Senator Mann presented Senate File 508 on Monday, telling the Senate Education Policy Committee she and staff held roundtables across Minnesota to study school cell-phone policies and their effects. The bill would restrict cell-phone use for grades K–8 and limit in-classroom use for grades 9–12 while leaving enforcement details to local school districts and providing funding for education and digital‑literacy efforts.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Mann, said districts reported problems including students taking unauthorized photos of tests, sharing intimate images without consent and widespread classroom distraction. “Students are having a difficult time concentrating, difficult time participating, and the constant notifications going off distract the entire class,” Mann said during her opening remarks.

Why it matters: Several superintendents, principals and associations told the committee they had seen measurable benefits after limiting phones. Laurie Putnam, superintendent of Saint Cloud Area Public Schools, said the district’s middle‑school “away for the day” policy produced a roughly 50% reduction in phone‑related discipline referrals compared with the prepolicy period. Putnam also described a drop in social‑media–driven conflicts and said teachers spent less time policing devices and more time teaching.

Educators described different approaches used by districts. Saint Cloud uses an “away for learning” schedule at the high‑school level that allows phones at lunch and passing time but requires them be stored during class; elementary and middle schools use a full‑day removal or locker storage approach. Putnam said the district saw continued high incident counts among juniors and ninth graders, and that administrators believe pandemic schooling patterns and transitions help explain differences by grade.

Supporters including teacher Alex Hasselton, Dr. Anna Tierney (licensed psychologist and parent), and the Minnesota Association of Secondary School Principals (Bob Driver) described improved classroom engagement and reduced bullying in districts that enforce restrictions. “Educators will ultimately be enforcing this as well. We too should have voice in the discretion of use,” Alex Hasselton said, arguing that clearer administrator backup reduces classroom power struggles and teacher burnout.

Concerns and local control: Several witnesses and district leaders urged caution about a one‑size‑fits‑all state mandate. Corey Johnson, chairperson of the Rosemount‑Apple Valley‑Eagan School Board (District 196), noted that Minnesota Statute 121A.73 already requires school districts to adopt cell‑phone policies and urged maintaining local flexibility to accommodate community and student needs, including students who rely on phones for safety or translation. Multiple superintendents and association representatives said districts have used toolkits and DOE guidance to craft policies tailored to local needs.

Process and next steps: Committee members questioned several implementation issues, including staff time, parent communications, special‑education exceptions, and whether principals’ discretion could cause inconsistent application. Senator Mann emphasized the bill was not an outright ban but would provide districts and principals additional statutory backup to adopt restrictive policies and fund accompanying education efforts.

Outcome: The committee laid Senate File 508 over for further consideration; no final vote on the bill itself occurred at the hearing.

Ending: Committee members said they planned to review the policies districts will present to the committee on March 14, when statutes require districts to submit their local phone policies for review.