Senate Advances School Cellphone Limits Bill for Indiana Schools
Senate Advances Bell-to-Bell School Cellphone Limits in Indiana Schools
- Bill requires schools to ban student cellphone use during school day, with two enforcement models
- Supporters say it reduces distractions, but critics argue it creates practical and safety issues
- Debate reveals division within Senate GOP, with some members opposing expanded restrictions
STATEWIDE–A divided Indiana Senate approved a bill Tuesday to tighten school cellphone restrictions, advancing the proposal to the House despite concerns about safety, cost and enforcement.
Senate Bill 78, authored by Sen. Jeff Raatz, R-Richmond, passed the chamber 28-19 after a 40-minute floor debate.
Eight Democrats and 11 Republicans voted against the measure. GOP votes in opposition were cast by Sens. Ron Alting of Lafayette, Eric Bassler of Washington, Vaneta Becker of Evansville, Justin Busch of Fort Wayne, Dan Dernulc of Highland, Aaron Freeman of Indianapolis, Jean Leising of Oldenburg, Ryan Mishler of Mishawaka, Jim Tomes of Wadesville, Kyle Walker of Lawrence and Greg Walker of Columbus.
The legislation would require all public schools to adopt a ban that prohibits students from using or possessing a wireless communication device during the school day and requires that any teacher-directed use of a device “for educational purposes” occur only on school-supplied devices.
It also mandates that each district choose between two enforcement models: a “no device policy,” in which students may not bring phones to school at all; or a “secure storage policy,” in which students may bring phones but must store them so they are “inaccessible throughout the school day.”
The bill expands the definition of “wireless communication device” to include smartwatches connected to a phone, cell tower or the Internet.
Under current state law, students are prohibited from using phones during instructional time, but they can use them during lunch and passing periods.
‘Adults need to be in charge’
Raatz said the bill is driven by mounting evidence in favor of phone-free schools.
“It’s proven statistically that kids need a distraction-free day in school,” he said. “Adults need to be in charge. Students need to listen.”
Raatz further told senators his bill intentionally leaves some policy decisions to local schools, but he acknowledged that four key issues will still need to be resolved in the opposing chamber.
He cited elementary school storage options; exceptions for student access to phones for work-based learning opportunities and athletics; hashing out specifics for smart watch connectivity; and dealing with policy implications on school-sponsored devices.
Democrats and some Republicans who spoke against the bill on Tuesday argued that while limiting distractions in the classroom can improve student learning, the bill creates practical and safety concerns as well as costs for schools.
Sen. Fady Qaddoura, D-Indianapolis, said research supports reducing distractions but was opposed to advancing a bill with unresolved problems.
“Rather than fixing these issues on the House side, I always prefer that we get the job done here,” Qaddoura said, adding that storage costs and enforcement would be burdensome for large Hoosier schools. “Teachers are supportive of the idea of limiting the cellphones in the classroom … but the implementation is the problem.”
Sen. La Keisha Jackson, D-Indianapolis, also opposed the bill, pointing to school shootings and emergencies.
“If you have not been in that situation,” she said, “you do not know what it feels like to be helpless without a cellphone or some type of contact to contact somebody.”
Division within the Senate GOP supermajority
Leising, among the objecting GOP senators, questioned why lawmakers were expanding restrictions instead of enforcing existing law.
“I wish that rather than having this bill, we would be addressing how we can fix what we already have in place,” Leising said.
Additionally, Sen. Shelli Yoder, D-Bloomington, pressed Raatz on enforcement and flexibility, calling the bill “government overreach and an unfunded mandate.” She argued, too, that the policy “has no teeth.”
“If schools are having issues with the current policy we passed … let’s help them,” Yoder said, warning that expanding the mandate without clear enforcement or funding would not solve those problems.
Raatz countered that schools already enforce behavioral rules daily and should not be micromanaged by lawmakers.
“We should not legislate all the way down,” he said. “The bottom line is, the school does it every day and kids — yes, they learn their behavior.”
“They learn because of the restrictions that are set in place,” Raatz continued. “You can’t have (the device) — and if you have it, you’re going to get in trouble.”
Byrne, a Republican who supported the bill, reiterated that the policy would improve student outcomes at no cost to the state.
“The locals,” he added, “will be able to figure it out.”
The Senate vote came the same day a national coalition of child well-being groups released a report grading Indiana a “C” for its current phone-free school policy, citing the state’s limitation of restrictions to instructional time rather than the entire school day.
The report found that states with “bell-to-bell” phone bans — requiring students to store devices in secure, inaccessible locations for the full school day — are more likely to see improvements in academic performance, student mental health and teacher satisfaction.
