The Kansas House Education Committee on Tuesday revisited a bill banning cellphones in public and private schools, a day after it agreed to make the legislation discretionary.
The House committee agreed to make the ban compulsory for public elementary and secondary schools but optional for accredited private schools.
The bill was sent to the full House.
Republican state Rep. Sherri Brantley of Great Bend made the motion to rework the bill Tuesday afternoon after the committee agreed to make the entire bill optional on Monday.
The House education committee voted 11-6 to amend the ban Monday so public and accredited private schools may – not shall – adopt policies and procedures governing the use of cellphones. The committee voted to send the bill to the floor.
On Tuesday, the committee tweaked the language, adding the word “shall” in a section of the bill that would require public schools to adopt policies governing the use of personal electronic communication devices. Those policies would include a ban.
Democratic state Rep. Jerry Stogsdill of Prairie Village asked why the same standards for cellphones wouldn’t apply to public and private schools.
“They’re all kids and they should all be treated the same way,” Stogsdill said.
Brantley said private schools don’t receive state funding, so they should not be required to adhere to state educational policies adopted by the Legislature.
Democratic state Rep. Linda Featherston of Overland Park objected to the bill.
“If this is a public health crisis, then it’s public health crisis for all children,” she said.
“I value our children in public schools and private schools,” she said.
Brantley’s views are shared by others in the Capitol, particularly in the Senate where the chair of the education committee has been reluctant to include private schools in the ban.
Republican state Rep. Susan Estes of Wichita, chair of the House education committee, said lawmakers wanted to look at the bill again after it was amended Monday to make the ban an option.
“There was a lot of conversation yesterday about whether the final form of the bill was what people intended to do,” Estes said.
“I think people reflected and they realized that when you change ‘shall’ to ‘may’ it really did take away the strength of the bill,” she said.
“People had conversations where they came to a compromise of shall/may language,” she said. “I thought that was the best way to bring all sides together on this bill.”
