In the push for a statewide school cellphone ban in Maine, local control could stand in the way
A bill introduced in the state Legislature this session would have banned cellphones from the start of the school day to the end in public schools across the state, and received mostly supportive testimony during an April hearing.
But at a work session this month, lawmakers transformed LD 1234 into a resolve that would require school districts in Maine to simply have a comprehensive policy around cellphones in schools by August 2026, not necessarily a ban. The Education and Cultural Affairs Committee advanced that amended bill in an 11-2 vote on May 2.
"There is a desire to acknowledge that we all think that electronic devices, specifically smart phones and watches in schools, are having an undue effect on educational practice and our ability to have our kids focus, among other things," Sen. Teresa Pierce, D-Cumberland, said during the work session. "But we live in the reality of Maine, of a local control state, where everything really is driven by what your local community does and the decisions that they make."
Parents and educators who have long advocated for a statewide ban are getting behind the new measure, which they say is a good first step, but still hope a bell-to-bell ban is on the horizon.
MODEL POLICY
Some Maine school districts have already banned cellphones from bell-to-bell. Regional School Unit 1, the district based in Bath, was the first to do so when it banned phones last June and put the policy into effect this school year. Now, the principal of RSU 1's Morse High School, Eric Varney, is showing other school districts how they can do it.
"We've had a tremendous amount of districts reach out to us and do site visits and come talk to our students and talk to our teachers," he said. "And many, many of those schools are moving ahead with a bell-to-bell plan for their next school year."
Portland, the state's largest school district, is in the process of developing a similar policy.
For his own school, Varney said, the impact of an all-out phone ban has been quick and extremely positive.
"I've had teachers that have been in the business for 40 years say this is the single best thing, best policy change, they've seen in their 40 years," Varney said.
Morse requires students to put their phone in a Yondr Pouch, a magnetically locking bag that the school provides for each student. Varney said student focus has been better this year, school suspensions have decreased by 50%, socialization has improved, teacher morale has risen and rollout has been easier than expected.
The change in RSU 1 has been inspiring for people like Stacy Taylor and Crystal Schreck, Falmouth parents and members of Turn the Tide Coalition, a group that advocates for less technology access for children.
"I'm passionate about this because I have two kids of cellphone age and I'm watching it take over their lives," Schreck said. "It's really a problem and not enough is being done about it."
Schreck and Taylor were enthusiastic supporters of LD 1234 in its previous form; they said advocates have met resistance trying to pass policies at the district level, and feel like it's the right time for a state-level action.
"Every student deserves the benefit of a phone-free school, not just the school or district that has taken the effort to make a policy change," Taylor said. She pointed to more than a dozen other states that have recently passed or are actively considering similar bans at the state level, from New York to North Dakota to Rhode Island.
LOCAL CONTROL
While many parents and educators celebrated the possibility of a bell-to-bell ban at the April hearing, larger educational organizations, like the Maine School Management Association, said they understand concerns about cellphones but discouraged lawmakers from overreaching.
"L.D. 1234 ignores that local control and the important work that school districts are already undertaking around this issue," the MSMA wrote. "Imposing this mandate will not allow for community collaboration to tackle this challenge."
The idea of local control has long influenced Maine policy making, said Robbie Feinberg, spokesperson for the MSMA. It's a general philosophy that local leaders know how to best set policy for their communities.
He said districts across the state are already looking at cellphone restrictions, but doing so in communication with their communities, where local families might have a desire to have a more nuanced policy.
"The push back on the local level is that a full bell-to-bell ban would take away that local decision-making, being able to decide exactly where phones are an important part within the school day, and where they are not," Feinberg said.
The Maine Principals' Association didn't take a stance on the bill, writing that it recognizes the benefits of reducing cellphone use in schools but cautioning lawmakers about the precedent of local control. The Maine Department of Education also said it was neither for nor against the ban, and wrote in testimony that the department understood the complex challenge of phones, but had concerns about the bill's approach.
"Singling out phones for elimination may offer short-term relief, but it may impact students' ability to manage technology responsibly," wrote Beth Lambert, chief teaching and learning officer at the department. "Our goal should be to help students navigate, not avoid, the digital complexities of their lives."
Taylor and Schreck with Turn the Tide said LD 1234 as amended provides a good starting point for a statewide push to get cellphones out of the school day. They're advocating for passage of the bill in its new form, but in the longer term are still looking toward a statewide ban.
"Personally, that would be fantastic, I would love to see that," Schreck said. "But I think realistically...in this session, this is what we get, and we're very grateful to be even moving forward."
Schreck said her coalition was pleased with the Education Committee's discussions about providing a model cellphone policy for districts. They're hoping RSU 1's might serve as that model.
Copy the Story Link
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
What to know as Trump's immigration crackdown strips tuition breaks from thousands of students
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Tens of thousands of U.S. college students without legal resident status are losing access to in-state tuition prices as part of President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration. The Justice Department has been suing states to end tuition breaks for students without legal residency, starting with Texas in June. It has also filed lawsuits in Kentucky, Minnesota and, most recently, Oklahoma. Last year, Florida ended its tuition break for students living there illegally, 'Federal law prohibits aliens not lawfully present in the United States from getting in-state tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens,' the Justice Department argued in a lawsuit this month in Oklahoma. 'There are no exceptions.' The tuition breaks once enjoyed wide bipartisan support but have increasingly come under criticism from Republicans in recent years. Here's what to know about the tuition breaks: Texas' program was blocked first Texas' tuition policy was initially passed with sweeping bipartisan majorities in the Legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, as a way to open access to higher education for students without legal residency already living in the state. Supporters then and now say it boosted the state's economy by creating a better-educated and better-prepared workforce. The law allowed students without legal resident status to qualify for in-state tuition if they had lived in Texas for three years before graduating from high school and for a year before enrolling in college. They also had to sign an affidavit promising to apply for legal resident status as soon as possible. Texas now has about 57,000 qualifying students enrolled in its public universities and colleges, according to the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a nonpartisan nonprofit group of university leaders focused on immigration policy. The state has about 690,000 students overall at its public universities. The difference in tuition rates is substantial. For example, at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, a 34,000-student campus along the border with Mexico, a state resident will pay about $10,000 in basic tuition for a minimum full-time class schedule in the upcoming school year. A nonresident student will pay $19,000. Political pushback and a swift end Texas' law stood mostly unchallenged for years, but it came under fire as debates over illegal immigration intensified. In the 2012 Republican presidential primary, Perry apologized after saying critics of the law 'did not have a heart.' The law withstood several repeal efforts in the Republican-dominated Legislature. During the legislative session that ended June 2, a repeal bill did not even get a vote. But the ax fell quickly. After the Trump administration filed a lawsuit calling the law unconstitutional, state Attorney General Ken Paxton, a key Trump ally, chose not to defend the law in court and instead filed a motion agreeing that it should not be enforced. In Oklahoma, Attorney General Gentner Drummond, also a Republican, filed a similar motion. 'Rewarding foreign nationals who are in our country illegally with lower tuition costs that are not made available to out-of-state American citizens is not only wrong — it is discriminatory and unlawful," Drummond said in a statement. Campuses nationwide feel the impact At least 21 states and the University of Michigan system have laws or policies allowing tuition breaks for the immigrant students, according to the National Immigration Law Center, which favors them. Those states include Democratic-leaning ones such as California and New York, but also GOP-leaning ones such as Kansas and Nebraska. Immigration lawyers and education advocates said they are assessing whether there are legal avenues to challenge the rulings.
an hour ago
What to know as Trump's immigration crackdown strips tuition breaks from thousands of students
AUSTIN, Texas -- Tens of thousands of U.S. college students without legal resident status are losing access to in-state tuition prices as part of President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration. The Justice Department has been suing states to end tuition breaks for students without legal residency, starting with Texas in June. It has also filed lawsuits in Kentucky, Minnesota and, most recently, Oklahoma. Last year, Florida ended its tuition break for students living there illegally, 'Federal law prohibits aliens not lawfully present in the United States from getting in-state tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens,' the Justice Department argued in a lawsuit this month in Oklahoma. 'There are no exceptions.' The tuition breaks once enjoyed wide bipartisan support but have increasingly come under criticism from Republicans in recent years. Here's what to know about the tuition breaks: Texas' tuition policy was initially passed with sweeping bipartisan majorities in the Legislature and signed into law by then-Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, as a way to open access to higher education for students without legal residency already living in the state. Supporters then and now say it boosted the state's economy by creating a better-educated and better-prepared workforce. The law allowed students without legal resident status to qualify for in-state tuition if they had lived in Texas for three years before graduating from high school and for a year before enrolling in college. They also had to sign an affidavit promising to apply for legal resident status as soon as possible. Texas now has about 57,000 qualifying students enrolled in its public universities and colleges, according to the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a nonpartisan nonprofit group of university leaders focused on immigration policy. The state has about 690,000 students overall at its public universities. The difference in tuition rates is substantial. For example, at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, a 34,000-student campus along the border with Mexico, a state resident will pay about $10,000 in basic tuition for a minimum full-time class schedule in the upcoming school year. A nonresident student will pay $19,000. Texas' law stood mostly unchallenged for years, but it came under fire as debates over illegal immigration intensified. In the 2012 Republican presidential primary, Perry apologized after saying critics of the law 'did not have a heart.' The law withstood several repeal efforts in the Republican-dominated Legislature. During the legislative session that ended June 2, a repeal bill did not even get a vote. But the ax fell quickly. After the Trump administration filed a lawsuit calling the law unconstitutional, state Attorney General Ken Paxton, a key Trump ally, chose not to defend the law in court and instead filed a motion agreeing that it should not be enforced. In Oklahoma, Attorney General Gentner Drummond, also a Republican, filed a similar motion. 'Rewarding foreign nationals who are in our country illegally with lower tuition costs that are not made available to out-of-state American citizens is not only wrong — it is discriminatory and unlawful," Drummond said in a statement. At least 21 states and the University of Michigan system have laws or policies allowing tuition breaks for the immigrant students, according to the National Immigration Law Center, which favors them. Those states include Democratic-leaning ones such as California and New York, but also GOP-leaning ones such as Kansas and Nebraska. According to the center, at least 16 states allow the immigrant students to receive scholarships or other aid to go to college. Immigration lawyers and education advocates said they are assessing whether there are legal avenues to challenge the rulings.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Democrats draw up plans to retaliate if Republicans gerrymander Texas — but they face legal hurdles
Democrats in America's two biggest blue states are hatching plans to respond in kind to a mid-decade move by Texas to draw a friendlier House map for Republicans. Retaliation threats have come from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, who lead states where Democrats control large legislative majorities. Two can play at this game, they say, vowing to similarly eliminate GOP-held seats in their states. But that's easier said than done. Democrats have legal hurdles to clear in California and New York, which have restricted partisan gerrymandering, which liberal advocates pushed in previous years in the name of good government. Texas has no such limits, so GOP Gov. Greg Abbott has called a special session to draw a new map. California eyes a 'triggered' map for 2026 California has an independent redistricting commission — a bipartisan panel tasked with drawing up fair maps for the Legislature to approve — to avoid partisan influence. Newsom is seeking to get around that on a temporary and targeted basis — but only if Texas enacts its GOP-favored map, which is aimed at giving Republicans up to five more seats in the U.S. House. Newsom hopes to work with the Democratic-dominated Legislature starting this month to set up a special election for a statewide ballot measure on Nov. 4. It would offer a newly drawn map if Texas moves forward, a source close to Newsom told NBC News. The ballot measure would do two things: First, it would affirm support for California's independent commission and call for fair redistricting nationwide. Second, it would include a trigger that says a pre-drawn new House map expected to boost Democrats would take effect if Texas implemented a new map. 'What we will say is for the '26, '28 and 2030 elections, these congressional maps on the ballot that voters are approving will be in place. ... The maps themselves will most likely be on the ballot,' said the source close to Newsom, who wasn't authorized to discuss the plan publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity. 'After the 2030 election, the redistricting commission does its job again, and we'll redraw starting in 2032.' Newsom said that the maps are 'being processed' and that they will be 'provided in a transparent way to the public,' adding that under the plan, California voters would make the 'ultimate determination.' 'We're not going to roll over. And we're going to fight fire with fire,' Newsom said. 'We also will punch above our weight in terms of the impact of what we're doing. And I think that should be absorbed by those in the Texas delegation. Whatever they are doing will be neutered here in the state of California.' Paul Mitchell, a California-based redistricting consultant who has advised Democrats, said any new House map would be constrained by the Voting Rights Act, as well as the governor's office and the Legislature, which would need to greenlight it. 'It's like having an emergency 'break glass' rather than an emergency 'burn down the house' measure,' Mitchell said, adding that voters support the independent commission and believe it should be replicated nationwide, in an ideal world. 'They're angry about what Texas is doing. They want to fight back,' he said. 'Voters can understand our long-term goal is this path of better democracy. If we do something, it's only because Texas did it. If Texas steps down today, then all this hubbub of redistricting in California goes away.' How many Republican-held House seats could Democrats flip by drawing a new and friendlier map in California? 'The threshold is three, four or five seats,' Mitchell said, adding that a tangential goal would be to fortify Democrats in existing competitive seats and not do a 'dummy-mander' that might expose other Democratic lawmakers to problems. New York may have to wait until 2028 In New York, changing the redistricting process must move forward as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment — a lengthy and arduous exercise that probably wouldn't lead to new congressional maps until the 2028 election cycle, even if Texas acts before the upcoming midterms. 'I wish I could just call a special election and change it. I'd do it in a heartbeat,' Hochul said recently on MSNBC's "All In with Chris Hayes." 'But we have a constitutional amendment process that's required first. I'm willing to do that. I'm working hard with our legislative leaders to pass legislation immediately — as soon as they return in January — pass it in this current session of the Legislature, go to the next one, which is required, so it won't be until 2027 we can get it on the ballot. But what would that mean — is that in 2028, we could have different lines.' That's because the state's redistricting has been controlled for more than a decade by its own independent redistricting commission. New York voters passed a constitutional amendment changing the redistricting process back in 2014 to create the commission; previously, the Legislature controlled the entire process for legislative and congressional maps. The new proposed amendment would return the duties of redrawing congressional districts to the Legislature — but only if another state engaged in mid-decade redistricting first. Because it's a proposed constitutional amendment, it would have to pass the Legislature in Albany in two consecutive sessions — this year and again in 2026 — and then still be approved by voters in a ballot measure in the subsequent year. That means that whatever new maps that would be created wouldn't be in effect until the 2028 elections at the earliest. 'Otherwise, we have to wait until 2032,' Hochul said, referring to the decennial census process. 'And heaven help our country to find out what'll happen with that length of time.' Democratic legislators in Albany acknowledged that the payoff would be delayed, but they said advancing the measure is still crucial, as long as Texas Republicans continue to advance their own. 'It's still worth it,' state Sen. Pat Fahy, a Democrat, told NBC News on the sidelines of the National Conference of State Legislatures annual meeting in Boston on Tuesday. Fahy said it was 'really unfortunate' that New York Democrats felt forced to change years of precedent. 'But I'm willing to do it, because so much is at stake,' she said. 'This is about Congress, and it is about control, and it's unfortunate, but we have to do what we have to do.' Responding to questions about the obstacles and delays, state Senate Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris, who introduced the bill in his chamber, said in an email, 'What Texas is attempting is a perversion of our democracy and cannot be allowed to stand without a response.' 'This battle will not be over in 2026 and it behooves us to ensure New York is in the game if other states will be enacting off-cycle redistricting,' he said. This article was originally published on Solve the daily Crossword
