A district committee on the Port Washington Union Free School District advanced a draft policy on students' personally owned electronic devices for a first read and asked administrators and school attorneys to return with clarified enforcement language, distribution procedures and reporting details ahead of an August 1 deadline.

Committee members said the draft — labeled agenda item 56‑95 — is being adopted to comply with a recently passed state law. The committee agreed to post the policy on the district website and to place a plain‑language summary in student and family handbooks; specific disciplinary tiers and day‑to‑day enforcement will be detailed in school handbooks and the district code of conduct.

Why it matters: The policy translates a new state requirement into local practice for thousands of students, with questions raised about how the rules will be enforced across grade levels, how emergencies and off‑site activities will be handled, and how the district will monitor disparate impacts across student groups.

Discussion and remaining issues
Committee members and administrators spent the meeting debating four main topics: (1) the policy's distribution and translation language, (2) whether enforcement steps should be placed in the policy or handled in school handbooks, (3) how emergencies and field trips should be treated, and (4) what data the district will report publicly about enforcement and potential disparate impacts.

On distribution and translation, the draft includes statutory language requiring the district to post the policy in a clearly visible, accessible location and to provide translations into the 12 languages specified in the statute. Committee members and the district attorney recommended streamlining the policy language to reflect the district's existing online posting and BoardDocs workflow rather than inserting hyperlinks that do not yet exist. The committee instructed attorneys to simplify the distribution paragraph to: the district will post the policy on its website, removing the longer, verbatim statutory block that could confuse readers about how translation access will work in practice.

On enforcement, the committee agreed not to include detailed tiered consequences in the policy text. Instead, members directed that enforcement procedures and tiered consequences be specified in each school's student handbook and in the district’s Code of Character, Culture and Conduct. Committee members noted that the new law bars out‑of‑school suspension for most device infractions but that the Office of the Commissioner of Education, per the attorneys' consultation, indicated limited circumstances (repetitive violations) could allow suspension; the committee asked attorneys to keep the legal baseline in the policy (that out‑of‑school suspension is generally not permitted) and to avoid adding optional model sanctions that could conflict with local practice.

On emergencies and off‑site activities, members requested more precise language. Some members urged a softer formulation (using “may” rather than “will” or “shall”) so administrators retain discretion during emergencies when students or parents must communicate; others favored removing the clause entirely to avoid students claiming ambiguous emergency exceptions. For field trips and activities off school grounds, the committee supported allowing devices but directed administrators to retain discretion to restrict device use when appropriate.

On reporting, the draft requires an annual report (beginning 09/01/2026 in the draft) posted to the district website that details enforcement of the policy over the preceding year and includes nonidentifying demographic information and a plan to mitigate disparate enforcement. Committee members asked attorneys and administration to clarify what specific enforcement data will be included in the public report (for example, whether it will list only suspensions required by law or also include lower‑level consequences such as confiscations or detentions) and whether additional, nonpublic reports for the board would be appropriate.

Next steps and procedural actions
The committee treated the draft as a first read. Members and administrators agreed to refine the policy text with the district attorney and bring a revised version back to the committee and the full board. The committee requested that revised language should: remove the confusing verbatim statutory translation paragraph, confirm that the policy will be posted on the district website, explicitly note that enforcement tiers will appear in school handbooks and the Code of Character, Culture and Conduct, and clarify the content and timing of the required public annual enforcement report. The committee also discussed scheduling a summer meeting to finalize outstanding policies with administrative input.

Meeting context and stakeholder input
Administrators reported that building principals, the Port Washington Teachers Association (PWTA) and a high‑school compact committee of parents, students and staff have already been engaged in reviewing the policy. Committee members emphasized that Title I families and other stakeholders must be included in outreach and that the district will record attendance at required Title I informational meetings “as per law.” Administrators said the district will publish the policy and provide family notices before the start of the school year.

Taper
The draft advanced at this meeting is a procedural first read, not a final board adoption. Committee members and staff said they will circulate the revised draft before final action and return to the board with clarified enforcement language and reporting detail before full adoption.