New bill would ban use of cellphones in North Carolina schools
A new bill filed this week in the N.C. General Assembly, with some bi-partisan support, would ban the use of cellphones in public schools during instructional time.
Why it matters: A growing number of states have moved to ban cellphones and other smart devices in classrooms, as part of an effort to reduce distractions during learning time and boost socialization among students.
Driving the news: Senate Bill 55 would ask public school districts to create policies to ban students from using wireless communication devices during class time.
The ban would apply to cellphones, tablet computers, laptops, pagers, radios, gaming devices or any device that can provide voice, messaging or other data communication.
Devices would be allowed if authorized by a teacher for educational purposes.
Between the lines: The bill has three primary Republican sponsors in Sens. Michael Lee (New Hanover County), Jim Burgin (Harnett) and Lisa Barnes (Nash), but there is some bipartisan support.
State Sen. Jay Chaudhuri, a Democrat representing Wake County, introduced a similar bill last year with Burgin and applauded the new effort, saying "Study after study, superintendent after superintendent have told us that phone-free schools benefit students, teachers, and parents."
State of play: 68% of U.S. adults support cellphone bans during class, and about 36% favor an all-day ban, a Pew Research survey found last year.
A group of parents in Wake County schools pushed last year for a district-wide ban in the state's largest school district. But so far, Wake County lets each school set its own policy on phones.
The other side: Those who oppose the bans, especially parents of K-12 students, argue that parents should be able to reach their children when needed, Axios' April Rubin previously reported.
Many parents see cellphones as critical for safety and connectedness, especially in the face of emergencies like school shootings.
Zoom in: While new North Carolina Superintendent Mo Green said on the campaign trail that "we've got to figure out ways to limit the access of cellphones in schools," he hasn't supported an outright ban publically, NC Newsline reported.
Zoom out: Health experts and policymakers have called for stricter regulations on youth social media use, while social media companies have been reckoning with accountability about their platforms' harmful effects on children.
Research has found that excessive cellphone use can impact children's mental health.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
11 minutes ago
- Axios
FTC approves Omnicom, IPG merger but says they can't coordinate to bar ads based on politics
The Federal Trade Commission on Monday said it will approve Omnicom Group's $13.5 billion acquisition of rival The Interpublic Group, but only if the agencies agree they won't bar ads based on politics. Why it matters: A consent order that addresses the possibility of political collusion is rare, and speaks to the hyper-political climate facing the business community. The merger between Omnicom and IPG will create the largest global ad agency holding group by revenue. The deal is still pending approval from regulators in the U.K. Zoom in: The proposed consent order imposes restrictions "that prevent Omnicom from engaging in collusion or coordination to direct advertising away from media publishers based on the publishers' political or ideological viewpoints." It also prohibits agencies from accepting requests to direct advertising spend to a certain media publisher "based on political or ideological viewpoints or political content." Agencies are also prohibited from declining to do business with an advertiser based on their political or ideological viewpoints. Between the lines: Advertisers are still allowed to dictate where their ads appear. Agencies will need to act with caution to avoid accusations of collusion or bias when considering an advertiser's targeting requests. Of note: Earlier this year, the Trump administration fired the FTC's two Democratic commissioners. The remaining three commissioners are all Republican. The consent order passed by a 2-0-1 commission vote, with commissioners Andrew N. Ferguson and Melissa Holyoak voting in favor of the measure, while commissioner Mark R. Meador recused himself. It's unusual for orders to be passed by two votes within the FTC, but it's valid. Yes, but: The consent order also contains fairly standard provisions barring anticompetitive coordination over conditions such as pricing, ad placement, and sponsorships, as well as helping execute advertisers' ad campaigns. Axios previously reported that despite concerns around politics, most of the FTC's inquiries into the merger with ad professionals were apolitical. Reality check: Regulators rarely put in place merger provisions that specifically bar this type of coordination, but political pressure around allegations of ad groups penalizing conservatives has gained steam. Last year, House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) sent letters to the CEOs of Omnicom and IPG as part of an antitrust investigation into whether ad agencies had colluded with the World Federation of Advertisers and the now defunct industry coalition Global Alliance for Responsible Media to boycott conservative media. Amid the chaos in Congress, the probe moved fully to the FTC, Axios reported last month. Jordan's investigation came months after he led a Congressional hearing about complaints that alleged GARM was colluding with ad-buying giant GroupM (now WPP Media) to discourage clients from buying ads in the Daily Wire because of its conservative politics. Last year, X sued the liberal watchdog group Media Matters for defamation, claiming one of its research reports contributed to an advertiser exodus. The FTC is now investigating the group over the same issue. What they're saying: "Websites and other publications that rely on advertising are critical to the flow of our nation's commerce and communication," Daniel Guarnera, director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition, said in a statement. "Coordination among advertising agencies to suppress advertising spending on publications with disfavored political or ideological viewpoints threatens to distort not only competition between ad agencies, but also public discussion and debate."
Politico
12 minutes ago
- Politico
Democrats set to target multiple Senate GOP tax provisions
House Republicans are aiming to slash funding for the nonpartisan watchdog for waste, fraud and abuse within the federal government by nearly half in the next fiscal year, according to spending bill text released Sunday night. The House Appropriations subcommittee funding Congress and its support agencies, led by chairman David Valadao (R-Calif.), is set to mark up their fiscal 2026 measure Monday evening, with the full committee set to act Thursday. The Legislative Branch bill would provide $6.7 billion — $51 million below the current funding level, which was set in fiscal 2024. Per tradition, the House bill does not touch any Senate funding. 'Chairman Valadao's bill puts the American people first — in strengthening the institutions that represent them, protecting effective governance, and safeguarding taxpayer dollars,' said House Appropriations Committee Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) in a statement. The deepest cuts in the bill are to the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress that would see a $396.5 million reduction from current levels to $415.4 million. GAO has served as the nation's chief investigator of wrongdoing at federal agencies for more than a century, but has been fighting for months as Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration have attempted to undercut its legal conclusions and independence. Now, they are attempting to shrink the agency into submission as it pursues nearly 40 investigations into whether the White House is illegally withholding, or 'impounding,' money Congress had previously approved. Also tucked into the bill is a major policy change that would eliminate the GAO's ability to bring civil action against the executive branch over impoundments of funds. 'GAO's work makes it possible for the legislative branch to hold government accountable,' said Daniel Schuman, executive director of the American Governance Institute. 'Congress needs independent expert advice, which is exactly what GAO provides.' Also on the chopping block is the Library of Congress, which is another legislative branch agency also engaged in a power struggle against intrusion by the Trump administration. The bill allocates $767.6 million for the Library of Congress, which is $84.5 million below the current funding level and $133.7 million below the FY26 request. 'This bill does nothing to safeguard against the growing levels of executive overreach into legislative branch agencies,' said Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the legislative branch subcommittee. Some other key provisions in the GOP-written bill include: Capitol Police: The Capitol Police would see a $84.4 million boost to their funding under the bill, bringing the total to $891 million. Some lawmakers had asked for an increase in office funding for use for security, but the bill flat-funds the Members Representational Allowance, which can be used for some member security purposes. Member Pay: The bill would continue the member pay freeze that has been in effect since 2013, halting automatic cost of living increases that members of Congress are supposed to get under law. Gay marriage: The bill includes language that prohibits discrimination against any person who 'speaks, or acts' in accordance with a 'sincerely held religious belief, or moral conviction, that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman.'
Newsweek
17 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Thomas Massie Trolls Donald Trump, Deploys 'Sassy With Massie' Tag
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Republican Representative Thomas Massie and President Donald Trump continued to clash online after the former criticized the White House's approach to military action in Iran. The Kentucky representative said that Trump had "declared war" on him after he said that the strikes in Iran were unconstitutional, to which Trump responded: "GET THIS 'BUM' OUT OF OFFICE, ASAP!!!" Newsweek reached out to the White House and Massie's office for comment via email. Why It Matters On Saturday, Trump said that the U.S. military had attacked three nuclear sites in Iran: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. Massie said that Trump's decision to strike was "unconstitutional," as the president had not informed Congress of the military action in advance. "A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow," Trump wrote in his initial announcement on Truth Social. "There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter." What To Know Trump responded to Massie's criticism with an extended message on Truth Social, where he wrote: "Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky is not MAGA, even though he likes to say he is. "Actually, MAGA doesn't want him, doesn't know him, and doesn't respect him. He is a negative force who almost always Votes 'NO,' no matter how good something may be." On Sunday evening, Massie replied on X, formerly Twitter, and joked that "Trump declared so much war on me today it should require an Act of Congress," referencing his earlier criticism. Massie ended the message with the tag #sassywithmassie. Trump continued the feud on Monday morning, reposting his original attack on Massie with the caption: "GET THIS 'BUM' OUT OF OFFICE, ASAP!!!" Massie has been a staunch opponent of striking Iran, previously saying he would not back a move to get involved in a "regime change war" despite other Republican leaders like Lindsey Graham urging Trump to go "all in" on Iran. Rep. Thomas Massie speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on March 11, 2025. Rep. Thomas Massie speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on March 11, 2025. Getty Images What People Are Saying President Donald Trump said on Truth Social on Sunday: "We had a spectacular military success yesterday, taking the 'bomb' right out of their hands (and they would use it if they could!) but, as usual, and despite all of the praise and accolades received, this 'lightweight' Congressman is against what was so brilliantly achieved last night in Iran. "Massie is weak, ineffective, and votes NO on virtually everything put before him (Rand Paul, Jr.), no matter how good something may be. He is disrespectful to our great military, and all that they stand for, not even acknowledging their brilliance and bravery in yesterday's attack, which was a total and complete WIN. Massie should drop his fake act and start putting America First, but he doesn't know how to get there — he doesn't have a clue!" What Happens Next The White House called for Iran to return to the negotiating table after the strike. After the attack, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said that the U.S. "must receive a response for their aggression."
