The Ithaca City School District Board of Education approved a first reading of Policy 5695, Personal and Student Electronic Devices, after a wide-ranging discussion about how to implement a statewide ban on Internet‑enabled devices in schools.

The board's deliberations focused on practical implementation: district‑purchased signal‑blocking pouches already ordered by staff, whether elementary students may keep phones in backpacks, the use of lockers in secondary schools, and how exemptions and tiered, restorative responses to violations will be handled. After debate, the board voted unanimously to approve the policy for a first reading and return it for further revision at a later meeting.

Catherine Senera, president of the Ithaca Teachers Association and an English teacher, opened public comment in support of the draft policy and offered specific revisions. "Teachers and staff are expected to play a limited but important role in responding to student use of prohibited devices by creating a positive climate and providing gentle reminders," Senera said, praising language that assigns further intervention chiefly to building administration and that recognizes enforcing the policy can compromise staff–student relationships.

District staff member Carrie Burke described the years of development and building‑level planning behind the draft and explained that pouches provided to board members contain signal‑blocking technology. "The pouches include signal-blocking technology. So while a device is in there, it cannot receive notifications or other signals," Burke said, while acknowledging no technical solution is perfect and that implementation will require culture change and educator, family and student buy‑in.

Superintendent Dr. Brown told the board the policy drafting team has been engaged with teachers, principals and families and emphasized implementation will be iterative: "Any policy could be revised and updated as we go throughout the year... We may find in the first 2 or 4 weeks that we need to do something different, then we update the policy." Brown also cited examples from district middle schools and a recent high‑school orientation where staff reported less phone use among students under similar rules.

Board members voiced differing views on the pouches and other approaches. Some members argued the district had already committed to a costly and imperfect pouch system and said lockers would be a less expensive compliance option; others warned lockers are not commonly used by students and questioned whether families would accept districts taking custody of phones. Several members urged a restorative approach for enforcement and asked that the policy explicitly permit tiered responses that could include temporarily removing a device and contacting caregivers in some cases.

Board members and staff discussed the policy's exemptions (section 4 in the draft). Several board members asked for clearer language on how building principals will approve waivers, how those waivers will be communicated to staff, and whether limited structured instructional uses (an exemption in the draft) are legally required or discretionary. A number of participants cited examples — QR codes and occasional instructional needs — that may require limited device access.

The board also discussed equipment choices. Staff said the district had already purchased lower‑cost pouches (about $20 each) that include Velcro and signal‑blocking features; the district expects roughly $10.90 per pouch to be reimbursed by the state. Board members noted alternative systems such as Yondr pouches (which use magnets) and said magnets and other systems can be circumvented, that students sometimes carry multiple devices, and that some districts have explored locking solutions or even impractical options such as RFID‑blocking paint (which New York State Education Department has warned against).

Several board members urged that the policy text remain high-level and that the superintendent develop a clear, districtwide implementation plan — including a common set of tiered responses for violations — and report back with early data on how the policy is working. The superintendent and staff committed to bringing revised language and implementation details back to the board for further review.

After discussion, the board voted to approve the draft policy for a first reading. The first‑reading vote was unanimous. Board members also passed unrelated procedural motions during the same meeting, including approval of the consent agenda and consolidation of the facilities and finance committees; the board later voted to enter executive session on personnel matters.

Quotes used above are from the meeting transcript and come from people who spoke at the public meeting as listed below. The board signaled that implementation details and any further changes to the policy will return to the board for additional review and possible revision.