Education Committee
February 4, 2025
Committee Chair: Sen. Dave Murman | Bills Heard: 5 | Full Transcript (PDF)
LB140: Cell Phone Policy in Schools
Introduced by: Sen. Rita Sanders | Testimony: 53 proponents, 10 opponents, 1 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Governor Pillen backs cell phone ban in schools, citing 62,000 notifications per school year. LB140 would require school districts to adopt policies limiting student phone use during the school day, with local control and exceptions for emergencies and medical needs. Why it matters: Research links constant phone notifications to lower academic performance and mental health challenges. Teachers report cell phone use as their top behavior concern. The bill aims to help educators regain classroom focus while respecting parental rights and student safety needs. What they're saying: Governor Pillen: "Students are being harmed by constant exposure to these things." Attorney General Hilgers: "One of the most powerful policy prescriptions we could put in place is to get phones out of the hands of children during the school day." Student Marley Helvey: "It helps that we are all in the same boat" when everyone follows the same policy. School board representative Colby Coash raised technical concerns about enforceability of "attending a school function" language. By the numbers: 53 proponents testified online; 10 opponents; students receive approximately 200 notifications daily from social media apps alone. What's next: Committee will work with Attorney General's office on technical amendments, particularly clarifying language around school functions and teacher authorization exceptions. Bill advances with broad bipartisan support.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Jana Hughes, Sen. Danielle Conrad, Sen. Dan Lonowski Skeptical: Sen. Megan Hunt
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB670: School Safety Drills and Training Requirements
Introduced by: Sen. Dave Murman | Testimony: 3 proponents, 4 opponents, 1 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
School administrators seek flexibility in safety drill requirements, but civil rights advocates warn against cutting SRO training. LB670 would allow school districts to develop customized safety drill schedules and reduce required training hours for school resource officers from 20 to 12 hours. Why it matters: Schools argue current mandates are outdated—no school fires in Nebraska since the 1950s—and that flexible scheduling allows more relevant drills like lockdown exercises. But civil rights groups warn that cutting SRO training eliminates critical instruction on student rights, de-escalation, and implicit bias that was added through bipartisan LB390 in 2019. What they're saying: Superintendent Jason Mundorf: "SROs already receive 80 hours of police training covering the same topics." ACLU's Joy Kathurima: "Reducing training sends the message we don't care about student interactions with school police." By the numbers: 3 proponents testified; 4 opponents; 1 neutral testifier. What's next: Committee will work with stakeholders on amendments, particularly regarding SRO training scope and whether districts should be allowed to exceed maximum hours.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Jana Hughes, Sen. Dan Lonowski Skeptical: Sen. Danielle Conrad, Sen. Glen Meyer
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB567: Schools and Family Partnership Act
Introduced by: Sen. Dan Quick | Testimony: 10 proponents, 4 opponents, 3 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Bill seeks to spread community schools model statewide, but skeptics question whether legislation is needed. LB567 would direct the Department of Education to develop a model policy for school-family partnerships, allowing districts to voluntarily adopt components tailored to their communities. Why it matters: Community schools research shows consistent improvements in chronic absenteeism, suspension rates, and graduation rates. Rural schools often lack resources and grant-writing capacity to implement these programs. The bill costs nothing and doesn't mandate adoption. What they're saying: Lincoln educator Nola Derby-Bennett: "The school is the hub of each neighborhood." UNL professor Sarah Zuckerman: "Research has shown that each of those individual strategies has important impacts on student outcomes, but they work better together." Senator Meyer: "Must we legislate everything?" By the numbers: 10 proponents testified; 4 opponents; 3 neutral testifiers. What's next: Committee will consider whether guidance from NDE or existing organizations could achieve same goal without legislation.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Danielle Conrad Skeptical: Sen. Jana Hughes, Sen. Glen Meyer Unclear: Sen. Dan Lonowski
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB31: Student Surveillance and Monitoring Technology Policy
Introduced by: Sen. Danielle Conrad | Testimony: 58 proponents, 8 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Conrad's surveillance bill finds unlikely allies across political spectrum, but schools warn language is too vague. LB31 would require State Board of Education to develop model policy on student surveillance technology, with school districts adopting written policies addressing transparency, parental notification, and data protection. Why it matters: Schools employ facial recognition cameras, digital hall passes, and educational apps that track student behavior and mood—often without parental knowledge. Recent data breaches compromised student Social Security numbers and medical records. Ed tech vendors profit from student data collection. Parents deserve to know what tools are used and where data goes. What they're saying: Sue Greenwald, Nebraska Education Coalition: "The ed tech world is the wild west. There is unfettered data mining." Kathy Faucher, financial crimes analyst: "Foreign adversaries target student data for espionage and social manipulation." Kirk Langer, Lincoln Public Schools CTO: "Bill propounds a false narrative attacking schools' intent." By the numbers: 58 proponents testified online; 8 opponents; no neutral testifiers. What's next: Committee will work on clarifying language defining what constitutes surveillance technology and addressing concerns about overbreadth while maintaining bill's core protections for student privacy and parental rights.
Committee sentiment: Supportive: Sen. Danielle Conrad, Sen. Megan Hunt Skeptical: Sen. Jana Hughes, Sen. Dan Lonowski
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB428: Student Survey Transparency and Parental Notification
Introduced by: Sen. Dave Murman | Testimony: 57 proponents, 29 opponents, 1 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Bill requires 30-day notice before schools administer sensitive surveys, closing loophole in 50-year-old federal law. LB428 would require schools to notify parents before giving surveys about health, religious, political, or personal information. Parents could review surveys and opt children out. Why it matters: Federal PPRA (1970s) prohibits schools from asking sensitive questions, but schools circumvent this by hiring third-party vendors. Most parents don't know surveys are being given. Data collected is often sold to commercial vendors. What they're saying: Sue Greenwald: "Parents don't know anything about it. Most of the time, they don't even know about the surveys until after they've been given." By the numbers: 57 proponents testified online; 29 opponents; 1 neutral testifier. What's next: Committee will address whether anonymous surveys (like youth risk behavior surveys tracking vaping trends) should be exempt from notification requirements.
Committee sentiment: Skeptical: Sen. Jana Hughes
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
Session Notes
The Education Committee held a full day of hearings on February 4, 2025, hearing five bills. The hearing lasted approximately 5+ hours. Committee Chair Sen. Dave Murman noted at the beginning that the first two bills (LB140 and LB670) were switched from the posted order. Vice Chair Jana Hughes took over chairing partway through the hearing and adjusted testifier time limits from 5 minutes to 4 minutes for LB670 due to time constraints. The committee heard from a diverse range of testifiers including state officials (Governor Pillen, Attorney General Hilgers, Commissioner Maher), school administrators, teachers, students, parents, civil rights advocates, and education policy experts. Several bills generated significant online testimony in addition to in-person testimony.
Generated by NE Wire Service | Source: Nebraska Legislature Transcribers Office This is an AI-generated summary. Verify all claims against the official transcript.