Without input from teachers, our Legislature has given us a bad cellphone law
The Oklahoma Legislature loves to dictate to educators what they, the lawmakers, think is best for Oklahoma students. Oklahoma lawmakers also frequently pass laws with little to no 'fiscal impact,' without considering the very real cost to the people who will actually implement the laws ― building administration and teachers. The result is a host of education laws that are nothing more than the heavy burden of unfunded mandates.
More: Cellphones will be banned in Oklahoma schools for 2025-26 school year: What to know
Cellphone use in schools is a complicated issue that will not be solved through simple mandates. Everyone in education, no exceptions, has a nuanced opinion on the pros and cons of personal devices in the classroom. The issue of cellphones in schools would have provided the perfect opportunity for public testimony to be utilized as a vital part of the legislative process. Oklahoma needs a public hearing component in the Legislature, something significantly more robust than interim studies that often do not allow public comment.
Cellphone use in schools is a complicated issue that will not be solved through simple mandates, guest columnist writes.
The majority of educators agree that cellphones constitute a problem that needs to be addressed. But SB 139 is a short-sighted 'solution' that will likely play out as follows:
Oklahoma legislators pat themselves on the back after passing a cellphone ban that includes no assistance, financial or otherwise.
Local district administration fulfill their requirement by adopting a one year policy banning cellphones from schools.
Building level administrators are faced with the very difficult choice of implementing the policy at the door as students enter every morning or simply passing the buck and placing the onus of implementation squarely on the backs of teachers.
A teacher single-handedly barring cellphones from their classroom is taking on an additional unpaid part-time job. An effective ban would require partnerships across all levels: teachers, building administrators, district administration and lawmakers.
More: Opinion: Compromises between students, parents, educators could address cellphone issues
The Oklahoma Legislature has already indicated that they are only interested in mandates and not partnerships. Time will tell how district and building level administrators respond to SB 139. Worst case scenario: full implementation becomes the sole responsibility of already-overtasked teachers, and the teacher shortage shifts from terrible to unimaginable.
Aaron Baker
Aaron Baker is a high school social studies teacher and musician living in northwest Oklahoma City.
This article originally appeared on Oklahoman: New Oklahoma law on cellphones unlikely to help much | Opinion
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Newsom wants voters to weigh in on new congressional districts in November
This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters. Gov. Gavin Newsom is eyeing a special election in the first week of November to ask California voters to sign off on revised U.S. House districts that could boost Democratic prospects in the 2026 midterms. Though no new seats have been proposed yet, Newsom said Thursday that he is working with the Legislature and congressional representatives on a plan that would temporarily set aside California's independent redistricting commission and bring an alternative map directly to the public for approval. 'We will go to the people of this state in a transparent way and ask them to consider the new circumstances, to consider these new realities,' Newsom told reporters during a visit to a Sacramento County airfield, where he showed off new state firefighting equipment. 'This is not going to be done in a back room. This is not going to be done by members of some private group or body,' he added. 'It's going to be given to the voters for their consideration in a very transparent way so they know exactly what they're doing and they can go back in 2030 to original form with our independent redistricting intact.' It was the most detail the governor has publicly provided so far about how he plans to respond to a burgeoning partisan redistricting war set off by President Donald Trump in recent months. States last redrew their congressional seats after the 2020 census, to ensure the districts are roughly equal in population, and were not expected to revisit the process for another decade. But Republican leaders are under growing pressure from Trump to help shore up a narrow GOP majority in Congress ahead of a potentially challenging midterm election. Texas lawmakers are currently rushing to adopt a new congressional map eliminating five Democratic seats, which has sparked similar efforts in other Republican-controlled states and hand-wringing from Democrats about how to counteract it. Newsom: California must step in Newsom asserted again Thursday that California must pause independent redistricting, which he has previously supported, to fight a president that 'wants to rig the game' against Democrats, who could potentially block Trump's agenda if they win control of the House in 2026. 'De facto the Trump presidency ends in November of next year if the American people are given a fair chance and a voice and a choice,' Newsom said. While most other states give redistricting authority to their legislatures, California uses a bipartisan citizen commission created by voters through a ballot measure. So to usurp the commission and implement more Democratic-leaning districts, Newsom must call a statewide special election and go back to the voters. Democrats currently hold 43 of the state's 52 House seats, including several competitive districts that flipped from Republican control last November. The governor said he wants to hold the election on the first Tuesday in November because many communities already have local elections scheduled then. That could make it easier to mount on short notice and help reduce an estimated price tag of more than $200 million — though Newsom also said 'there's too much at stake' to worry about the cost. 'How much did it cost to have the theatrics with the National Guard and Trump?' he said, referring to the president's recent deployment of thousands of troops in Los Angeles to quell immigration-related protests. 'How many hundreds of millions of dollars was wasted?' The November target gives California an extremely tight window to act. State law requires county elections offices to send a mail ballot to every registered voter a month before election day; military and overseas voter ballots and voter information guides go out 15 days before that. The material would need to be ready by late September to meet those deadlines. Meanwhile, the Legislature is on summer recess until Aug. 18. The Democratic caucuses of the state Senate and Assembly are expected to begin private discussions next week about advancing a ballot measure, which requires a two-thirds majority in both houses, so that they could potentially pass it before the end of August. Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire, a Healdsburg Democrat, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, said the Assembly will review its options to counteract Trump's redistricting scheme and 'ensure our government remains fair, transparent and representative of the people.' 'This move is an attempt to silence voters who reject MAGA extremism — including here in California, where the people have spoken loud and clear in two national elections,' Rivas said in a statement. This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: California may put redistricting on November ballot
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom provides new details about his plan for redistricting fight with Trump
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom said Thursday that he's considering calling a special election on Nov. 4 to ask voters to approve new congressional maps in California in an effort to thwart President Trump's plan to redistrict Republican-controlled states and hold onto power of the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. 'I think there's a growing recognition in this country, not just with Democrats, independents, but also Republicans, that de facto the Trump presidency ends in November of next year if the American people are given a fair chance and a voice and a choice. We'll take back Congress,' Newsom said. 'The President of the United States recognizes that, so he wants to rig the game, wants to change the rules midterm.' The governor has cast his call to gerrymander California as a response to Trump's request for Texas and other states to reconfigure their maps to pick up seats in 2026. 'We're going to respond in a transparent way, an honest way, but it's in response,' Newsom said. 'But I'm not going to sit back any longer in a position, a fetal position, in a position of weakness, when in fact California could demonstrably advance strength and that's what we intend to do.' Under Newsom's plan, the California Legislature would need to take a vote to send a ballot measure to voters. Newsom said voters would be given the maps of new congressional districts. A special election would be held on the first Tuesday in November asking voters to adopt the maps and allow the new districts to remain in effect through 2030 when California would return to the independent redistricting system that's currently in place. California's Independent Redistricting Commission would craft new maps after the next census to be put into effect in 2032. The governor said he's in the early planning states of the process and doesn't have an estimate yet for the price tag of a statewide special election. Newsom called the cost of preserving Democracy 'priceless.' 'There are many local elections that first Tuesday already on the ballot, so it requires significant less resources than a special election that didn't already have regular elections considered,' Newsom said. 'So that could be very meaningful in mitigating the cost.' Newsom promised more information in the weeks ahead.
CBS News
3 hours ago
- CBS News
Massachusetts lawmakers pass raise for bar advocates, but some say they won't budge
Massachusetts lawmakers in the House and Senate passed a bill raising wages for bar advocates. Bar advocates are contracted by the state to represent defendants who cannot afford a lawyer, and some have stopped their work since Memorial Day, demanding better wages. The deal would raise bar advocate wages by $10 an hour starting immediately with a promise to raise their wages another $10 an hour next fiscal year. Currently, bar advocates in Massachusetts make $65 an hour, compared to more than $100 an hour for advocates in other New England states. A group of advocates gathered at the State House Thursday to protest the deal, which they say, was constructed in a back room without their input. "The right to counsel is only words to them. They don't understand. They don't understand the Constitution and they certainly don't understand the hard work that bar advocates do day in and day out throughout this Commonwealth," said defense attorney Sean Delaney. Bar advocates walked off the job after Memorial Day, demanding better wages. The move left thousands of defendants without representation and caused judges in Suffolk County to dismiss over 100 cases. Now, the Legislature's plan would put $40 million towards hiring 320 more public defenders, a separate group of attorneys who work full time for the state. Governor Maura Healey says she is prepared to sign the deal. "It's really a function of how much money there is in the budget right now and the legislature, I know, worked very hard to provide what they could with what we have for a budget right now," Healey said. Bar advocates say their grief remains over the secrecy of the process. "We are going nowhere. You're strengthening our cause and our resolve. Personally, I am not taking another case until they do what is right," Delaney said. What passed also included language aimed at preventing a standoff in the future. It says bar advocates who refuse to accept new clients because of their pay may constitute a violation of the state's antitrust laws.
