Students full of questions about cellphone ban in North Dakota schools

Members of the Superintendent of Public Instruction's Student Cabinet discuss a new law banning student cellphone use in North Dakota public schools on May 14, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor)
North Dakota student leaders say they have a lot of unanswered questions after lawmakers passed a law requiring schools to be cellphone-free.
Members of the Superintendent of Public Instruction's Student Cabinet met Wednesday in Bismarck to discuss new legislation that will affect students.
Senate Bill 2354, which takes effect Aug. 1, prohibits public school students from having access to cellphones and other electronic devices in school from 'bell to bell.'
But the students raised a lot of questions lawmakers may not have considered. Some students said laptops provided by schools are 'horrible' and wondered if they could continue using personal laptops to do school work.
Another student said she views digital versions of her textbooks on a tablet so she doesn't have to carry heavy textbooks all day.
Yet another student said she'll miss using her phone to access the digital calendar she uses to keep track of homework, after-school practices and appointments.
'I see a lot of uncertainties with a lot of the exceptions the students were bringing up,' said Bridger Rivinius, a junior at Gackle-Streeter Public School. 'I feel like it might be a slight overreach for the state government to have to be involved with that.'
Gov. Kelly Armstrong was among the supporters of the bill. He has said it will help the next generation of students emotionally and academically.
Gov. Armstrong advocates for eliminating student cellphone use in public schools
The law requires cellphones to be silenced and stowed away in an inaccessible location during the school day. It gives school boards flexibility to craft their own policies around school-related noninstructional time, such as dances and sporting events.
It also mandates that school districts collect data to measure the impact of the new policy on student behavior, mental health, disciplinary incidents, school attendance and academic performance.
Gwyn Marback, a facilitator for the student Cabinet, said she expects there will be some 'fumbles' as school boards try to address issues with their new policies.
'They (state lawmakers) didn't think of everything,' Marback said. 'Hopefully, there's common sense when things arise.'
Sophia Johnson, a sophomore at Bismarck Legacy High School, said her school has an open campus policy that allows students to leave school during lunch or a free period, which could be an issue in implementing the policy at her school.
'It might be a bit of a disaster,' Johnson said. 'We have the open campus and we really want to focus on the 21st Century learning and that involves using our phones.'
She said some courses, such as media class, require students to use their phones to participate.
'All of that stuff is going to be really inhibited by this,' Johnson said. 'It really should be up to the teachers because they know their students the best. They know what's happening in their classrooms and they know how to work their students.'
Aidan Pelton, a senior at Watford City High School, said his school already implemented a zero tolerance cellphone policy. He said kids still have their phones in school, but fewer than before the policy was implemented.
'I like the bill. I just think there's going to be a lot of problems with it,' Pelton said. 'I don't really love the less control at the school level. But, I think it is overall a good thing to have no phones in schools.'
Addyson Rademacher-Nyame, an eighth grader at Mandan Middle School, testified in favor of the legislation at the Capitol. She said she finds it encouraging that each school board will be able to craft its own policy.
'It's going to be very interesting, especially this first try. It's going to be good to see the positive and negative results of it right away,' Rademacher-Nyame said.
She said legislative fixes might be needed during the 2027 session to address problems that arise from implementing the bill.
'Every school in North Dakota is different,' she said. 'I want to see every angle about how every school developed and adapted to this bill and we'll go from there.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

The Hill

an hour ago

• The Hill

Johnson: US has ‘no beef with the Iranian people'

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said Sunday that the United States has 'no beef for the Iranian people' following Saturday's announcement by President Trump that the U.S. had bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. 'We have no beef with the Iranian people,' Johnson told anchor Maria Bartiromo on Fox Business Network's 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 'This is about a regime that wants to destroy and eliminate Israel and destroy the great Satan, America.' Trump announced late Saturday that U.S. bombers struck three nuclear sites in Iran: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said in an address to the nation. The U.S. bombing in Iran followed a week of debate about whether the U.S. would step into a conflict that Israel had kicked off on June 13. 'We're not at war with the Iranian people. We support the Iranian people,' Johnson said Sunday. 'They don't like being under the dictatorial thumb of such a brutal regime.' On Sunday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the U.S. had no military operation planned against Iran, but did not rule out future strikes if the country did not show a meaningful effort to make peace. 'We have other targets that we could hit, but we achieved our objective,' Rubio said on CBS News's 'Face the Nation.'

Yahoo

3 hours ago

• Yahoo

Statement by Prime Minister Carney on the passing of the Honourable John McCallum

Ottawa, On, June 22, 2025 /CNW/ - "Deeply saddened to learn of the passing of John McCallum, who was an inspiration, a mentor, and a friend. "John served Canada and academia with great distinction, helping us to find solutions to our biggest economic challenges, and always with good humour and grace. "As an exemplary public servant, economist, diplomat, and parliamentarian, John's contributions to Canada were as deep as they were diverse. Outside of politics, his ideas and analysis established him as one of Canada's foremost economists. As Chief Economist at the Royal Bank of Canada, his insights shaped national conversations on fiscal policy, growth, and competitiveness. "As a Member of Parliament, he brought that same purpose and conviction to public service. His leadership in Canada's Cabinet included serving as Minister of National Defence, Veterans Affairs, Immigration, and more. As Canada's Ambassador to China, he brought his expertise to shaping one of Canada's most consequential bilateral relationships. "John believed in Canada as a place of opportunity and enormous potential. With his values of humility and service, John leaves a lasting legacy to his community and country. With my deepest condolences to John's friends and family at this difficult time." This document is also available at SOURCE Prime Minister's Office View original content:

Atlantic

7 hours ago

• Atlantic

Trump Got This One Right

'Why are the wrong people doing the right thing?' Henry Kissinger is supposed to have once asked, in a moment of statesman-like perplexity. That question recurred as Donald Trump, backed by a visibly perturbed vice president and two uneasy Cabinet secretaries, announced that the United States had just bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. It is a matter of consternation for all the right people, who, as Kissinger well knew, are often enough dead wrong. The brute fact is that Trump, more than any other president, Republican or Democrat, has taken decisive action against one of the two most dangerous nuclear programs in the world (the other being North Korea's). The Iranian government has for a generation not only spewed hatred at the United States and Israel, and at the West generally, but committed and abetted terrorism throughout the Middle East and as far as Europe and Latin America. Every day, its drones deliver death to Ukrainian cities. The Iranian government is a deeply hostile regime that has brought misery to many. A nuclear-armed Iran might very well have used a nuclear weapon against Israel, which is, as one former Iranian president repeatedly declared, 'a one-bomb country.' Because Israel might well have attempted to forestall such a blow with a preemptive nuclear strike of its own, the question is more likely when an Iranian bomb would have triggered the use of nuclear weapons, not whether it would have done so. But even without that apocalyptic possibility, a nuclear-armed Iran would have its own umbrella of deterrence to continue the terror and subversion with which it has persecuted its neighbors. There is no reason to think the regime has any desire to moderate those tendencies. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump was right to speak—and to speak with what sounded like unfeigned fury—about the American servicemen and servicewomen maimed and killed by Iranian IEDs in Iraq. It was no less than the truth. Shame on his predecessors for not being willing to say so publicly. When someone is killing your men and women, a commander in chief is supposed to say—and, more important, do—something about it. Trump was also right in making this a precise, limited use of force while holding more in reserve. Israel has done the heavy lifting here, but he has contributed an essential element—and no more. He was right as well (for the strikes were indeed an act of war) to threaten far worse punishment if Iran attempts to retaliate. The rush in many quarters—including right-wing isolationists and anguished progressives—to conjure up prospects of a war that will engulf the Middle East reflected their emotions rather than any analytic judgment. Iran, it cannot be said often enough, is a weak state. Its air defenses no longer exist. Its security apparatus has been thoroughly penetrated by Israeli, American, and other intelligence agencies. Its finances are a wreck and its people are hostile to their rulers. For that matter, anyone who has served in uniform in the Middle East during the past few decades knows that Iran has consistently conducted low-level war against the United States through its proxies. Could Iran attempt to attack shipping in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Yes—and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy would die in large numbers in their speedboats or in their bases as they prepared to do so. The United States and its allies have prepared for that scenario for a long time, and Iranian sailors' desire for martyrdom has been overstated. Could Iran try to launch terror attacks abroad? Yes, but the idea that there is a broad silent network of Iranian terrorists just waiting for the signal to strike is chimerical. And remember, Iran's nuclear fangs have been pulled. True enough, not permanently, as many of the president's critics have already earnestly pointed out on television. But so much of that kind of commentary is pseudo-sophistication: Almost no strategic problem gets solved permanently, unless you are Rome dealing with Carthage in the Third Punic War, destroying the city, slaughtering its inhabitants, and sowing the furrows with salt. For some period—five years, maybe 10—Iran will not have a nuclear option. Its key facilities are smashed and its key scientists dead or living in fear of their lives. Similar complaints were made about the Israeli strike on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981. The Israelis expected to delay the Iraqi program by no more than a year or two—but instead, the program was deferred indefinitely. As things go, crushing the facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, following a sustained Israeli campaign against similar targets, was a major achievement, and a problem deferred for five years may be deferred forever. As for Iran, in 1988 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini agreed to 'drink from the poisoned chalice' and accept a cease-fire with Iraq. He did so because the Iraq war was going badly, but also because he believed that the United States was willing to fight Iran: Operation Praying Mantis in 1988, following a mine explosion that damaged an American warship, involved the U.S. Navy sinking Iranian warships and destroying Iran's military installations. In 2003, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran reportedly paused its nuclear program. When American forces in Iraq finally picked up five elite Quds Force members in 2007, the Iranians pulled back from their activities in Iraq as well. The killing of Qassem Soleimani in 2020 elicited only one feeble spasm of violence. The bottom line is that Iran's leaders do not relish the idea of tackling the United States directly, and that is because they are not fools. The president is an easy man to hate. He has done many bad things: undermining the rule of law, sabotaging American universities, inflicting wanton cruelty on illegal immigrants, lying, and engaging in corruption. With his fractured syntax and diction (including the peculiar signature 'Thank you for your attention to this matter' at the end of his more bombastic posts on Truth Social) he is easy to dismiss as a huckster. The sycophancy and boastfulness of his subordinates, including Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth when briefing the attack, are distasteful. But contempt and animosity, justified in some cases, are bad ways of getting into his mind and assessing his actions. Trump has surprised both friends and critics here. The isolationist wing of the MAGA movement was smacked down, although its members probably include the vice president and top media figures such as Tucker Carlson. Trump has confounded the posters of TACO ('Trump always chickens out') memes. He has disproved the notion that he takes his marching orders directly from the Kremlin, for the strikes were not in Russia's interest. He has left prominent progressives, including a dwindling band of Israel supporters, confused, bleating about war-powers resolutions that were deemed unnecessary when the Obama administration began bombing Libya. We live in a dangerous world, and one that is going to get more so—and indeed, in other respects worsened by the president's policies. But Trump got this one right, doing what his predecessors lacked the intestinal fortitude (or, to be fair, the promising opportunity) to do. He spoke with the brutal clarity needed in dealing with a cruel and dangerous regime. The world is a better place for this action and I, for one, applaud him for it.