Parkrose board hears student input, outlines draft cell-phone rules: stricter middle-school limits, controlled high-school access

Parkrose School District board members and staff on June 9 reviewed a draft of a personal-device policy and heard public comment from students urging balance between restriction and preparation for postsecondary life.

Student Deacon English told the board students had been involved in the policy process and urged the district to craft rules that "equip students with the skills and abilities to thrive in any setting, whether that be college or the workforce." English said restrictive measures should be evaluated for whether they help students succeed outside school.

Superintendent Michael Lopez and staff described a two-tier approach the district plans to implement: stricter routines at the middle schools, where students would leave phones in homeroom for the day (kept in a box rather than a commercial lockbox system); and a high-school approach that allows phones during passing time and lunch but requires devices to be stored during class (classroom pocket charts or pouches would hold visible phones while instruction proceeds). Staff said accommodations will be preserved for students who require phones for assistive technology or 504 plans.

District staff emphasized training and routines for teachers, students and families, saying consistent adult response and clear communication are critical to success. Speakers acknowledged enforcement will require staff time and consistent expectations across classrooms; staff recommended a monitoring period during the first semester and student feedback to guide adjustments.

Several students and educators said expectations must align with grading and accountability systems at the high school level, noting that college and workplace environments do not use phone "pouches," so classroom practices should focus on building students'self-regulation. Staff said middle-school restrictions stem from the younger students'developmental stage and the structural differences in schedules and locker availability.

The board did not adopt a final policy at the meeting; the packet presented an administrative rule draft and staff indicated they will return to the board with a formal policy for adoption after additional feedback and planned implementation steps.

Quotes used in this article come from student and staff speakers who addressed the topic in the June 9 meeting.