HB 1160 creates a new section of the North Dakota Century Code requiring public schools to adopt and implement policies restricting personal electronic communication devices during instructional time. The bill defines instructional time broadly to include the school day on school premises, including class time, recess, lunch, and passing periods, while excluding virtual instruction, homeschool settings, and certain offsite travel time. Covered devices include smartphones, cell phones, tablets, smartwatches, gaming devices, and other portable devices capable of communication or internet access, but not school-issued devices or medical devices.
Under the bill, school districts or governing bodies must require devices to be silenced, turned off, and stored in a secure, inaccessible location such as a lockable pouch or locker during instructional time. Schools may regulate access outside instructional time during school-related activities, and they must provide a way for students to contact a parent or caregiver through a school telephone if needed. The bill also creates exceptions for students whose device use is medically necessary or required by an individualized education program, a Section 504 plan, or another legally required accommodation. In addition, districts must collect annual data on the policy’s effects, and the superintendent of public instruction must create a uniform reporting system by July 1, 2026.
The bill’s main impact is to add a statewide mandate affecting public school policies in North Dakota, including prekindergarten, elementary, and secondary schools, as well as area career and technology centers. It does not apply to virtual schools, the North Dakota Center for Distance Education, or homeschool environments. The measure gives school districts implementation responsibility but limits local discretion by requiring a policy that broadly prohibits student access to personal electronic devices during the school day, subject to the listed exceptions.
Overall sentiment appears favorable, with strong support in both chambers despite some opposition. The House and Senate both ultimately passed the bill by comfortable margins, indicating broad legislative agreement on restricting student phone and device use during school hours. The voting history also suggests some initial resistance in the Senate, but the bill later advanced with a much stronger vote, reflecting consolidation of support.
The main points of contention are likely to have centered on the scope of the prohibition, enforcement burden, and local control. Critics may have been concerned about requiring devices to be locked away, the practical challenges of enforcement by school employees, and whether the policy could interfere with student access to family communication or educational flexibility. Supporters appear to have emphasized classroom focus, student behavior, mental health, attendance, and academic performance, which the bill specifically directs districts to measure through annual data collection.
HB 1160 amends North Dakota education law by adding a new statewide requirement for school districts and governing bodies to regulate personal electronic communication devices during instructional time. It affects public schools serving prekindergarten through grade 12 and area career and technology centers, while expressly excluding virtual schools, distance education, and homeschool settings. The bill also creates statutory exceptions for medically necessary device use and accommodations required under federal disability law, and it directs the superintendent of public instruction to establish a uniform data reporting system.
The overall sentiment around HB 1160 was generally supportive, as reflected in its eventual passage in both chambers by substantial margins. The bill appears to have been viewed as a school discipline and classroom management measure aimed at reducing distractions and improving student outcomes. The Senate’s initial weaker vote suggests there was some hesitation, but the final votes indicate broad bipartisan acceptance of the concept.
The main contention likely involved balancing stricter device restrictions against student access, local school discretion, and implementation practicality. Opponents may have questioned whether schools should be required to lock up devices during the entire instructional day, including lunch and recess, and whether enforcement would be burdensome for staff. Another likely concern was preserving access for family communication and ensuring accommodations for students with medical needs or disabilities. Supporters, by contrast, appear to have prioritized reducing distractions and improving behavior, attendance, mental health, and academic performance.