Are phones allowed in Florida schools? Here's what the new law says student's can't do
When school starts in Florida next fall, elementary and middle school students will be banned from using cell phones from "bell to bell" during the school day under a bill signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis on May 30.
High school students will still be permitted to use their phones outside of class (depending on individual school district rules), but House Bill 1105, an omnibus education bill composed of several previously filed initiatives, bans their use during instructional time unless "expressly directed by a teacher solely for educational purposes" and then only in a designated area.
However, the bill also calls for a pilot program in six counties to test banning phone use during the entire school day there as well.
The bill also benefits charter schools in Florida by making it easier to convert public schools into charter ones, requires charter schools to get a percentage of sales tax money, and allows students in marching bands to get physical education or performing arts credit.
The bill comes as several states and districts look at banning phones in schools.
In 2023, Florida became the first state to restrict students' cell phone use during class. Indiana and Ohio soon followed. In April, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds signed a law similar to Florida's current rules, and New York just added a bell-to-bell ban for K-12 schools as part of an agreement on its state budget.
Critics say a total ban endangers children by leaving them without a source of communication during emergencies, such as school shootings, and prevents students from taking video of bullying in school or improper actions by teachers or school safety officers.
Under the new law, elementary and middle school students may not use any wireless communications device during the school day.
In high school, students would be permitted to use wireless communications devices outside of instructional time or if directed by a teacher solely for educational purposes, in an area the teacher designates.
The bill does not say that students may not carry phones, only that they may not use them. Individual school districts may have more restrictive codes, parents and guardians should check with their your local districts for more information.
Exemptions are included for students with medical requirements for the use of a wireless communications device "based on valid clinical reasoning or evidence."
Meanwhile, the Department of Education is directed to select six school districts representing two small, two medium, and two large counties to enact a school phone ban. By the end of 2026, they must provide a report on the effects of a total phone and tablet ban on student achievement and behavior and create a model policy based on their findings that other school districts and charter schools in Florida can adopt.
Students in those districts would not be permitted to use phones or personal electronic devices during the entire school day, while on school grounds, or while engaged in school activities off school grounds during the school day.
The pilot program's report must also report on the number of violations that include phone use for illegal activities, bullying, harassment, threatening, cheating, or capturing or displaying images or video of a student during a medical issue or "engaged in misconduct."
A 2023 Pew Research Center analysis found that 72% of the high school teachers surveyed said cellphone usage in classrooms distracts students, although (unsurprisingly) 70% of students ages 13-17 said that phone use was generally more positive than negative and 45% said that smartphones benefited their educational experience. Nearly a quarter of the teens polled said phones made learning more difficult and 30% did not notice a difference.
HB 1105 also makes it easier to convert public schools into charter schools by putting the decision to convert solely in the hands of a majority of parents, without input from teachers or administrators.
The bill adds more benefits for charter schools, such as:
Allowing municipalities to apply to convert existing public schools into job engine charter schools — privately run charter schools designed to attract "job-producing entities" to the area by creating curricula aligned with their needs — if the school scores less than an "A" from the state for five years in a row
Requiring school districts to share discretionary surtax revenue with charter schools proportional to enrollment
Allowing some private schools to build new facilities without seeking rezoning or adhering to mitigation requirements
Another bill DeSantis signed the same day, HB 443, allows charter schools to create their own codes of conduct or adapt them from other schools, defines what lab schools can spend discretionary funds on, allows certain charter schools to enroll more students than their charter specifies, prevents the landlord of a charter school or anyone closely connected with them from being on the governing board, allows virtual students to participate in an interscholastic athletic team in the school district where they live, and more.
Many other states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington, and Vermont have either considered or passed student phone use bans in the last couple of years.
However, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a phone ban last year, saying schools were already handling the issue on their own. According to the Pew study, in 2024, 82% of K-12 teachers in the U.S. said their school or district already had some sort of cellphone policy in place.
Bans in other states range in severity, with some allowing phone use during lunch and in between classes. Some districts require students to bag their phones in sealed pouches or store them in lockers during school hours.
Critics of student phone bans worry that in case of emergencies, including school shootings, immediate communication between students and parents or law enforcement is vital.
'A HUGE debate that comes up in our group is the fear of school shootings," said Jodie Sherrill, one of the main moderators in the Parenting in a Tech World forum. "Many parents argue they want their child to reach them in that tragic event; the parent wants to reach the child; perhaps they can help get them out, or even just to say 'I love you' one last time.'
Phone bans: Do smartphone bans work if parents push back?
The law takes effect on July 1, 2025.
This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Phones in Florida schools to be restricted after DeSantis signs bill
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Iowa governor vetoes bill restricting private pipelines' use of eminent domain
Gov. Kim Reynolds vetoed a bill Wednesday aimed at CO2 pipelines and eminent domain. She's pictured at her 2025 Condition of the State Address Jan. 14, 2025. (Photo by Robin Opsahl/Iowa Capital Dispatch) Gov. Kim Reynolds Wednesday vetoed a controversial bill pertaining to eminent domain and carbon sequestration pipelines in Iowa. House Republican leaders initiated an effort to reconvene the Legislature to override the veto, but Senate GOP leaders indicated that was unlikely. House File 639 would have increased insurance requirements for hazardous liquid pipelines, limited carbon pipeline permits to one 25-year term and changed the definition of a common carrier for pipelines, making it more difficult for the projects to use eminent domain. Reynolds, in a statement, said she shared the bill's goal of 'protecting landowners' but the bill lacked the 'clear, careful lines' drawn in good policy. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets,' Reynolds said in a letter announcing her decision to veto. Reynolds followed her critique of the bill by noting that Iowa could lose its 'leadership position' as a top biofuel production state if legislation stopped the infrastructure necessary to enter ultra-low carbon markets. Central to the bill is a carbon sequestration pipeline project led by Summit Carbon Solutions that would transport liquid carbon dioxide, captured from biorefineries across Iowa, to underground storage in North Dakota. Farmers and the biofuels industry have been supportive of the Summit pipeline, and therefore opposed to the bill, because it would give Iowa access to the carbon capture and sequestration technologies necessary to make products like sustainable aviation fuels. In a statement following the governor's veto, Iowa Renewable Fuels Association Executive Director Monte Shaw said without carbon capture projects, and entry to ultra-low carbon fuel industry, Iowa could face 'very real, very severe economic consequences.' 'This is a classic example of why our system of government has checks and balances,' Shaw said. 'Any thoughtful review of this bill would determine that it would lead to higher energy prices for Iowans, hamper future economic development, hold back job creation, and stifle new markets for Iowa farmers. IRFA thanks Gov. Reynolds for listening to Iowans, studying the actual legislation, and ignoring the rhetoric that was as inaccurate as it was loud.' A press release from Iowa Corn Growers Association said entrance to the aviation fuel industry alone could result in nearly 6.5 million bushels of new corn demand, which it said is necessary for farmers dealing with high input costs and decreased profit margins. Farmers 'need expanded market growth and access to continue raising corn profitably; allowing them to continue growing Iowa's agricultural industry and economy,' the statement said. Opponents of the bill, including several lawmakers, argued the bill was aimed solely at carbon sequestration projects, rather than protecting landowners from eminent domain as supporters claimed. 'Eminent domain' allows the government to force private landowners to allow use of their property, for a fee set by the courts, for infrastructure projects deemed in the public interest. Eminent domain has long been used projects such as public roads and utilities. Leadership from Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, or SIRE, said its CO2 pipeline project connecting to Nebraska's Tallgrass Trailblazer pipeline would be impacted by the bill's insurance and permit limit clauses, even though the SIRE project secured voluntary easements for 100% of its path in Iowa. Reynolds cited this example in her explanation, and said the 'arbitrary' term limits and insurance requirements would make it 'difficult for companies like SIRE to justify the additional investment' in Iowa. 'Those who crafted the bill said they don't want to stop CO2 pipelines that rely entirely on voluntary easements,' Reynolds said. 'But that is exactly what the bill does.' Summit Carbon Solutions thanked the governor for her 'thoughtful and thorough review' of the bill. In a statement, the company said the pipeline project 'opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' 'Summit remains committed to working with landowners through voluntary agreements—just as we have with more than 1,300 Iowa landowners to date, resulting in $175 million in payments,' a spokesperson said in the statement. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project.' Opponents to the pipeline project, who were supportive of HF 639, argue the pipeline would negatively impact their properties and health, and that sequestering CO2 does not constitute a 'public use' deserving of eminent domain rights. Landowners opposed to the project lobbied state lawmakers for four years before a bill was debated, and ultimately passed, in the Senate and sent to the governor. Since the bill landed on the governor's desk, landowners have encouraged Reynolds to support Iowa GOP values on protecting property rights. Reynolds said the debate of when the government, or companies with government approval, can take private property is a 'debate as old as the Republic.' 'I've consistently said that if eminent domain is used, it must be rare, fair and a last resort,' Reynolds said. 'But HF 639 isn't just about eminent domain.' Reynolds said the bill sets a precedent that 'threatens' the state's 'energy reliability, economy and reputation as a place where businesses can invest with confidence.' Mary Powell, a Shelby County landowner opposed to the pipeline, said the veto shows that the state motto of, 'Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain' are 'just empty words' to the governor. 'Governor Reynolds chose to support the millionaires and billionaires at the expense of Iowans and their property rights,' Powell said in a statement. Another landowner, Don Johanssen from Cherokee County, said the governor's decision was 'beyond words,' especially as the bill would have given landowners 'some liability coverage' from hazardous pipelines. The bill would have required pipeline operator to carry insurance that covered any loss or injury from accidental, negligent or intentional discharges from the pipeline, and to cover insurance increases that landowners face due to the pipeline. 'This is a sad day for Iowa that will be long remembered,' Johanssen said. Reynolds said the bill would impact 'more than just CO2 infrastructure' and would change permitting rules 'across the board,' giving 'uncertainty into critical energy projects.' Opponents of the bill called the insurance requirements 'untenable.' The American Petroleum Institute's Midwest Regional Director Mike Karbo said the bill had 'unprecedented and unfeasible requirements' that would have hindered future projects in the state. 'Since there are no refineries in the state, critical energy infrastructure, such as pipelines, are crucial in ensuring Iowans have a reliable source of energy, and certainty is needed to develop the infrastructure network,' Karbo said. 'We thank the Governor for doing what is right for the future of energy development in the state.' Reynolds said HF 639 included 'a few helpful provisions' and the surrounding debate 'highlighted' areas for progress. 'I agree we can do more to limit the use of eminent domain, promote transparency, and ensure responsible land restoration,' Reynolds said. 'We can do better.' Reynolds, who is not running for reelection in 2026, said she is 'committed' to working with legislation to 'strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting and respect private property.' Taking one element from HF 639, Reynolds will ask the IUC to require all commissioners to be present for live testimony and ensure at least one commissioner is present at every informational meeting. In a statement from Iowa House Republicans, Speaker Pat Grassley said he has requested members sign a petition to reconvene the Legislature in a special session. 'This veto is a major setback for Iowa,' Grassley said in the statement. 'It is a setback not only for landowners who have been fighting across Iowa, but for the work the House of Representatives has put in for four years to get legislation like HF 639 passed. We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain.' Rep. Charley Thomson, R-Charles City, said he was 'very disappointed' in the governor's decision and that he was supportive of a special session to override the veto. Two-thirds of the Legislature must sign a petition to request a special session, and to override a veto, two-thirds of the members from each chamber must vote to pass the bill again. Sen. Jack Whitver, R-Grimes, the majority leader for the chamber, said he expects most of his caucus will 'not be interested in any attempt' to override the governor's veto. The bill likely would not have advanced in the Senate had it not been for a dozen Republican senators who vowed to block necessary budget legislation until the chamber debated eminent domain. The 12 were also joined by Senate Democrats in pushing for amendments, which were ultimately defeated, and approval of the bill. Senate Democrats said the fight for property rights will continue. 'I'm disappointed by the governor's veto of HF639, but, unfortunately, I cannot say I'm surprised,' Sen. Janice Weiner, D-Iowa City, said. 'There is simply no amount of political posturing or legislative stonewalling that can deny the fact that Iowans' right to private property should never be infringed upon for private gain.' One of the 12 to disagree with the Senate majority, Sen. Kevin Alons, R-Salix, said signing the bill was 'the single option available' to protect the rights of impacted landowners. Alons pledged to 'never quit working' on the issue, but said that means 'very little' to landowners who have been impacted by the 'unprecedented, and unconstitutional land grab.' 'To be clear: the Iowa government has given this private company the right to take people's land for one reason: corporate earnings,' Alons said in a statement. 'This has nothing to do with public use. It's absolutely not necessary for the ethanol industry in our state … And it certainly is not what the founders had in mind.' Alons said when the Legislature returns in January, he and other lawmakers 'will use every tool at our disposal' to 'return property rights back to the people.' Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, who sponsored the legislation, wrote in a social media post he was 'profoundly disappointed' by the veto. Holt said the state constitution and the Republican platform are clear in their message that eminent domain is for public use projects. 'Today the Governor has chosen to ignore landowners, the vast majority of the Legislature, the Republican Party Platform and the Iowa Constitution by choosing the economic development argument of special interests,' Holt wrote. Holt said Reynolds, and the Senate had opportunities of the past several years to offer their own suggestions to the eminent domain issue instead of opposing House legislation. 'On behalf of the people of Iowa and their fundamental property rights, the Governor's veto should be overridden,' he wrote. 'This fight for who we are as Republicans is far from over.' House Democratic Leader Rep. Brian Meyer said parties in the House collaborated to 'protect property rights.' 'At the end of the day, there is only one group to blame for the failure of the eminent domain bill: Iowa Republican lawmakers,' Meyer said in a statement. The first phase of the Summit Carbon Solutions project was approved by IUC nearly a year ago, which granted Summit the right to condemn easements from landowners who do not want to voluntarily sign agreements to put the pipeline on their land. Per the Iowa permit, Summit still needs a permit from South Dakota, which it has been denied twice, to begin construction. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Wall Street Journal
4 hours ago
- Wall Street Journal
Linda McMahon: The Public Face of Trump's Fight Against ‘Woke' Education
WASHINGTON—Education Secretary Linda McMahon is presiding over a MAGA paradox. Sporting a red 'Make Education Great Again' baseball cap, McMahon this week cracked jokes with staff at the department's Washington headquarters and spoke about their work to 'return education to the states.' Just moments later, she turned the meeting over to her deputies, who proudly ticked off the ways the department is wielding unprecedented federal authority to pressure Democratic-led states to change their education policies.
San Francisco Chronicle
5 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Iowa governor rejects GOP bill to increase regulations of Summit's carbon dioxide pipeline
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds on Wednesday rejected a bill that could have introduced more complications for a massive carbon-capture pipeline project routed across several Midwestern states, issuing a rare veto in the Republican-controlled statehouse. The legislation was designed by Iowa House Republicans to increase regulations of Summit Carbon Solutions' estimated $8.9 billion, 2,500-mile (4,023-kilometer) project that cuts across Iowa and already has an approved permit in the state. But the bill provoked loud opposition from members of Iowa's powerful ethanol industry, which argued the project is essential for Iowa's agricultural dominance, for farmers and for construction jobs. And it exposed a rift within the party over how to protect property rights. 'While I shared the bill's goal of protecting landowners, good policy should draw clear, careful lines. This bill doesn't,' said Reynolds, a Republican, in the explanation of her veto. 'It combines valid concerns with vague legal standards and sweeping mandates that reach far beyond their intended targets.' Despite her veto, Reynolds said she was 'committed to working with the legislature to strengthen landowner protections, modernize permitting, and respect private property.' Iowa state Rep. Bobby Kaufmann, a Republican who supported the bill in the House, said Wednesday that her commitment is too little, too late. 'If she was willing to work with us on this, where in the world has she been the last three years?' Kaufmann said. 'She is clearly not siding with the constitutional rights of landowners but rather she's siding with special interests.' Summit has said it has invested nearly $175 million to enter into voluntary agreements with landowners in Iowa and more than $1 billion on the project overall. In a statement, Summit thanked the governor for a thoughtful review of the bill and said their goal is to proceed with voluntary agreements with landowners. Even with the relief from Reynolds' veto, Summit will likely have to readjust plans after South Dakota's governor signed a ban on the use of eminent domain — the government seizure of private property with compensation — to acquire land for carbon dioxide pipelines. Summit's permit application was also rejected in South Dakota. The project has permit approvals in Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota but faces various court challenges. The Iowa bill would have prohibited the renewal of permits for a carbon dioxide pipeline, limited the use of such a pipeline to 25 years and significantly increased the insurance coverage requirements for the pipeline company. Those provisions would likely have made it less financially feasible for a company to build a carbon dioxide pipeline. 'We look forward to continued discussions with state leaders as we advance this important project,' Summit said Wednesday. 'At a time when farmers are facing increasing pressures, this project opens the door to new markets and helps strengthen America's energy dominance for the long term.' Rift in Republican-controlled statehouse Republican House Speaker Pat Grassley said after Reynolds' veto that he would pursue a special session to vote on an override, saying in a statement that the veto 'is a major setback for Iowa.' The Iowa Constitution states that a request for special session from two-thirds of both chambers, or the governor, can bring lawmakers back to Des Moines. Two-thirds of both chambers would need to vote for an override for the bill to become law without the governor's approval. 'We will not stop fighting and stand firm on our commitment until landowners' in Iowa are protected against Eminent Domain for private gain,' Grassley said. Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver suggested that would be unlikely in his chamber. Thirteen Republican senators had joined with 14 Democrats in voting in favor of the bill, but 21 Republicans and one Democrat voted against it. 'Based on the votes on that bill in the Iowa Senate, a significant majority of our caucus supports a better policy to protect landowner rights. I expect that majority of our caucus would not be interested in any attempt to override her veto,' he said. As the legislative session wound down, a dozen Republican senators insisted their leaders bring the House-approved bill to the floor for a vote after several years of inaction. The stalemate ended in a long and divisive debate among the Iowa Senate's Republican supermajority, with senators openly criticizing one another and exposing the closed-door discussions that got them there. Summit's project and its critics The Summit pipeline was proposed to carry carbon emissions from ethanol plants in Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota to be stored underground permanently in North Dakota. By lowering carbon emissions from the plants, the pipeline would lower their carbon intensity scores and make them more competitive in the renewable fuels market. The project would also allow ethanol producers and Summit to tap into federal tax credits. The pipeline's many critics have for years begged lawmakers for action. They accuse Summit of stepping on their property rights and downplaying the safety risks of building the pipeline alongside family homes, near schools and across ranches. Lee Enterprises and The Associated Press reviewed hundreds of cases that reveal the great legal lengths the company went to to get the project built. In South Dakota, in particular, a slew of eminent domain legal actions to obtain land sparked a groundswell of opposition that was closely watched by lawmakers in Iowa as well. A group of landowners released a statement Wednesday calling the veto a slap in the face. 'Big money, greed & self interest won the day,' said Jan Norris, a landowner in southwest Iowa whose neighbor is in the pipeline's route. 'Our property rights are for sale to the highest bidder.'
