PIERRE, S.D. (Todd Epp / South Dakota Broadcasters Association) – The Senate Education Committee sent a bill restricting student cell phone use to the Senate floor without a recommendation Tuesday morning after tense debate over local control and student well-being.
Senate Bill 198, introduced by Sen. Chris Karr, R-Sioux Falls, would prohibit students from using cell phones during the school day except for medical accommodations or emergencies. School boards would set disciplinary policies for violations.
The measure highlights a growing tension between statewide student protection efforts and South Dakota’s tradition of local school control. Supporters say cell phones harm academic performance and mental health, while opponents argue districts are already solving the problem without state mandates.
Committee Outcome
The committee voted 5-2 to send the amended bill to the Senate floor with no recommendation after rejecting multiple motions. The committee amended the bill’s title, changing “instructional time” to “school day,” to match the bill’s actual language.
The Case for Restrictions
Karr cited alarming statistics about declining academic performance, rising mental health problems, and behavioral issues linked to smartphone use. He said 12th grade reading proficiency dropped to 35 percent and math proficiency to 22 percent in 2024.
“What is best for the student? What is best for their mental health?” Karr said. “I have teachers that have asked me, because they have a hard time implementing it at this point to a bell-to-bell, they might have some policy. But the bell-to-bell policy has an impact.”
The bill has exceptions for approved medical or educational accommodations and emergencies affecting health or safety. It requires school boards to adopt disciplinary policies but leaves implementation details to local districts.
Karr said 26 states have enacted similar bell-to-bell policies, and research shows significant improvements. He cited a 35 percent reduction in suspensions and a 50 percent reduction in office referrals in schools with phone bans.
Robert Peterson of the Foundation for Government Accountability supported the bill, saying early results from other states show “incredible gains in achievement” and a decrease in disciplinary issues. He said the biggest gains come from low-performing students.
“Scores are up, problems are down,” Robert Peterson said.
Opposition Cites Local Control
Secretary of Education Joe Graves agreed that phones create major problems, but opposed the bill on local control grounds. He said schools across South Dakota are already moving toward greater phone restrictions.
“Well, the issue before us is not whether phones should be eliminated from classrooms, but just who should make that decision, and to what extent the restriction should extend,” Graves said. “And the best answer to that is educators at the local level.”
Dianna Miller, lobbyist for the Large School Group, said a December 2025 survey found 95.58 percent of South Dakota districts already have cell phone policies in place.
“The fact of the matter is, the local people are the best people to determine this,” Miller said. She called the bill unnecessary and argued legislators should not add unnecessary bills to state code.
Heath Larson, executive director of the Associated School Boards of South Dakota, and Mitch Richter from the South Dakota Unified School Association also opposed the bill, citing local control. Richter said many districts are in their third year of implementing policies that use pouches, sleeves, or baskets.
Sharp Committee Divisions
The committee debate revealed sharp divisions. Sen. Curt Voight, R-Rapid City, argued classroom-only restrictions miss the larger problem of campus-wide cell phone use in bathrooms, hallways, and parking lots.
“If you’re concerned about students’ welfare and safety, not just their academic interference in terms of use, you need to do something on campus,” Voight said. He said violations of cell phone policies create “a nightmare” in school buildings.
Sen. Lauren Nelson, R-Yankton, countered that flexibility allows schools to tailor policies. He said one superintendent in his district implemented a total ban, while another allowed juniors and seniors to keep phones to prepare them for college.
“In my district, in my area, the schools are working out, have their policies,” Nelson said. “It works for their district, for their kids and their constituents.”
Sen. Sue Peterson, R-Sioux Falls, expressed conflict, acknowledging the benefits of reducing distractions while wanting parents to maintain some access to students during emergencies.
What Happens Next
The bill now heads to the full Senate for consideration. If passed, it would require school boards to adopt policies prohibiting student cell phone use during the school day with specified exceptions.
The bill does not specify penalties for noncompliance. Secretary Graves said enforcement would become part of the accreditation process conducted every five years, but the department lacks mechanisms to monitor actual student surveillance.
