If it feels like technology in your child’s school changed overnight, you’re not imagining it. In the span of a few weeks, the U.S. Department of Education released new guidance urging schools to be far more deliberate about the technology they put in front of students, and Colorado’s new cell phone law took full effect, requiring every public and charter school in the state to adopt and publish a policy on student phone use. Together, these developments give parents something they haven’t had before: a clear set of standards to point to when asking how, and why, technology is being used in their child’s education.
The New Federal Guidance: Technology Must Earn Its Place
On August 20, 2026, the U.S. Department of Education issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” on the responsible use of education technology in the classroom, addressed to states, school districts, educators, families, and technology companies alike.
The message is refreshingly direct: educational technology should be in the classroom only when it demonstrably helps students learn. The Department says every ed-tech tool a school uses should have a clear instructional purpose backed by independent evidence, should be selected based on proven results and reviewed regularly for effectiveness, should come with transparency for families about how it’s implemented and how much screen time it involves, should be supported by real training for teachers, and — importantly — should be discontinued if it isn’t improving learning.
The guidance also lays out five questions that every education technology product should be able to answer:
- What learning problem does it solve?
- When should it be used?
- For whom should it be used?
- How long should it be used?
- What evidence demonstrates improved student learning?
Assistant Secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education Kirsten Baesler drew a useful distinction in announcing the guidance: phones and social media tend to distract students, but instructional technologies — used wisely — can expand access to courses and support students with disabilities. The letter builds on the Department’s July 2025 guidance on artificial intelligence in schools, which called for AI use that is educator-led, ethical, accessible, transparent, and protective of student data.
These are recommendations, not mandates. But guidance like this shapes how districts make decisions, and it gives families concrete, federally endorsed questions to raise at the school and district level.
Colorado’s Cell Phone Law: Every School Now Has a Policy
While the federal government was focused on instructional technology, Colorado tackled the device in your child’s pocket. House Bill 25-1135, signed by Governor Polis, required every school district and charter school in Colorado to adopt, implement, and publicly post a policy governing student cell phone and personal device use by July 1, 2026. As of this school year, every district in the state has one.
The law doesn’t dictate a single statewide rule. Instead, it requires each policy to address when students may possess or use devices during the school day, where devices are stored, age-appropriate rules by grade level, supervised instructional uses, staff training, enforcement with progressive consequences, and a process for community input.
In practice, Colorado districts have landed in three camps. Some — including Denver Public Schools, Boulder Valley, Colorado Springs D11, Aspen, Mesa County Valley 51, Pueblo 60, and Westminster — adopted “bell-to-bell” bans that keep phones put away for the entire school day. Others, such as Adams 12, Aurora, Douglas County, Durango, Jeffco, and Poudre, ban phones bell-to-bell for K-8 but let high schoolers use them during passing periods and lunch. A third group, including Cherry Creek, St. Vrain Valley, and Academy District 20, leaves the details to individual schools.
There’s real research behind the stricter approaches. Psychologist Angela Duckworth, presenting to Colorado’s State Board of Education, summed it up memorably: “the farther the phone, the higher the GPA.” Studies of bell-to-bell bans have found reduced phone use, better attendance, and modest gains in test scores, along with higher educator satisfaction and more consistent enforcement than looser, schedule-based rules.
The Exceptions Every Parent Should Know About
Here is the part of HB 25-1135 that matters most for many of the families we work with: whatever policy a district adopts, the law requires exceptions. A school’s cell phone policy must accommodate students with disabilities whose IEP or Section 504 plan calls for device access, students with medical needs — a student who monitors glucose levels through a phone app, for example — emergency situations, and multilingual learners with a documented need for language support.
If your child relies on a device for any of these reasons, the school cannot simply confiscate it under a blanket ban. If your child’s IEP, 504 plan, or health plan involves a phone, tablet, or smartwatch, it’s worth confirming — in writing — that the plan documents that need and that the teachers enforcing the phone policy know about it. A well-documented accommodation prevents the hallway confrontation before it happens.
What Families Can Do This School Year
A few practical steps flow from all of this. Read your district’s posted phone policy — the law requires it to be published online, and the Colorado Department of Education maintains resources on its Communication Devices in Schools page. Ask your school the Department of Education’s five questions about any app or platform your child spends significant time on; they’re now the federal standard, and schools should be able to answer them. If your child has an IEP, 504 plan, or health plan that involves a device, make sure it’s documented and communicated. And if you disagree with how a policy is being applied — especially to a student with a disability — raise it early, in writing, and keep records.
These new rules are, on the whole, good news for families: more transparency about what technology is doing in the classroom, and clearer protections for the students who need devices most. But policies are only as good as their implementation, and the details matter.
