The Board of Education policy committee unanimously recommended a change to the district’s student electronic‑device policy, forwarding the draft to the full Board after members debated whether to allow limited phone use during designated lunch areas and how the rule would be enforced.

Why it matters: The change would restrict phone use during instructional time and could affect classroom behavior, student supervision workload and students who rely on phones for work‑related messages or unique scheduling needs.

Discussion and detail: Board Member Romero proposed a compromise model: phones kept in lockers from the first bell until the lunch bell, allowed in designated lunch areas only during the lunch period, then returned to lockers for the remainder of the day. Romero described a pilot approach to test the policy’s effects and suggested measuring referrals as a metric to decide whether to tighten rules.

Board Member Hankins argued for a stronger, more categorical ban and said research he had read links bans to improved student achievement; he urged a firm rule entry into the upcoming school year. Dr. Garrison (superintendent) said the district supports teaching appropriate technology use and noted that any policy will need implementation support at building level — including training and coordination with school resource officers for safety incidents.

Several members, including Romero and Dr. Garrison, said staffing shortages could make enforcement difficult and suggested central office assist schools with the expected surge in referrals during the initial months. Romero cautioned that enforcement should not unduly reduce staff time for instruction and urged central support if the district implements a stricter standard.

Action and next steps: The committee voted to recommend approval of the revised student use of mobile phones/electronic devices policy to the full Board; the motion carried 3‑0. Members asked staff to monitor implementation and consider a pilot or measurement framework (for example, tracking referrals) to determine whether the policy should be adjusted after the initial rollout.

Distinguishing discussion versus decision: Committee members discussed multiple enforcement options, a pilot approach and exceptions for students who work or have nontraditional schedules (discussion). The motion to recommend the attorney‑vetted policy to the full Board passed unanimously (decision). Staff were asked to provide implementation support and monitoring (direction).

Ending: The committee forwarded the revised policy to the full Board and asked staff to return metrics and recommended supports after the policy’s initial implementation period.