Legislation passed Wednesday by the Alaska House of Representatives would require the state’s school districts to adopt policies that restrict the use of cellphones by students during school hours.
House Bill 57, which will advance to the Senate after a 34-6 vote, does not require districts to ban students’ cellphones altogether but does require them to regulate students’ use of phones during regular school hours, including during lunch and the time between classes.
An earlier version of the bill would have required the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development to draft a model policy as an example for districts to follow, but that requirement was eliminated in a floor amendment.
The amendment also eliminated a requirement that school districts report their academic performance before and after the new cellphone policy.
Cellphones would be allowed for translation purposes, in emergencies, for medical reasons, and as needed for instruction.
Restrictions on cellphones in the classroom are growing in popularity across the country, and eight states — including Florida, California, Virginia and Indiana — have banned them altogether.
Every state except Nevada and Wyoming has proposed or is considering a statewide ban or restriction, according to a tally kept by the Associated Press. Some members of Congress are considering national legislation.
The bans come amid a broadening base of research that shows smartphone and social media use can contribute to negative mental health and poor academic achievement among students in grade school and high school.
Several lawmakers, including Gov. Mike Dunleavy, proposed legislation this year that would restrict cellphone use in schools.
HB 57, from Rep. Zack Fields, D-Anchorage, became the leading bill.
On April 11, Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, proposed an amendment that rewrote the bill’s language to reflect a section of an education bill approved by the Senate Education Committee.
Ruffridge said he thinks Alaskans believe in local control of education.
“The language of Amendment No. 2 gives that ability to govern yourselves and be as strict or as permissive as possible at the district level,” he said.
Fields spoke against the amendment, saying it turned HB 57 from a cellphone ban into “a cellphone discouragement policy.”
The amendment passed on a 19-18 vote.
Five days later, when the bill came up for a final vote, Fields voted for it.
“The amendment adopted to this bill substantially weakens it,” Fields said. “I’m still going to vote for the bill and send it to the next body because I think there’s an opportunity to resurrect better language.”
Other legislators also stood up in support, offering anecdotal stories about the way cellphones have affected their children and children they know.
“Parents and our state are at war against these screens,” said Rep. Andrew Gray, D-Anchorage, speaking in favor of the bill.
A handful of legislators spoke against the bill, including Ruffridge, whose amendment significantly rewrote it.
Ruffridge said he supports giving local school districts the authority to make decisions like this.
“It’s not up to us to do,” he said.
Rep. David Nelson, R-Anchorage, said that there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about kids’ mental health, but that is a wider issue than just cellphones.
“If we’re going to be trusting young people and saying, ‘Hey, you are the future,’ why are we banning communication devices in public schools?” he said.
HB 57 is subject to a reconsideration vote on the House floor before it advances to the Senate, but legislators said they don’t expect the tally to change much, if at all.
The bill has been tentatively scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday.