According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications for SB 2365 are minimal. Since the legislation primarily directs school districts and charter schools to adopt and enforce policies prohibiting student use of personal wireless devices during instructional time—without prescribing specific enforcement mechanisms or requiring expenditures—it does not trigger any state-level costs.

For local governments, including school districts and open-enrollment charter schools, the LBB found that there would be no significant fiscal impact. While schools may need to revise or create new local policies and potentially conduct staff training or communication campaigns, these administrative actions are expected to be absorbed within existing resources. Importantly, the substitute version of the bill removed an earlier mandate for classrooms to provide secure storage areas for student devices—a provision that could have led to higher local costs. By eliminating that requirement, the bill avoids imposing logistical or infrastructure-related expenses on schools.

In sum, the bill’s design avoids creating new state funding obligations or mandates that would require local capital expenditures, which helps maintain cost neutrality while still pursuing its policy goals. The flexibility left to districts on how to implement and enforce the policy contributes to the minimal fiscal footprint of the legislation.

SB 2365 aims to prohibit the use of personal wireless communication devices by students during instructional time in public schools and open-enrollment charter schools. While it intends to minimize distractions in the classroom and ensure student focus, the bill imposes a blanket, state-mandated restriction on personal device use—an area traditionally governed by local school policy and parental discretion. The legislation does provide exemptions for students with documented disabilities, health directives, or safety-related needs, which reflects thoughtful consideration of equity and compliance with federal law. However, these accommodations do not address the broader concerns about overreach and diminished parental authority.

The core issue with this bill lies in its substitution of state authority for what is fundamentally a parental and local responsibility. Parents are best positioned to decide how and when their children may use personal devices and should be trusted to partner with schools to address misuse when it occurs. By requiring districts to adopt policies that remove that discretion, the bill undermines both family autonomy and the principle of limited government. It centralizes control over student conduct in the classroom, bypassing the nuanced and context-specific decisions that local communities and school boards are equipped to make.

Furthermore, this approach weakens opportunities to develop student responsibility. Teaching digital discipline and self-regulation is more effective than enforcing uniform bans, particularly in middle and high school environments where students must prepare for increasingly technology-integrated academic and work settings. Rather than encouraging responsible use, this legislation reinforces compliance through prohibition.

For these reasons, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2365. Despite the bill’s well-intended focus on instructional quality, it fails to align with liberty principles that prioritize family responsibility and individual agency.

• Individual Liberty: The bill restricts a student’s ability to use their own personal wireless devices during instructional time, regardless of the student's age, maturity, or parental permission. Enforcing a statewide prohibition limits both student freedom and parental rights to decide when and how children may use personal technology. In essence, it removes the decision from families and places it in the hands of the state, infringing upon the liberty of both parents and students.
• Personal Responsibility: Rather than promoting self-regulation and thoughtful technology use, the bill imposes a categorical ban. This approach removes opportunities for students to practice personal responsibility and digital citizenship—skills that are vital in today’s tech-driven world. Prohibiting device use across the board may curb immediate classroom distractions, but it fails to develop long-term habits of responsible decision-making.
• Free Enterprise: While the bill does not directly regulate or burden the private sector, it may indirectly favor school-issued technology vendors by prioritizing their products over personal devices. Students could become increasingly reliant on district-approved devices, potentially distorting market competition in educational technology. This is a minor concern but worth noting in the broader context of enterprise freedom.
• Private Property Rights: The bill restricts the use of a student’s privately owned device in a public school setting, even when the device is being used responsibly. While the devices are not confiscated, the prohibition on their use could be seen as a limitation on a student’s right to exercise control over their own property during the school day. This diminishes respect for personal property and sets a precedent for broader restrictions under the guise of educational management.
• Limited Government: The bill imposes a top-down mandate on all public and charter schools in Texas, regardless of local needs or existing successful policies. It assumes that state-level uniformity is preferable to local flexibility, which is contrary to the principle that decisions should be made at the most local level possible. Parents, teachers, and school boards are better suited to manage classroom behavior and technology use based on their community’s values.

• HB 1481 (Similar To)