Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Technology Policies topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
O'Fallon Township High considers phone-free classrooms, forms e-learning committee to create contingency plan
Summary
District leaders reviewed staff and parent survey results on classroom cell-phone rules and said an e-learning committee will draft a registered plan for emergency remote instruction; decisions are expected before the student handbook is finalized.
O'Fallon Township High School District 203 board members on Feb. 20 reviewed staff and parent surveys showing split views on a districtwide cell-phone policy and discussed a newly formed e-learning committee that will study whether the district should register a remote-learning plan with the state.
The topic matters because a registered e-learning plan would allow the district to use remote instruction for up to five e-learning days in a school year instead of exhausting emergency days, and because the board must set any districtwide phone policy in time to publish the student handbook for next school year.
Superintendent Dr. Steve Shackleford told the board that the state limits e-learning to “a 5 day maximum for e learning days,” and said a separate five-day pool of emergency days also exists, so districts must plan how they will sequence those days. “If you exhaust one, you have to move to the other,” he said, describing how some districts have combinations of e-learning and emergency days in a year.
Shackleford said the district has convened an e-learning committee led by Mr. Howe and Mr. Graham to examine whether remote instruction can be implemented “with fidelity” at OTHS and to produce a registered plan if appropriate. He said the committee’s first meeting was delayed by an emergency closing and will resume at the end of the month.
Board members and staff expressed differing views about remote instruction. One board member said bluntly, “K. Co COVID showed us that e learning is an abject failure,” citing broad declines the member associated with pandemic-era remote instruction. Another board member said the committee should explore e-learning so the district has the authority and a ready plan if an emergency requires it.
The discussion of phone policy centered on two staff and community surveys the district just completed. Mr. Kyle, listed as “principal support” in the meeting, presented results from a staff survey with 216 responses: 80% of staff supported considering a schoolwide phone-free policy, and staff responses were mixed on specific storage options (for example, 35% favored keeping phones in backpacks; 29% favored numbered classroom pouches).
A concurrent parent/guardian survey drew 1,375 responses. Parents were more likely to oppose a blanket phone ban: 56% of parent respondents said they did not want the district to move to a schoolwide phone-free policy, and parents favored storing phones in backpacks (69.2% naming that option highest among provided choices).
District leaders noted limits of the surveys and said they will also gather student input. “What we need to do next is see what the students feel like,” Dr. Shackleford said. Board members said a recommendation should be ready in time for the May PTAC meeting and for inclusion in the student handbook cycle.
No formal policy change was adopted at the meeting. Board members discussed next steps: the e-learning committee will continue work on a registered plan, the district will analyze student views, and administrators will prepare a policy recommendation for board consideration before the handbook deadline.
Pending decisions include whether the district will require phones to remain in backpacks, use classroom pouches or lockers, or adopt a different enforcement mechanism. Several board members emphasized that, if the board adopts a policy, staff will be expected to follow it as a working condition of employment.
