This story has been updated.
The Texas Education Agency is formally investigating North East Independent School District with threat of state takeover for holding firm on its current cellphone policy.
Last year state lawmakers passed House Bill 1481, requiring all public schools to prohibit the use of personal communication devices by students on school property during the school day.
Districts across the state rushed to create guidelines for student and staff as HB 1481 went into effect on Sept. 18. They often varied in their approach.
Some districts required students to put cellphones away from the start of the school day to the last bell without exceptions, while others bought special pouches and lockboxes to keep devices in during class periods.
NEISD defined the “school day” as strictly instructional time, meaning students could use cellphones during passing periods and lunch time. The district also allowed campus administrators to largely determine how they would implement the new policies at the middle and high school levels.
Cellphones aren’t allowed on campus at all at the elementary level at NEISD.
NEISD adopted its cellphone policy in August, and in October the Texas Education Agency alerted the district it was being investigated for its implementation of the law after receiving complaints from some Republican lawmakers, notedly State Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Bruanfels) who represents a large part of the district.
While the bill defines personal communication devices as a telephone, cell phone, tablet, smartwatch, radio device, paging device or any other electronic device, the bill doesn’t define “school day.”
Then Superintendent Sean Maika pointed to this distinction to justify North East’s definition of school day as strictly class periods in response to TEA’s probe.
Ricardo Lopez, legal counsel for NEISD, said in October that state education code also allows for school districts to adopt their own policies when issues aren’t designated by law to the TEA or the State Board of Education.
Maika also maintained that the district’s policy was in compliance with the “spirit” of the new education law.
In fact, the district piloted different types of cellphone restrictions across its campuses — similar to its current policy — during the 2024-25 school year before HB 1481 was passed. NEISD used these pilots to gather feedback from parents, students and staff.
Alamo Heights ISD implemented a similar policy to NEISD’s, but ended up changing it after a similar TEA probe.
Holding to its cellphone policy, NEISD later received a corrective action plan from TEA saying the district has until the end of January to be in compliance with HB 1481.
The school board weighed taking legal action, but didn’t vote on anything during a Jan. 13 meeting. Lopez said he would ask the TEA to clarify how NEISD was out of compliance and ask the TEA to extend its deadline.
During a Jan. 26 meeting, Lopez said the state didn’t provide more clarification or extend the deadline. The board unanimously voted to keep its cellphone policy in place.
NEISD also pointed to other parts of the Texas education code which say anything not specifically delegated by the legislature is to be delegated by local school boards.
HB 1481, for example, does not define “school day” as bell-to-bell, which is how TEA is defining it.
“That is what we have articulated to the agency and never really gotten a direct response on,” Lopez said.
Trustee Diane Villarreal said TEA’s guidelines seems like “government overreach.”
“Frankly, I think this is a test case,” Villarreal said. “I think they’re trying to see how far they can push us. If we give in this time, it’ll be something else next month.”
Lopez said the district will likely have to use litigation, but it’s also likely lawmakers could amend HB 1481 during the next legislative session to be more clear.
The next regular session is set to start in January of 2027.
NEISD is also in a transition period, as interim superintendent Anthony Jerrett takes over following Maika’s sudden retirement.
Lopez said TEA has the option to sanction NEISD for not complying, which could include appointing a conservator or a board of managers.
“I have no doubt that the bill will be revisited,” and hopefully districts and families would get a say in how the law is reshaped, Lopez said.
If NEISD does go the litigation path, Lopez estimated it could cost the district between $50,000 and $100,000.
TEA sent a Feb. 3 letter addressed to Jarrett and Board President David Beyer to formally notify NEISD that the district failed to meet “both statutory and agency-directed requirements” outlined in a Nov. 6 corrective action plan that gave the district until the end of January to adopt a new board policy.
Signed by Deputy Commissioner Steve Lecholop, the letter says NEISD failed to adopt a policy compliant with TEA’s guidelines and failed to meet the agency’s deadline.
Now, TEA plans to investigate NEISD and issue a preliminary report outlining its findings. The district will then have 30 days to respond, and after that, TEA may “impose sanctions” by appointing a conservator or appointing a board of managers to govern NEISD.
“NEISD had an opportunity to correct course and comply with state law but has refused to do so; therefore, the formal process will proceed,” Lechelop wrote.
