A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 15.1-19 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the duration of a student's school lunch break.
Summary
HB 1333 would have required every North Dakota school district to provide students with at least 30 minutes for lunch each day, with the lunch period occurring between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. The bill also included a specific accommodation for high school students: if a student obtained written verification from a school counselor, the student would be excused from the class immediately following lunch for whatever additional minutes were needed to ensure the full 30-minute lunch break.
The measure would have added a new section to chapter 15.1-19 of the North Dakota Century Code, directly regulating the minimum length and timing of student lunch periods. It would have affected school districts, school administrators, counselors, teachers, and high school students by creating a statewide lunch-break standard and a process for students to request schedule adjustments through counselor documentation.
Impact
If enacted, HB 1333 would have imposed a statewide minimum lunch-break requirement on school districts, limiting local discretion over student schedules and lunch-period length. It would also have created a new statutory obligation for high schools to honor counselor-approved excusals from the class after lunch when needed to complete the required 30-minute break, potentially affecting bell schedules, staffing, and classroom transitions across public schools.
Sentiment
The bill did not advance, failing on House second reading by a vote of 20 yeas to 70 nays on February 17, 2025. That vote suggests the proposal did not have broad support in the chamber, although no committee transcript is available here to show detailed debate or sponsor testimony. The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears to have been largely unfavorable or at least insufficiently persuasive to pass.
Contention
The main point of contention likely centered on whether the Legislature should set a statewide mandate for lunch duration and scheduling rather than leaving those decisions to local school districts. Another likely issue was the high school excusal provision, which could have been viewed as administratively burdensome or disruptive to class schedules, even though it was limited to students with counselor verification. Supporters likely framed the bill as a student well-being measure, while opponents likely raised concerns about local control, implementation, and operational flexibility.