Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Phone Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears extensive discussion of cell phone rules after site council survey; no policy change yet
Summary
Board members heard a multi-stakeholder review of cell phone use in schools from site council representatives and district staff, who summarized staff, parent and student survey results and described local policy variations; the board did not adopt a new districtwide rule and directed further work by site council.
Board members on Wednesday heard an extended discussion about whether and how to restrict student use of cell phones, smartwatches and headphones during the school day after a site council subcommittee presented staff, student and parent feedback.
Ed Raines, speaking for the site council subcommittee, said the group surveyed certified staff (about 155 total) and received a little over 80 responses — roughly a 54% response rate — and that the responses indicated staff generally see cell phones as a distraction during instructional time. Raines said roughly 30 staff respondents supported a bell-to-bell ban (no phones from the start to end of the school day) while most respondents preferred restrictions limited to instructional time with teacher discretion for educational use.
Raines described the site council process: topic nominations at the start of the year, a dot-priority exercise to select focus topics, creation of subcommittees, and follow-up surveys of students and parents. The parent survey, Raines said, showed about 70% of parents viewed cell phones as a distraction to the learning environment, while roughly 40% said phones were a distraction for their own child.
Board members and staff described local variations underway: Washburn Rural Middle School and Washburn Rural North implemented limited restrictions this school year (students keep phones in lockers or backpacks and may access them during passing periods rather than during instructional time). Raines reported the early feedback from those schools has been generally favorable and that enforcement has not produced major "growing pains" during the first month.
District statistics discussed during the meeting showed referrals to the office totaled about 1,370 last year, with 65 referrals for electronic devices or cell phones, roughly 4% of referrals rising to administrative attention. Raines and others cautioned that research on academic or mental health impacts of phone bans is mixed; he cited international studies (England, Sweden, Australia) and said the evidence is not conclusive enough to mandate a single solution.
District technology staff member Patrick explained Chromebooks provide many translation and app functions (including Google Translate) and that the district filters and manages access. Patrick and other staff told the board that modern Chromebooks can replace or replicate many instructional uses of phones, though some students prefer the handheld comfort and some phone-native features (e.g., certain image-recognition apps) are not yet fully available on all Chromebooks.
Board members asked for additional research about measurable academic effects and requested site council continue its work. No districtwide policy change was adopted at the meeting; the board indicated it expects further recommendations from site council and staff that incorporate parent and student feedback.
