Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Technology Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board gives direction to pursue bell-to-bell phone restriction after first reading of personal devices policy
Summary
At first reading of Policy 524.5 the board reviewed two options for regulating personal electronic communication devices and directed staff and the policy committee to pursue Option 1 (prohibiting device use bell-to-bell for K–12) and return with procedures and a second reading.
The Stillwater Area Public Schools Board of Education held a first reading of proposed Policy 524.5 on personal electronic communication devices and provided direction to staff and the policy committee to pursue a bell-to-bell prohibition for student device use during the school day.
Chair Sherman opened the discussion by noting the policy is a legislative requirement with an adoption deadline of March 15. Paul (policy staff) told the board the draft draws on statutory requirements and school-district practice and includes definitions ("bell to bell," "instructional time" and a broad definition of "personal electronic communication device") and differing expectations for elementary, middle and high school levels.
Under the draft language for kindergarten through middle school, "Students are prohibited from using personal electronic communication devices on school premises from bell to bell," and devices must be stored in designated areas and turned off. At the high-school level the committee presented two options: Option 1 mirrors the K–8 bell-to-bell prohibition; Option 2 would ban devices only during instructional time but permit use during passing times and lunch.
The board's discussion included substantial participation from student representatives. One student representative said peers preferred not to have phones on them during instructional time: "I think it was unanimous that everyone preferred just having their phone, not on them during instructional time," a student said. Superintendent Funk summarized community engagement work and said the district's outreach showed agreement that phones should not be used during instruction and that safety and communication concerns could be managed through district channels.
Board members discussed enforcement and implementation logistics, including how devices would be stored and whether procedures should vary by building or activity. Director Lauer and several other directors said they favored Option 1 (bell-to-bell) because it is clearer and better for instructional fidelity; Director Parker asked about the process that produced the draft and raised enforcement and the relationship with IEP/504 accommodations.
Policy staff and special-education staff said accommodations for students with disabilities would be handled through IEPs or 504 plans: roughly 17–18% of students districtwide are served under special-education plans, and device exceptions would be rare and determined by the student's educational team, Paul said. The draft includes explicit exceptions for documented medical or disability reasons (IEP/504), for emergencies, and for teacher-authorized instructional uses.
The board did not take a final vote; instead it directed staff and the policy committee to proceed with Option 1 and to develop clear procedures for storage, enforcement, exceptions and communications to families. Administrators said they will return with a second reading and procedures for public notice.
Ending: Directors asked for metrics the district could use to measure policy impact, such as behavior referrals, staff and student surveys and measures of student engagement; staff said they could report benchmark data in subsequent years.
