Senate committee advances bill letting districts set phone rules, adds DPI grant to help implement

The Senate Education Committee on Monday heard testimony on Senate Bill 2354, which would require school districts to adopt policies that minimize or prohibit student use of personal electronic devices during the school day while preserving local control and specific exceptions for instruction and health needs.

Sponsor Senator Michelle Axman, D-7 of Bismarck, told the committee the bill preserves local control while setting minimum requirements: policies must cover the entire school day, be consistent across grade levels within a district, allow teacher-directed instructional use, and account for individualized education programs and medical needs. "It does require stakeholder input," Axman said, explaining districts must solicit input from "students, parents, and educators" and publish policies on district websites. She also said districts must review and update policies annually. The bill originally set implementation no earlier than Jan. 1, 2027.

The bill drew support from students, school officials and associations. Carter Hass, a student representing the North Dakota Association for Student Councils, described his Valley City High School's recent policy and cited medical and education research in urging a "due pass" recommendation. "School is no place for addiction," Hass said, referencing reports that link excessive social media use to harm for teens. Chrisanne Norbyjonner, in-house legal counsel for the North Dakota School Boards Association, told the committee the association supports local control and urged the committee to consider an earlier effective date because implementation is easier before a school year begins. Mike Hileman of the North Dakota Association of Small Organized Schools also testified in support and emphasized local control and reliance on the school boards association to provide model policy templates.

Committee members sought several clarifications. Members asked how the bill protects students who need devices for medical or behavioral reasons; Axman pointed to statutory exceptions and said she was willing to broaden language from "physician" to "treating provider" and to reference the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Members also asked whether the Department of Public Instruction would oversee policies; Axman said she intentionally left implementation local and required districts to publish policies on their websites so local constituents could review them, though she acknowledged DPI could publish model policies and, under the sponsor’s amendment, administer a grant program to help districts implement particular storage or infrastructure solutions.

During committee work the sponsor offered an amendment that incorporated several changes discussed in testimony: it replaces the phrase "wireless communication device" with "personal electronic device," adds an appropriation to the Department of Public Instruction to seed a grant program for district implementation costs (the amendment described grants of up to $20,000 per applicant), broadens medical-language references to "treating provider," and moved or offered to move the effective date to August 1, 2026 (the sponsor said she would accept 01/01/2026 as an alternative). The committee moved the amendment and the clerk recorded a roll call of the amendment: the amendment passed on a voice/roll call as recorded, 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 not voting.

Committee members debated how prescriptive to be about DPI procurement and grant administration; some members supported DPI providing information about approved secure storage options but opposed requiring DPI to procure or install equipment. The sponsor said the amendment is intended to "defray" costs and that DPI could design tiers or limits in a grant application to address differences among small and large districts.

The committee completed the amendment vote and postponed final action on the bill to allow staff to draft a consolidated amendment text; the chair said the committee would resume committee work later in the day.

No formal final passage of SB 2354 occurred in this session; the committee voted only on the sponsor's amendment. The bill remains pending further committee action.