Accessibility advocates fear device bans will exclude students

accessibility advocates – As lawmakers across the U.S. advance school device bans in a rising “techlash,” parents and disability advocates warn that the rules may unintentionally single out students who rely on phones and other screens for accessibility needs—despite claims that except

The phone is where one mother can reach her son when school stops being able to help.

Keri Rodrigues. president of the National Parents Union and mother of five boys. describes a moment that is practical and personal at once: “When you get a kid who’s got [a learning plan] for anxiety and a substitute teacher that hasn’t read his 504 [plan] and there’s nobody there to de-escalate him. he’s got to use his phone to call mom so I can FaceTime with him and do a breathing exercise.”.

For Rodrigues, screens aren’t entertainment. They’re a bridge when classroom supports fail—four of her five boys receive school accommodations.

But that kind of everyday dependence is now colliding with a wave of proposed restrictions. Fuelled by distress over the mental health impacts of too much screen time. lawmakers have begun to pass device bans and other restrictions for schools. spreading through state capitols. Rodrigues supports caution, not blanket restrictions.

“We’ve got to make sure we’re not stomping on kids that are actually utilizing these devices for really important reasons,” she says. “Phones aren’t just toys for kids.”

The worry among disability advocates and some parents is not only whether students with disabilities will be explicitly exempted. It’s whether accessibility will survive the way these laws are written. implemented. and enforced—especially when the rulemaking process does not include the families who know the needs on the ground.

Rodrigues says students may use screens for reminders, alarms, timers, or even medical alerts. She points to autism as another case: students may rely on screens for self-regulation. For students with anxiety. epilepsy. asthma. or vision and hearing differences. she says. they can rely on specific accessibility features on their phones. One of her own sons, a senior in high school, uses a meditation app to de-escalate, she says.

Inclusion as the norm is supposed to be the baseline. Disability laws such as the Individual with Disabilities Education Act guarantee students the right to assistive technologies, sometimes including screens. But advocates say the current push to restrict devices is arriving at a tense time for families trying to secure those rights.

Mass firings and funding cuts under the Trump administration have cast doubt on the reliability of federal civil rights protections and processes. some argue. In that context, families have faced a rise in accessibility-related lawsuits. A nonpartisan government watchdog report says the Trump administration’s cuts to the office which reviews civil rights complaints contributed to a 90 percent dismissal of student civil rights complaints in the later months of 2025.

The uncertainty has not been limited to enforcement. The U.S. Department of Justice delayed a long-anticipated deadline that required schools and vendors to meet widely accepted accessibility guidelines after it became clear that schools and governments were not ready.

Advocates have also raised concerns about bills that would subject students with disabilities to surveillance cameras in classrooms, in an effort to curb physical restraints, after the issue was reported.

So when screen restrictions come in, disability advocates say they’re watching a pattern: even when bans include exceptions, the implementation can still create practical barriers.

Some of the latest bills explicitly carve out students with disabilities. For example. laws from Alabama and Tennessee carve out blanket exemptions for students with disability plans. and Tennessee’s bill also includes an explicit exception for literacy and dyslexia screenings. Advocates acknowledge that these exemptions exist.

But there’s a deeper fear that local and regional policies can still limit access to tools like screen readers and predictive text software, even if they don’t mean to, argued Andrew Kahn, an associate director for Understood.

Kahn says those tools can be necessary for students to keep up in class. He also points out that it isn’t obvious to everyone that these tools help—especially for students who don’t have formal plans.

The uncertainty doesn’t just sit with teachers; it can sit with guidance itself. Lindsay Jones. CEO of CAST. a nonprofit focused on assistive technology and learning. says that when some rules mention students with disabilities. they often exclude anyone covered by disability law while still leaving local school districts or other state agencies to provide guidance on implementation.

Without clear guidance. Jones warns. teachers might become uncomfortable working with students who need screens for accessibility reasons—and restrict the tools because of that fear. She describes the scenario advocates dread: a teacher wary of breaking the new law might tell a student not to use a screen even if it was prescribed in an individualized education program. or IEP.

“It’s not typical that a student [with disabilities] is sitting alone at a screen, which I think is what seems to be driving much of the concern,” Jones says.

Even if students aren’t blocked from using screens, the stakes can still be social. Jones worries the rules could contribute to shaming or separation. Reading some of these laws without guidance. she says. it’s unclear how to implement them without banning screens in the classroom. In order to comply, she says, it’s possible exempt students could be moved into another room.

“That’s immediately going to bring — or raises our concerns about — stigma for these kids,” Jones says. “One of the beautiful things is when technology is built into systems that we’re all using. and we can use them together. and it reduces the feeling that you’re separate and different in a way that can be especially harmful.”.

Kahn echoes the same concern about difference turning into exclusion. “You would be restricting [students with disabilities] because the access to technology is creating that stigma and that segregation. ” Kahn says. “Anything that leads to difference between kids. that accentuates and magnifies. has the really strong potential to further stigmatize and make these kids feel singled out.”.

He adds that education should always take place in the least restrictive environment possible.

Rodrigues shares the worry from a parent’s chair: she and other parents worry students might avoid disability tools to escape the social fallout. “Kids might actually choose to suffer rather than being singled out socially,” she says.

In the end, advocates say the dispute is about more than screen time. It’s about who gets consulted when the rules are drafted and how the rules are enforced after they pass.

Sambhavi Chandrashekar. global accessibility lead for D2L. an online learning platform. expressed similar concerns in a series of emails. arguing that lawmakers aren’t consulting families with neurodiverse students enough when crafting new restrictions and that screen time laws could impinge on accessibility tools. Chandrashekar and others worry that the gains these students have made are being swept into larger political battles.

Advocates are pushing for a proactive approach to avoid problems later. EdSurge has not yet found an example of a student blocked from using an assistive device because of these new bans, the reporting says.

Still, the core conflict remains—how blanket restrictions intersect with individualized needs.

Rodrigues says the legislation she’s heard about is “really well intended,” but she insists lawmakers must take accessibility realities seriously: “We’ve got to make sure we’re not stomping on kids that are actually utilizing these devices for really important reasons.”

At the center of Chandrashekar’s argument and others’ calls is the rulemaking process itself. It’s not that restrictions should never be pursued, advocates say. It’s that families of students with disabilities should be more thoroughly included.

“Parents with children who have a disability must have a seat at the table,” Chandrashekar wrote. “Blanket rules that are blind to fundamental human differences will do more disservice than good to students at the margins.”

screen time bans school device restrictions accessibility technology assistive devices IEP 504 plans disability advocacy neurodiverse students National Parents Union CAST Understood D2L U.S. Department of Justice civil rights enforcement