Sweeping Restrictions: Kansas passed HB 2299, a bell-to-bell phone ban for next year

Governor Laura Kelly signed into effect a bell-to-bell cellphone ban in schools across Kansas on March 19. 

House Bill 2299 prohibits the use of phones, smartwatches, wireless headphones, earbuds and various other non-district-issued devices in public and accredited non-public schools for the entire school day starting next school year.

Since its introduction on Jan. 6, the bill has received majority support from both Republicans and Democrats, but has received varying feedback from school districts, according to Superintendent Michael Schumacher. 

The current Shawnee Mission School District policy requires students to store non-school-issued devices only during direct instructional time, but allows for devices during passing period and lunch. 

“I think all the Johnson County school districts have been pretty united in our disagreement with these bills around bell-to-bell bans,” Schumacher said. “We adopted a [phone] policy that works for us, and people are living with it. So why mess with something that is working with our school district?”

“Mental health and academics”, according to Gov. Kelly, was the driving factor in her signing HB 2299, even with opposition from Kansas schools. 

“There’s no doubt [school districts] made themselves very clear, and that was fine, in fact, I invited that conversation,” Kelly said. “Unfortunately, that didn’t happen until pretty late in the process. I don’t know if we had had those conversations earlier, if it would have made any difference.”  

SM East adopted an updated phone policy on March 23, requiring each classroom to have a designated place for students to place their phones at the beginning of each class. 

Principal Jason Peres says this updated phone policy was not due to the then-potential passing of HB 2299, but instead to create a consistent phone plan for each classroom. 

Over 90% of Kansas students attend districts with phone policies in place, according to Sen. Cindy Holscher, who voted against HB 2299, and as of the bill's signing date, it remains an unfunded mandate. 

“There is something to be said about local control, and we have school boards in place for our districts to make decisions on these types of policies,” Holscher said. “I feel that there are parts of this bill that are unconstitutional, so there’s a good chance there will be litigation. We have to respect local authority, and we can’t keep putting unfunded mandates out there — that’s not the answer.”

With no funding from the state, Schumacher says this bill could cost the district millions. 

Gov. Kelly says that districts “will find ways that are much less expensive” as the school year goes on. 

Holscher has received feedback from parents across Johnson County concerned about students' ability to reach them during emergencies such as school shootings, work schedules and various after-school activities.

The bill indicates that all phones must be turned off, securely stored and kept in an accessible location. But it doesn't specify where students are meant to store their phones, which junior Anna Boren thinks will make communication and scheduling difficult.

“With having a younger sister who is involved in different after-school activities, I can’t think of one day last semester when I didn't text her trying to figure out rides,” Boren said. “With the phone ban next year, it’s going to make it 10 times harder to plan out rides with my sister and make sure she gets home okay.” 

Although there are varying opinions, some SMSD parents believe the bill will lead to further benefits down the road. 

Kimberly Whitman, a co-leader of the National Distraction-Free Schools Policy Project — the organization that provided the template legislation for the phone ban — believes students will gain a better education when “separated from their phone.”

“Change is hard, [and] next year, when the policy goes into place, all students will have been born after the iPhone,” Whitman said. “Likely, the first few weeks will be difficult, but I have confidence that our students are resilient and will experience the benefits that are evident in many other districts that have implemented bell-to-bell policies across the nation.”   

Students with 504 plans or an Individualized Education Program are exempt from the ban, and all students are still permitted to contact parents; however, it must be done on school-provided devices, according to the legislation. 

The bill also states that school employees and teachers cannot require students to use social media for assignments, message students privately on social media or use only approved platforms for official announcements.

For student publications like the Hauberk and Harbinger, social media is a vital part of marketing, according to Hauberk Portraits Editor and junior Catherine Sullivan.  

“We communicate through social media, and it helps sell the [yearbook] more,” Sullivan said. “I think it’s going to be pretty difficult. Social media is one thing that is pretty crucial for us; we get polls about people's information, and if we can't get that, we lose a lot of vital information about the school and people’s opinions." 

With amendments still being made to HB 2299, districts are figuring out ways to comply with the upcoming changes, and according to Holscher, there is no “one-size-fits-all policy.” 

“We’ve established clarity on what we’re going to do with cell phones, so that our teachers no longer spend time dealing with [them] in the classroom, and now they’re just teaching and learning,” Peres said. “We have all summer to figure out how we’re going to [enforce HB 2299], and it’s going to take an effort to figure that out.”