Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Phone Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dysart presents revised cell-phone policy after committee survey of nearly 4,000
Summary
District staff presented proposed revisions to the student handbook’s cell-phone and electronic-device language, shaped by a six‑month stakeholder committee and a survey of nearly 4,000 respondents; proposals distinguish K–8 rules from high‑school rules and emphasize consistent enforcement and limited classroom exceptions.
Dysart Unified District staff presented a proposed rewrite of the district’s cell‑phone and electronic‑device language to the governing board, telling trustees the draft reflects six months of committee work and a community survey of nearly 4,000 participants.
“What's exciting about this too is that 50% of those were parents and guardians, and we had 39% of those being from students,” Director of Student Services Kevin Cashat said during the presentation. He described the committee’s work as involving parents, teachers, principals and students and said the changes aim to balance classroom focus and student safety.
Key survey findings the committee used to shape the policy included: about 55% of respondents agreed phones were a disruption in learning; 83% supported different rules for high school vs. K–8; 81% said phones could be allowed at specific times such as before school, lunch and after school; 92% opposed a complete ban; and 89% of respondents said having a device made them feel safer in case of an emergency.
Under the proposed handbook language, K–8 students would keep devices turned off and stored in backpacks for the full school day. High‑school students could have devices on campus but would be restricted during instructional time — defined in the draft as class periods, including hallways and restroom breaks during class time. The draft also allows teachers to permit device use for specific instructional needs (for example, photographing an assignment or as a Chromebook alternative), and it proposes administrative training and campus‑level consistency for enforcement.
“...it is encompassing of cell phones and electronic devices,” Cashat said in response to a question about wearable devices; the committee’s language is intended to cover watches and similar devices that can perform phone functions.
Board members asked for additional breakdowns of the survey by respondent type (teachers, students, parents) before final adoption. The presentation also noted the district is watching related state legislation intended to limit device use during instruction; the number cited in the discussion was unclear, and district staff described the measure as “under discussion” at the legislature.
Administrators said exceptions would be handled administratively for students with documented medical needs and that principals and assistant principals would receive training to support consistent enforcement across schools.
