Catalina Foothills board hears wide public support for stricter phone rules; first reading updates technology use policy

The Catalina Foothills Unified School District Governing Board on June 24 conducted a first reading of proposed revisions to policy IJNDB and its regulation IJNDBR, which would limit student access to social media during school hours and set districtwide expectations for personal wireless devices.

The proposal would restrict student access to social media platforms except when a teacher allows use for instruction; require K–8 students to keep personal devices “off and away” for the school day; require grades 9–12 to keep devices off and away “bell to bell” during each class period while permitting use during lunch, passing periods and before/after school; and retain narrow exceptions for medical needs, teacher-directed instructional use and emergencies. Cheryl Castro, the district’s executive director of curriculum and assessment, presented the policy changes and said the draft also adds a paragraph describing the district’s commitment to teaching ethical, responsible use of artificial intelligence.

Why it matters: The policy touches daily classroom routines, teacher workload and student behavior across the district’s schools. Public comment at the start of the meeting showed strong parental support for stricter limits; board members spent substantial time at the first reading detailing implementation, enforcement, and communication with families.

Public speakers and parents told the board the change should be firm. David Fink, who coaches junior tennis in the district, said the district should adopt “no cell phones in school.” Amanda Klein, a district parent, urged a “full day policy requiring students to surrender personal devices during class time” and said the rules should be consistent across classrooms. Laurel Jacobs, a district parent and spouse of a CFSD teacher, cited teacher surveys and told the board that phones expose students to “social media and other online content that can include violence, self harm, hate speech, bullying, and unrealistic physical standards.”

Board discussion focused on how the policy would work in practice. Administrators and board members asked how “off and away” would be implemented (examples included backpacks in K–8 and pouch systems used in some high school classrooms), how smartwatches and emerging wearables will be treated (the draft explicitly adds smartwatches), and how instructional uses (for example, asking students to photograph a complex board problem) will be handled. Castro and other staff said teacher-directed use will remain permitted and that additional operational guidance, site-level procedures and professional development are planned. The board asked staff to develop communication and rollout plans for families and staff and to collect implementation feedback after the policy goes into effect.

Several board members and staff also discussed the policy’s new paragraph on AI, which the district described as an overview of goals rather than a detailed curriculum. Staff said they plan teacher-facing materials and one‑page guides for content-area uses and to offer district training sessions (for example, a July 29 site training) and that any student-facing AI tools proposed for classroom use would be reviewed before adoption.

No final action was taken at the first reading. The board set a second reading and potential action for the July 21 meeting, and staff said they would refine the policy text based on tonight’s comments (examples: clarifying the phrase about “personal gain” in acceptable-use language, and tightening wording so the AI sentence does not imply every single tool will be used by every student).

Next steps: The policy will return for a second reading at the July 21 meeting. Staff will prepare implementation guidance for sites, a family communication plan, and a timeline for collecting feedback and metrics after rollout.