The Manchester Board of School Committee voted to adopt a new personal‑communication‑device policy aligned with state law, directing the administration to separate policy language from enforceable procedures so principals and staff can refine day‑to‑day implementation.

Committee member Adropoulos moved the policy; Committee member Banes seconded. After a long discussion about enforcement mechanics, the board approved the policy on a voice vote.

Administrators said the policy adopts state law prohibitions on personal electronic communications during instructional time and clarified that district‑issued devices are excluded. The administration also announced it will use TalkingPoints as the district’s primary family‑communication app and will block other third‑party apps that create monitoring or liability problems on the district network. The administration said it would continue to allow one athletics app for coaches.

Much of the meeting focused on how to enforce the rule without creating unnecessary confrontations or replacing instruction with device management. Committee members and principals debated whether teachers should confiscate devices or direct students to bring devices to the main office, how many warnings to give, and whether suspension should remain an available sanction for the most serious or repeated cases.

“I want to use a nice word… the disconnect between politicians and educators” about how to implement device rules, Committee member Arderopoulos said, arguing for clear and consistent enforcement. Committee member Adropoulos argued for a firm approach: “If you see it, we take it,” noting teachers and staff have been struggling with student device use for years. Some principals supported beginning the year with strict enforcement and no grace period; others urged procedures that reduce classroom confrontation—for example, directing students to the office to turn in devices rather than requiring teachers to hold phones.

Administrators said they will publish procedures (distinct from board policy) that reflect principal input and that procedures can be adjusted more quickly than policy. The administration also said it had already trained principals on the policy and would provide building‑level guidance; principals asked for consistent staff modeling and family communication.

The board did not require a single enforcement method in policy; instead, it adopted the policy and charged the administration with operational procedures and training. Superintendent and technology staff said district‑owned devices (classroom Chromebooks and other issued equipment) are not covered by the prohibition, and the policy will include guidance for medical and individualized‑education exceptions.

The committee’s adoption starts a period of operational rollout: principals will train staff and students before the school year, the administration will refine written procedures based on initial experience, and enforcement will rely on progressive discipline and school‑level implementation.