Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Device Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel backs bill requiring school cell‑phone policies, but some senators call it state overreach
Summary
Senate Education approved SB160 as amended, requiring each district and charter to adopt a policy restricting wireless communication device use during instructional hours. The committee removed public‑meeting, annual evaluation and training mandates; opponents called it an unfunded mandate and raised local‑control concerns.
The Senate Education Committee gave SB160 a due‑pass recommendation after adopting an amendment that simplified the proposal to require each school district and charter school to adopt a local policy limiting wireless communication device use during instructional hours.
Sponsor Senator Mimi Maestas said the measure would require school districts to publish policies and allow student use for instruction or medical reasons, and that PED would provide policy guidelines. The amendment removed requirements for mandated public meetings, annual evaluations and state‑required training, and added “smartwatch” to the statutory definition of covered devices.
Proponents said restricting phone use during instruction reduces distractions and helps equity. Greg Frosthead, assistant secretary at PED, cited a superintendent survey that found 74% support for bans and said districts with bans reported improved engagement and reduced discipline and cyberbullying. Amanda Aragon of New Mexico Kids Can told the committee that states including Ohio and Minnesota have adopted similar rules and cited impacts on student mental health.
Opponents, including Joe Guillen of the New Mexico School Boards Association and Stan Rounds for the superintendents, supported the bill’s intent but called SB160 an unfunded mandate that requires local boards to act without additional resources. Senator Sowell argued the proposal was a state overreach into local district governance and said enforcement and penalties were unclear; other senators responded that local boards retain discretion about implementation details.
The committee recorded a due‑pass recommendation on the bill as amended. Supporters said the amendment keeps implementation local while giving districts a minimum standard; opponents said the state should not require template policies without funding.
What happens next: SB160 advances with a committee recommendation; implementation details and any funding questions will be decided in subsequent committees.
