Fulton County Schools board previews ban on personal laptops, tightens cellphone access as state social-media law looms

3146694 · March 11, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Board members signaled agreement to prohibit K–8 students from using personal electronic devices during the school day, to ban device access during high school instructional time, and directed staff to revise a draft electronic communications policy to align with the Social Media Act of 2024 and new state requirements.

FULTON COUNTY, Ga. — Fulton County Schools board members met in a pre-work session March 11 to review a draft electronic communications policy that would prohibit personal electronic devices for K–8 students during the school day, restrict device access for high school students during instructional time, and add a districtwide ban on personal laptops in schools.

The draft policy, labeled IFBGA, grew out of an earlier board discussion about classroom cell-phone use and was presented by Ryan Moore, executive director of strategy and governance. "Personal laptops ... would be new for Fulton, to prohibit personal laptops in any of our schools," Moore said, describing a definition of "personal electronic device" that includes smartphones, smartwatches, tablets, smart glasses, e-readers, headphones and, newly, personal laptops.

Board members emphasized two priorities: a firm K–8 prohibition during the school day and removal of teacher-level discretion that currently allows some teachers to permit device use during instructional time. "I think I can actually answer some of these additional questions in our next topic, which is preview of the Social Media Act of 2024," Moore said, then summarized the board's emerging consensus: "It seems like we have consensus on general guidelines. So section 3a, K–8 prohibition, we're good. In b, we've intentionally written some language here to really kind of see where do we want to fall ... It seems like we have consensus that we're going to tighten beyond teacher discretion."

Why it matters: the district must also respond to new state law requirements. Joe Phillips, chief information officer, said recent legislation (identified in the draft as Senate Bill 351) will require local districts to adopt a social media policy and to block student access to social media via district-owned equipment and networks. "No later than 04/01/2026, each local governing body shall adopt a social media policy ... This paragraph prohibits students from accessing social media platforms through the use of computer equipment, communication services, or internet access that is operated, owned, leased, and made available to students by the local governing body," Phillips said, reading language from the statute included in the meeting materials.

Phillips described technical limits tied to BYOD (bring-your-own-device) policies: district protections like the LineWize Monitor and content filter can be installed on district-issued devices but cannot be placed on privately owned student devices. He added that personal devices using virtual private networks (VPNs) or cellular networks can evade district network filters. "If our student has what's called a VPN ... we can't see where they're actually going on that personal device," Phillips said.

Board discussion and direction: trustees raised enforcement and equity concerns. Several members said district-issued one-to-one devices reduce the need for personal laptops and smartphones in class; others pointed to bus, bathroom and cafeteria use as enforcement challenges. Board President Kristen McCabe and multiple trustees said they supported removing teacher discretion for high-school instructional time and asked staff to tighten the draft accordingly.

The board directed staff to: revise the IFBGA draft to (1) make K–8 device prohibition explicit for the school day, (2) prohibit device access during high-school instructional time without teacher discretion, (3) clarify the definition of "access" and list covered device types, (4) add clear cross-references to the student code of conduct and anti-bullying provisions, and (5) produce implementation guidance for zone superintendents and principals. Superintendent Mike Looney and staff said they would solicit input from principals, teachers and the public, produce a revised draft, and bring it back through the district's normal first- and second-read policy process with the goal of implementation in fall 2025.

State law and implementation timeline: Moore briefed the board on the Social Media Act of 2024 and related requirements. The district must adopt a separate social media policy, update acceptable use policies, submit acceptable use policy changes annually to the State Board of Education, implement digital citizenship/character-education components, and establish staff training and parent engagement on technology protections. Moore said the state law's implementation timeline includes a district-level adoption schedule that points to policy adoptions and ongoing reviews into August 2025. Phillips reiterated a statutory deadline tied to network blocking requirements of April 1, 2026.

Operational details and outstanding questions: trustees and staff discussed enforcement mechanics: whether to require in-building storage (lockable pouches, locker or pouch systems), whether buses should be designated "recommended no-use" zones because driver safety limits enforcement, and the cost implications if the district were to provide storage solutions. Trustees asked for clear documentation processes for medical or IEP accommodations and for a standardized approach across zones so families do not experience inconsistent rules when students move between schools.

What happens next: staff will revise the IFBGA draft and circulate it for stakeholder feedback (teachers, principals, parents) and return it for a formal first read under the district's policy-adoption timeline. The board also requested plain-language materials for families explaining the changes and noted the district must align any policy revisions with the forthcoming social media policy required by state law.

The pre-work session did not include formal votes on the policy; board members provided direction to staff and signaled a broad policy direction but committed to further community engagement and a formal adoption process before changes take effect.