Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Electronic Devices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds first reading on student cell‑phone policy; members press for clearer rules
Summary
Board members held a first reading of JFCK, the district's proposed student electronic‑communication policy. Members pressed for stronger limits, clearer discipline steps and guidance for IEP/medical exceptions and asked administration to return with specific language.
The Groveport-Madison Local Board of Education held a first reading of draft policy JFCK, which addresses student use of electronic communication devices during the school day, and members urged clearer, stricter language before a final vote.
Kathy Walsh, a board member, said the current draft is too vague: "As much as possible is very vague," she said, adding, "I don't think we should be allowing our students unless they have a medical reason" to carry phones in class.
Several board members asked the administration to provide more-specific discipline steps (for example, graduated consequences for first, second and later offenses), a clear check-in/check-out process (especially for middle and high schools where students change rooms during the day), and explicit rules for exceptions tied to documented medical needs or Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Libby Gray and other members pointed to model policies used elsewhere. Gray referred to an Ohio model that bans student phone use at all times during school hours but allows narrowly defined exceptions for documented IEP or medical needs. Board member John Kirschner (transcript reference "Mister Kirschner") said he would circulate a version used by Dayton that collects phones at the start of the day and returns them at dismissal; board members discussed operational implications and equitable enforcement.
The board asked the superintendent and treasurer to draft specific, enforceable language for the policy—covering confiscation/return procedures, timeframes, and discipline tiers—and to prepare proposed handbook or parent‑agreement language and proposed updates for school discipline codes so members can review them before the second reading.
No vote on JFCK was taken; the item remains a first read. Board members scheduled follow-up work and asked administration to supply comparative model policies and recommended draft language ahead of the next meeting.
