West Seneca schools prepare to implement New York's distraction-free device law; code of conduct updated for public review

At the June 17 meeting of the WEST SENECA CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT Board of Education, Superintendent Dr. Krueger said the district is preparing policies and code-of-conduct revisions to implement New York State's new law banning use of “internet-enabled devices” during the instructional day and that those draft changes will be posted for public comment before formal adoption.

The law requires school districts to adopt a policy restricting student use of internet-enabled devices anywhere on school grounds during the instructional day, Dr. Krueger said, and the district has begun stakeholder outreach including a parent survey, meetings with student leaders and bargaining units, and review of a sample policy from Erie 1 BOCES policy services.

Dr. Krueger said the prohibition covers more than smartphones and includes tablets, smartwatches and other internet-enabled devices; the law defines the school day as from the start to the end of the instructional day, with no carve-outs for passing time, lunch or study halls. "We are being bound by New York State. This is a law," Dr. Krueger said.

The district is weighing storage and enforcement models that were discussed at the meeting: (1) students keep devices powered off on their person; (2) devices stored in assigned lockers; or (3) devices placed in lockable pouches at arrival. Dr. Krueger described a progressive discipline approach the administration is considering: warnings for initial infractions, followed by confiscation and parent pickup for repeated violations. She said the law prohibits using device use alone as the basis for out-of-school suspension.

Jackie Fowler, who led the code-of-conduct committee, reviewed the specific edits being proposed to align the district's code with the state requirement. Fowler said the draft code clarifies the definition of "school day," lists the covered device types, and spells out exceptions for students with medical needs and those with accommodations under an individualized education program (IEP) or Section 504 plan. "It is in alignment with the New York State distraction-free schools law," Fowler said, and the code also incorporates related updates such as cyberviolation examples and prohibitions on gambling apps.

Fowler told the board the draft will be posted on the district website with highlighted changes and a 30-day public comment period; she said the board could consider adoption at the July 22 board meeting. Dr. Krueger noted an annual reporting requirement in the statute: districts must publish a report of policy violations and provide demographic information so the state can monitor equitable enforcement; she said the district will prepare to meet that requirement, which she referenced as a September 1 reporting deadline under the law.

A representative who identified themselves as speaking from the law-enforcement side urged limiting parents' immediate contact with students during in-building emergencies, saying rapid parental arrival can interfere with first-responder operations. At least one board member emphasized the need for clear communications channels so parents can reach students in authorized ways during the school day (for example, calling a main office).

The code-of-conduct draft also includes other non-device revisions Fowler outlined at the meeting: minor dress-code clarifications, a single-occupancy bathroom-stall rule, expanded language on disruptive and endangering conduct (including instigating or encouraging altercations and cyberbullying), and a reference to adoption of the Raptor visitor-management system for school visitors. Fowler said restorative-practices language was added under penalties and consequences and that high school staff have begun training in related approaches.

Next steps set out by the administration include finalizing an implementation plan for device storage (to be recommended to the board), publishing the draft code for 30 days of public comment, and returning to the board for adoption consideration. The district also intends to publish the required annual violation report once the policy is in effect.

Ending: The board did not adopt a final device policy or the revised code at the June 17 meeting; the administration will post the draft for public comment and return to the board with a recommended implementation plan and timeline for adoption.