every district—rural or urban, affluent or low-income, tech-integrated or not—as needing the same solution. This contradicts the foundational idea that decision-making should rest at the most local and accountable level. Effective policy in education—especially related to conduct and culture—is best crafted by those closest to the students and their communities, not by distant mandates from Austin.

“Put the Phone Away”: The Push to Ban Cell Phones in Texas Public Schools

• SB 2365 (Similar To)