Mr. Deswood, a district staff member, and Miss Chappelle presented two draft policies the district prepared to comply with Senate Bill 11, the state requirement that each school district adopt a wireless communication device policy by Aug. 1, 2025.

The presentation summarized the statute's minimum requirements and introduced two draft versions for board feedback. Central staff explained the law requires districts to prohibit student use of wireless communication devices during instructional hours while carving out exceptions for teacher-authorized instructional use, emergencies, health-care management and assistive technologies such as text-to-speech; the law also requires districts to publish any adopted policy on the district website.

The two drafts differed primarily in style and detail. Version 1 emphasized classroom-authorized educational use, accessibility and an annual review. Version 2 added explicit district protections — for example a liability disclaimer that students are solely responsible for devices, clearer language about storage solutions (pouches, lockers) and a reference to the district disciplinary matrix for escalating consequences. Version 2 also included specific enforcement examples: initial warning and confiscation for the remainder of a class period or day, parental notification and device pickup, detention or progressive discipline tied to the student code of conduct.

Board members asked a series of operational and policy questions: how "emergency" would be defined in practice, whether parents could require their child to carry a device at all times, how exceptions for medical necessity and individualized education programs (IEPs) would be handled without violating student privacy, and whether stricter approaches (e.g., full bans) would conflict with SB 11's required exceptions. Superintendent Carlson and staff said they had not yet received implementing guidance from the Public Education Department and that they would incorporate PED guidance when it is released.

Several board members emphasized safety concerns. Board Member Aspis said access to phones during certain emergencies can be vital in remote communities; others, including Vice President Wells and Board Member Montoya, cited classroom disruption and concerns about cyberbullying and called for a policy with teeth. Multiple speakers favored Version 2 as more explicit about liability and consequence, though several board members suggested an initial “honor system” or staged enforcement so students have an opportunity to comply before penalties escalate.

Staff told the board principals and administrators had been consulted and generally supported updating the policy to include clear consequences and storage protocols. Teachers' feedback, described by staff, indicated most teachers view personal devices as a classroom distraction; administrators sought a policy that principals could enforce consistently rather than leaving enforcement uneven across classrooms.

No final adoption vote was taken. The board directed staff to merge the two drafts, preserve required statutory exceptions for assistive technology and medical necessity/IEP accommodations, incorporate clearer privacy protections and the district’s liability language from Version 2, and return with a recommended draft for formal action at the district's next regular meeting. Several board members said they would support returning with a Version 2–based policy that includes an initial honor-system approach followed by progressive consequences if violations continue.

Staff also noted the district already has related policy language in its student handbook (cited policy J4250/J4261 and a student-handbook provision, with an adoption date referenced in the meeting materials), and administrators said the updated policy must be incorporated into family communications and the annual handbook acknowledgement process so families receive notice before the school year begins.