
In the push for a statewide school cellphone ban in Maine, local control could stand in the way
May 15—Maine's ethos around local school district control could impede a statewide coalition of Maine parents, teachers, administrators and health professionals who want to ban cellphones in schools, from the first bell to the last.
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
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Around the West, politicians are writing more bills than ever
Who knew there were this many things that had to be fixed? The legislative sessions in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Washington are over. Depending on your political perspective, the benefits — or damages — will be felt for years to come. One thing that isn't in dispute? Lawmakers couldn't help but introduce a record number of bills in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming. Washington may also be added to that list, depending on what happens in the second part of its biennium. In Idaho, lawmakers introduced nearly 800 pieces of legislation — the highest mark going back at least 16 years. Less than 50% of the legislation actually made it across the finish line. Higher numbers are expected in Idaho, as lawmakers now individually introduce and approve every state department budget, rather than just one large state budget. Still, the numbers are staggering, not only for lawmakers who work at the state capitol, but also for citizens who try to follow the session and be involved in the process. Making it more challenging in Idaho is the sometimes minimal lack of notice regarding hearings for bills that have been introduced. We've recommended that lawmakers commit to a Rule of Three to allow citizens more time to be engaged. In Montana, lawmakers also hit a record of 1,761 bills introduced, with a little more than half being signed into law by Gov. Greg Gianforte. Montana's joint Rule 40-40 'allows members of the Montana Legislature to request an unlimited number of bill or resolution drafts before December 5. After that date, a member may request the Legislative Council to prepare no more than seven bills or resolutions. Unused requests by one member may be granted to another member. The limits do not apply to code commissioner bills or committee bills.' In Wyoming, which divides sessions among general session years and budget years, lawmakers also hit a record of 556 bills introduced. But only 31% became law. Washington state lawmakers were by far the least productive, passing only 19.5% of the more than 2,000 bills they introduced. And they're not done yet, as Washington works on a biennium and lawmakers will return next January to continue increasing the number. Passing legislation certainly isn't a contest. And this column is in no way an encouragement to increase the across-the-finish-line percentages. But it is worth pointing out that introducing legislation takes time and resources - resources that are provided by taxpayers (so perhaps a new state rock shouldn't be high on a lawmaker's list). More bill introductions also make tracking your elected official's work more difficult. Some states, including Arizona, California, New Jersey, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, North Dakota, Indiana, Louisiana and Montana have sought to restrict how many bills a legislator can introduce each session. Do all states need a rule that limits a lawmaker's appetite for more and more legislation? Maybe. But we'd rather see a self-imposed diet. Chris Cargill is the president of Mountain States Policy Center, an independent free market think tank based in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and eastern Washington. Online at
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
The end of the 2025 Louisiana legislative session is approaching
We've seen many bills debated in the legislature. So far, Governor Jeff Landry has signed into law six bills from his tort and insurance reform effort, which he says will lower insurance rates.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Jackson County legislators could finally end 6-month budget freeze. What to know
After nearly six months without an active budget, Jackson County legislators are seeking community feedback on Monday as they may finally be reaching a compromise to get something passed. The half billion-dollar budget has been held in flux since the beginning of the year throughout months of infighting between members of the legislature and County Executive Frank White, who vetoed the proposed budget in its entirety on January 9. Now, the legislature will be voting on its latest round of edits to the plan on Monday. Monday's meeting will kick off with a public hearing regarding the budget before legislators vote on the proposal. However, a double final vote — on whether to approve the proposed amendments, then whether to pass the budget — will not take place until the legislature's next meeting, at the earliest. The legislature typically meets weekly on Mondays. All meetings of the Jackson County Legislature, including Monday's hearing, are open to the public. Legislators initially voted 5-4 to approve this year's budget for the first time at the very end of last year, on Dec. 31, before White vetoed it. In a letter to the legislature sent the same day of his veto, White called the proposed budget legally and fiscally irresponsible. He criticized its proposed increases to the legislature's own operating budget and its proposed cuts to public safety, arts and corrections staff. 'This budget, as amended, does not reflect the values of Jackson County,' White wrote. 'It prioritizes political gamesmanship over public safety, economic stability, and the well-being of our residents.' Months later, county legislator Charlie Franklin introduced a further amended version of the budget, with over $11 million in additional appropriations included to be allocated to various county agencies. That's what legislators will be voting on on Monday. The proposed amended budget would put additional money toward the public safety and parks departments, as well as toward county administrative offices and the legislature itself. While some of the extra money would be allocated from the county's 2025 general fund and other budget categories, more than $10 million would come from taxes collected from marijuana sales. In the months that legislators and White have remained at an impasse over the budget, multiple county agencies and services — including the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office, the Parks and Recreation Department and dozens of tax-funded programs — have been unable to access the majority of their funding. Some 'emergency' funding has been released on a case-by-case basis to maintain the day-to-day operations of municipal organizations or satisfy specific grants and contracts. For example, before Monday's meeting, the budget and finance committee will vote to advance an ordinance releasing funding for renovations at Jackson County's family court, and to fill a two-year contract for food services at the Jackson County Detention Center. In the months the budget has remained frozen, tension between the county executive and the legislature has continued to build. Four members of the legislature sued White in February over his budget veto, and three legislators wrote to Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey in May, asking for an investigation into White's conduct. Meanwhile, an effort to recall White is in full swing, with organizers gathering more than half of the signatures needed to put a recall vote on the ballot. The recall effort primarily stems from voters' frustration with how White, along with county assessment director Gail McCann Beatty, set property tax values on real estate during the 2023 assessment cycle. Whenever it is passed, the budget will remain in effect through December 31, 2025.