Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Education topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee reviews governor's student-device bill, leaves implementation details to local school boards

2837327 · April 1, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Lawmakers discussed a governor-backed bill that would require school districts to adopt policies limiting student use of personal electronic devices during instructional time. Members questioned storage requirements, exemptions for students with medical or behavioral needs, and fiscal impacts; the committee did not adopt a final draft.

The House Education Committee reviewed a governor-backed bill requiring each school district or governing body to adopt a policy limiting student use of personal electronic communication devices during instructional time and school-related activities, but left key details to local boards and instructed sponsors to refine draft language.

Representative Schreiberbeck, presenting a version that staff and school-board advisers helped draft, told the committee the measure would require districts to adopt and implement written policies and would give local boards discretion to "limit or allow student access to personal electronic communication devices outside of instructional time during a school-related activity." She said the policy language was intended to give districts tools to reduce distraction while allowing flexibility for local conditions.

Committee members raised questions about practical implementation. Representative Jonas, a current school-board member, said coaches and activity directors already set rules in many districts and that bell-to-bell enforcement is the local expectation; Jonas said coaches and directors would have authority to require students to put phones away during practices and events.

Members debated a draft phrase requiring devices to be "silenced or turned off, securely locked away and inaccessible to students" during instructional time. Several lawmakers warned that strict storage language could effectively bar use of student lockers as the place to store phones because lockers are accessible to students. Amy DeCook of the North Dakota School Boards Association, who worked with sponsors on the draft, told the committee that the group could work on language to allow individual lockers or other secure locations while keeping the bill's intended effect.

Lawmakers also discussed medical and disability-related exemptions. Representative Hancourt and other members asked for broader language to cover behavioral-health providers in addition to medical providers; members were told that many students who need an accommodation would already be covered by an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or a Section 504 plan, but sponsors agreed to review whether the medical-provider language should be broadened so therapeutic providers could document a need for access.

Cost and logistics were raised repeatedly. Representative Novak asked whether the proposal's funding assumptions were in the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) budget; sponsors said the final fiscal note and any appropriation would be coordinated with DPI and that local boards would determine whether to purchase lockable pouches, modify locker procedures or use other local approaches. Several members said districts already use simple measures such as collecting phones during class or providing lockboxes and that local control would allow districts to choose measures that fit their size and resources.

No final adoption occurred. Sponsors asked legislative counsel to produce a consolidated draft that preserves required policy elements while giving boards practical options for storage and implementation. Representative Schreiberbeck said she would work with school-board staff and legislative counsel on revised language; the committee agreed to revisit the draft when the consolidated version is available.

Supporters and local officials told committee members they had already seen pilot programs and local policies that work in some districts. "Numerous public schools beyond private schools have this instituted . . . and they've been doing it for 2 or 3 years," Schreiberbeck said. Lawmakers said the goal of the measure is to reduce in-class distraction while keeping final decisions about storage, discipline and accommodations with locally elected boards.

The committee did not take a final vote before adjournment and instructed sponsors to return with a revised, consolidated bill and any updated fiscal estimates for committee consideration.