Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Discipline And Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Students, board discuss new state-required wireless-device policy as district moves item to second read
Summary
Trustees previewed a new policy to comply with state law limiting student wireless device use; student representatives and educators said enforcement is inconsistent and noted classroom devices and iPads create similar challenges.
The board previewed a new policy (policy 43 18) on wireless communication devices on Sept. 16 as part of a routine policy-review packet required by recent state law.
The policy was presented in first read; the chair said all first‑read items would be moved to second read and placed on Thursday’s consent agenda unless members requested edits. Trustees asked questions about enforcement and documentation. Board member Patty Mason asked whether a written report would be placed in a student’s file following a search of a wireless device; the board’s attorney declined to provide legal advice in open session but said he could advise the board in counsel session.
Student representatives who attended the work session told trustees enforcement varies across schools and that inconsistent classroom practice creates confusion. One student representative said enforcement “is not really accurate in my opinion” to describe uneven implementation; another noted that some schools provide students with time between classes to check messages. The board’s teacher‑of‑the‑year and principal‑of‑the‑year also commented: the principal said consistent leadership and clear classroom rules keep phone issues limited at some schools; the teacher noted that district‑issued iPads can be used for the same purposes as phones and said blocking phones does not remove all opportunities for students to message each other during class.
Board members discussed alternatives used elsewhere—one member mentioned paid storage pouches (Yondr) that lock phones in a bag during class time—while noting cost and logistics. Trustees asked staff to confirm that the policy and any implementing regulation point to the statutory requirements and to ensure the draft policy cross-references the regulations that set enforcement expectations.
No policy change was adopted at the work session. The chair said the policy would advance to second read and appear on the consent agenda at the Thursday meeting. The board did not vote on the substance of policy 43 18 during the work session; the discussion was informational and advisory to staff drafting the final language.
