[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6342420,"mediaKeyId","2255130-a99147db8a62ef9ee42b73ed8d23e818","parentId",2255130,"title","Senate committee advances bill letting districts set phone rules, adds DPI grant to help implement","audioSeconds",1961,"startMs",135000,"endMs",2096000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255130-a99147db8a62ef9ee42b73ed8d23e818&start=135&end=2096","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255130-a99147db8a62ef9ee42b73ed8d23e818/thumbnail_135000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6342420/North-Dakota/Senate-committee-advances-bill-letting-districts-set-phone-rules-adds-DPI-grant-to-help-implement","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342420-19af36ea1313774f1732fd439b2ed466/orig.mp4?Expires=1771147686&Signature=ZqBx9VXCATrSB5mAriz7VBY42UzQhaGcV-CGRCI0aHHJ7cYvb7ufaQ1nADqOB-HlPfz8u0Fci04kamQdkI0HZ8vbfbo9iRsTprUTD~dkPO9n4k~HCySs5pBoVRG2eutV~eI7NS41oh-nCZ~beVk4LQ1-unfOlfrY1MN93RoGd8tFDTixZgWfaP3RXWCRcYzSa9KI1KrykPaZbtskLWKcRu4ElbmJhWdijtEvMleLHUsjyr7prBHjCadTpMFr~mMZw3uAfUL6MUAUMlKor7582fbLMBauAY6RwfkLOZvPRp90bqa~u481EEcvO7A9OAGmdYEhxMWiu7FQh8KkHORw8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-02-10T00:00:00Z","article","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.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Education Mon, Feb 10, 2025 9:00 AM-12:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","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.","taxTitle","Education, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28902,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342415,"Senate committee debates rival school-choice bills and cost estimates; no final vote",5333,3720000,9053000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255130-a99147db8a62ef9ee42b73ed8d23e818&start=3720&end=9053","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255130-a99147db8a62ef9ee42b73ed8d23e818/thumbnail_3720000.jpg","/articles/6342415/North-Dakota/Senate-committee-debates-rival-school-choice-bills-and-cost-estimates-no-final-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342415-3df57af919cbdc3c52af8de14f418378/orig.mp4?Expires=1771147686&Signature=D~VBGPzTYfQf9h5-fy01ocR3T4xder3bMDkBuI6RlVXodbCfjy7XWQxATP~yjug~sVablsq68wrEO3sdv2Ov57Pg2PTte3SVJxw6INEp737~NRof4INWQQe212d7Glvr623rtQTdROaQ3uhJD2kOKrLqzbm147H2rL89G9gp-jVXfjM8XMdp2yN44NuPc~oysf66-MojJ6QL-U4LJXjPRloZA5MrrZ14mHYu~RVugQySjEYswE~BtS9XyRAWrWSjF7xsPXb8qdmexzJeGWRyKhKYSOX~0VtHOOLi8iGQgaLUvcGU2Iijl8MwbYi2IwufqY96sahyL-4naK-8qowDxA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Education Committee spent an extended committee-work period discussing two school-choice proposals under consideration (referred to in committee as bills 2300 and 2400). Committee members and witnesses debated program design, projected costs and potential effects on rural districts and public-school finance, but the committee took no final votes on either bill during the session recorded in the transcript.

Senator Wabam (sponsor of a broadly written Education Savings Account-style proposal discussed in committee) walked the committee through a redlined amendment and a fiscal worksheet he prepared. He said the Department of Public Instruction’s preliminary fiscal note omitted a 20% adjustment factor; with corrected assumptions and an assumed 45% take-up rate the sponsor’s worksheet reduced an initial high-end estimate to roughly $137 million under the model used in his calculation. The sponsor flagged the sensitivity of total cost to the assumed participation rate and urged committee members to consider range scenarios (60%, 70% take-up, etc.) and possible caps or phased implementation.

Committee members pressed on several points: whether participating students in Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools or youth-correction facilities would be eligible (staff said participating nonpublic schools must be certified and BIE-funded schools would not be counted the same way), whether funding could cause public districts to lose necessary revenue, and whether nonpublic-school tuition would rise if public dollars followed students. Several senators said they were concerned about potential public-school closures or destabilization in small and rural districts, and others argued that giving families more options could spur innovation and better outcomes. \"If this state maintain[s] what I believe to be their responsibility of teaching all children, we've already — it's not just public schools,\" one senator said in favor of the bill’s potential to expand choice.

Technical design issues dominated the committee discussion. The sponsor proposed that an account be funded at a per-pupil amount roughly related to the state per-pupil payment, with mechanisms to roll unused funds into a 529-style college account and limits on annual rollover (the amendment discussed a maximum rollover of up to 25% of an annual allocation). The amendment also listed qualified expenses for accounts, including textbooks, supplies, therapies and transportation. Witnesses and members debated whether accounts should be allowed to pay tuition directly; one senator circulated an amendment to prohibit tuition payments and limit use to ancillary services — tutoring, therapies and the like — to try to win broader committee support.

Several witnesses told the committee they expected differing take-up rates depending on program design and eligibility. The sponsor cited Heritage Foundation research and data from other states (New Hampshire and Iowa) and said national comparisons are sensitive to eligibility rules. Committee members suggested using a phased approach, caps, or pilot funding so lawmakers could observe real take-up and costs before full-scale implementation.

No committee votes occurred on the underlying bills during the recorded session; senators agreed to continue work after a recess and to bring fiscal details to appropriators for further discussion.","Committee members debated two competing school-choice proposals (bills labeled 2300/2400 in committee work), fiscal projections and program design, but did not take final action. Discussion focused on eligibility, take-up rates, per-student allocations and protections for public districts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

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

Senate committee debates rival school-choice bills and cost estimates; no final vote