House committee advances bill requiring Oklahoma school cellphone bans
A poster reads, "bell to bell, no cell" at the Jenks Public Schools Math and Science Center on Nov. 13. The school district prohibits student cellphone use during class periods. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice)
OKLAHOMA CITY — A major priority for Oklahoma lawmakers and the governor was the first item on the House Common Education Committee's agenda Wednesday.
In its first meeting of 2025, the committee voted 11-2 to pass House Bill 1276 with bipartisan support. The bill, from Rep. Chad Caldwell, R-Enid, would require public schools to ban students from using cellphones and smart watches while on campus. It would take effect July 1 and start applying in the 2025-26 school year.
It advances to the Education Oversight Committee, which must pass the legislation before it could be heard on the House floor.
Gov. Kevin Stitt and legislative leaders have said one of their top goals this year is curbing student cellphone use to reduce distractions in the classroom.
House Speaker Kyle Hilbert, R-Bristow, voted in favor of the bill at the committee meeting.
'It's time our classrooms return to being places of learning, not distractions,' Hilbert said in a statement afterward. 'House Bill 1276 gives Oklahoma's schools the flexibility to set policies that fit their needs while reinforcing a simple goal — to let kids be kids and let teachers teach.'
Rep. Chris Banning, R-Bixby, and Rep. Molly Jenkins, R-Coyle, were the only committee members to vote against the bill.
Banning noted in his line of questions to Caldwell that schools already can implement a cellphone ban voluntarily. The number of districts enacting similar policies has increased in recent years as the popularity of these prohibitions grows nationwide.
Caldwell said the bill would prompt all districts to develop their own cellphone-free policy.
'Candidly, I wish more of our schools would have already done that, but we're going to help our schools do the right thing to go phone free,' he said during the committee meeting.
The state Senate will consider similar legislation in Senate Bill 139 from Sen. Ally Seifried, R-Claremore.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
30 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Is Elon Musk right to oppose the budget bill? What Americans said in a new poll
During his public falling out with President Donald Trump, Elon Musk slammed the president's proposed spending bill — dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — claiming it will balloon the deficit. It turns out, most Americans agree with his critique, new polling reveals. In the latest Economist/YouGov poll, half of respondents were asked to react to a statement from Musk on the GOP-backed spending bill, which passed in the House without a single Democratic vote. The legislation, Musk wrote on X on June 3, 'will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion and burden (American) citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' A majority of respondents, 56%, said they agreed with this statement, while just 17% said they disagreed. More than one-quarter, 27%, said they were unsure. The answers were largely linked to partisan affiliation, with Democrats largely siding with Musk for a change. Seventy-two percent of Democrats said they concurred with the billionaire's statement about the spending bill, as did 55% of independents. Among Republicans, a plurality, 44%, said they agreed. The poll — which sampled 1,533 U.S. adults June 6-9 — posed the same statement before the other half of respondents, but this time, it did not attribute it to Musk. Without reference to Musk, a slightly smaller share, 49%, said they agreed with the statement, while 23% said they disagreed. Smaller shares of Republicans, independents and Democrats agreed, though Democrats saw the largest decrease in support — from 72% to 60%. The poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. More on the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' The spending bill, which provides funding for fiscal year 2025, passed in the House in a 215-214 vote in late May and is now under consideration in the Senate. It contains many pieces of Trump's agenda, including a road map to extend the 2017 tax cuts, as well as an increase in funding for the Pentagon and border security, according to previous reporting from McClatchy News. At the same time, it slashes funding for social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Further — to Musk's point — it would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency. In addition to Musk, the bill has received criticism from several other prominent conservatives in Congress. One of the most vocal opponents has been Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who wrote on X that 'the spending proposed in this bill is unsustainable, we cannot continue spending at these levels if we want to truly tackle our debt.' Other Republican lawmakers have come out in defense of the bill, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has said the legislation will deliver 'historic tax relief, ensure our border stays secure, strengthen our military, and produce historic savings.' Meanwhile, Democrats have been united in their opposition. In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries labeled the bill 'the GOP Tax Scam' and said it would rip 'healthcare and food assistance away from millions of people in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthy, the well-off and the well-connected.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Three dozen House Republicans urge Senate GOP against ‘budget gimmicks,' deficit increases
More than three dozen House Republicans are warning Senate GOP leaders against approving additional deficit increases or using 'budget gimmicks' to count additional savings in the 'one big beautiful bill' of President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities. 'As the Senate considers changes, we remain unequivocal in our position that any additional tax cuts must be matched dollar-for-dollar by real, enforceable spending reductions,' the 37 members, led by Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.), said in a Tuesday letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), adding that the principle is the 'cornerstone' of the budget resolution framework passed by the House and is the 'minimum standard for our support.' The letter further asserted that the members would consider 'genuine savings only' as established by that House resolution. 'Offsets must come from permanent reforms that make the budget more sustainable, not timing shifts or other budget gimmicks,' the letter said. Among the signatories are House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas), House Republican Conference Vice Chair Blake Moore (R-Utah), and many members of the House Freedom Caucus, including its chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.). The Senate is currently considering and expected to make changes to the House-passed megabill that includes extension of tax cuts that Trump signed into law in 2017; boosts to border, deportation, and defense funding; and new restrictions on Medicaid and food assistance programs that are project to result in millions of individuals losing their health insurance. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the proposed tax cuts in the plan would decrease revenues by more than $3.6 trillion over a decade, while measures to cut federal spending — including reforms to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program —would reduce outlays by $1.2 trillion over the same period, resulting in a net deficit increase of $2.4 trillion. Several matters under consideration in the Senate would add to the deficit impact of the bill. Some GOP senators are unhappy with provisions to terminate clean energy tax breaks, while others are objecting to the around $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid through provisions like increased work requirements and $267 billion in cuts to food assistance through provisions like making states share the cost of the program for the first time. 'A reconciliation bill that relaxes fiscal discipline reflected in the House-passed bill would invite higher borrowing costs and undermine the economic growth that Americans need to maximize opportunity,' the 37 House GOP members said in the letter. 'We urge Senate leadership to keep the reconciliation measure compatible with the House framework while seizing every opportunity to deepen savings.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hegseth asserts Trump can send troops anywhere to protect ICE agents conducting raids
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers Tuesday that he and President Donald Trump have the power to send National Guard and active-duty troops anywhere in the country to ensure Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents can enforce the law, an assertion that -- if carried out -- would open the door to a historic clash between Trump and Democratic governors. "We believe that ICE, which is a federal law enforcement agency, has the right to safely conduct operations in any state, in any jurisdiction in the country," Hegseth told the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee. "ICE ought be able to do its job, whether it's Minneapolis or Los Angeles," he added. MORE: LA protest live updates: Trump says LA 'would be burning' without National Guard Hegseth's testimony before a House panel came as some 4,800 National Guard and Marines were en route to Los Angeles for a 60-day deployment after protestors clashed with law enforcement, setting cars on fire and spraying graffiti on buildings. President Donald Trump also opened the door for possible military deployments elsewhere, telling reporters on Tuesday that if protests break out in other states "they will be met with equal or greater force." MORE: Trump warns 'any' protesters at military parade will be 'met with heavy force' The move to call in U.S. troops, including 700 Marines, ignored objections by state authorities and was sharply criticized by Democratic lawmakers and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called the deployment inflammatory and warned it would only escalate tensions. At Tuesday's hearing, Rep. Betty McCollum of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the House subcommittee, called the decision "premature" and "downright escalatory." She said Marines aren't suited for a domestic mission in which they could be asked to use their combat training and firepower, typically reserved for foreign adversaries, on Americans. "Active-duty military has absolutely no role in domestic law enforcement, and they are not trained for those missions. I ask you, Mister secretary, and I ask the president, follow the law," she said. MORE: What is the Insurrection Act, and what happens if Trump uses it to quell LA protests? The Pentagon's top acting budget official, Bryn Woollacott MacDonnell, estimated the deployment would cost $134 million and said the money would be pulled from existing operations and maintenance accounts. The Trump administration said the troops are being used under a legal authority known as Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which allows the president to deploy military forces to protect federal buildings and personnel in cases of "a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States" or when "the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." U.S. officials said the "rules for force" for such an engagement would restrict troops from patrolling U.S. streets or helping law enforcement arrest protestors. Troops would carry guns and ammunition separately for use only in self-defense and to protect federal property. MORE: Speaker Johnson, backing Trump's LA actions, says Newsom should be 'tarred and feathered' But experts say the rules of protecting federal buildings and personnel could get murky if service members are asked to protect ICE personnel during an immigration raid or if protestors attack buildings. Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and former chief legal advisor to U.S. Central Command, said she is skeptical that Marines who are trained to fight and win foreign wars are sufficiently trained to police Americans. "Protection means you protect by using force. So, what kind of force are we using? What kind of forces are they trained to use?" she told ABC's "Start Here" podcast. "You fight like you train," and "they have never trained to be working with the National Guard in this capacity," she added. Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Eric Smith said that the 700 Marines were trained in crowd control as part of their standard annual training protocols. He noted the Marines were equipped with shields and batons. "I would say that all Marines are trained in crowd control, embassy reinforcement, etc. So, this is part of their training," Smith told the Senate Armed Services Committee. When asked how much training in crowd control they received, Smith said he believed it was "in excess of two hours." MORE: Amid LA protests, what officials say about the rules of force for National Guard, Marines Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a Michigan Democrat, said she was skeptical that amount was adequate, noting police forces typically receive 600 hours of crowd control training by comparison. "I don't question that these things in LA have gotten violent. That's not my question, and I condemn it. I'm worried about the reputation of the US military in the United States of America," she said, adding that Marines were "designed" to be lethal. "The idea that an apolitical military, which we all should cherish and value, are now going to be thrown into a situation" isn't right, she said. "We don't need them to create a dramatic story." Still in question is whether Trump is considering to escalate the situation by invoking the Insurrection Act, an 1807 law that says the president can call on a militia or the U.S. armed forces if there's been "any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" in a state that "opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws." Such a declaration, which incredibly rare, would effectively turn U.S. troops into his own police force that could be used against protestors. MORE: What is the Insurrection Act, and what happens if Trump uses it to quell LA protests? The Insurrection Act has been invoked in response to 30 crises over its history, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, including by presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. The hearing was supposed to be a review of President Donald Trump's upcoming budget, which has not been released. Hegseth spoke only in broad strokes about the military's spending plan, instead highlighting recent gains in recruiting numbers and speaking in general about the importance of new technology initiatives in the Army. On his Truth Social platform on Sunday, Trump referred to the L.A. protesters as "violent, insurrectionist mobs" and "paid insurrectionists." The Pentagon has not had a news conference since the deployment of troops to Los Angeles, referring reporters with questions about the mission on Monday to Hegseth's posts on the social media site X. Following his testimony, Hegseth traveled with the president to Fort Bragg in North Carolina to participate in activities tied to the Army's 250th birthday celebration. ABC's Chris Boccia contributed to this report. Hegseth asserts Trump can send troops anywhere to protect ICE agents conducting raids originally appeared on
