Rochester schools keep current cell‑phone procedure after year‑long rollout and spring survey

Rochester Public School District administrators and school staff reported to the board on June 3 that after a year of piloting a standardized cell‑phone procedure they will not make systemwide changes but will prioritize clearer, more consistent enforcement and communication with families.

Angie McAndrews, director of student engagement and school climate, briefed the board on the rollout and results of a spring survey of students, staff and caregivers. She said staff "overwhelmingly found the policy very helpful, saying that it made their job easier and that it was ... simple to enforce because it was there was very clear language and consistent language to be able to share with families and with students." Students reported mixed reactions, she said: 48% "somewhat or strongly agreed that it was easier to focus," while 33% disagreed.

Principals reviewed building‑level survey results and, McAndrews said, "decided not to make any changes to the procedure as it was." The district will provide each school its local results and asked principals to strengthen consistent enforcement at the building level. Schools will also continue regular reminders of expectations to students and families.

Why it matters: the procedure covers a wide range of grades. Elementary students keep phones in backpacks, lockers or cubbies; middle‑school students are asked to leave phones in lockers; high‑school students may keep phones but must keep them put away during instructional periods. Staff and board members raised concerns about perceived inconsistencies between buildings, middle‑school lunch versus high‑school lunch privileges, and the Chromebook becoming an alternate source of distraction.

Classroom perspectives: Terry Lanander, principal at Dakota, said the policy has increased student interactions and recess participation at the middle‑school level: "It's so great to see 80% of the students going out for recess, which in the past has not happened because they'd sit in the cafeteria on their phones or on their Chromebooks." Kristen Welch, an English teacher at JM, described the policy as giving teachers authority to set boundaries and suggested a parent‑education element because parents texting students during class undermines instruction.

Tools and follow up: staff described classroom software (GoGuardian) used to monitor Chromebook activity and the district’s pilot approaches ("away for the day" at Kellogg). McAndrews said district recommendations include clearer emergency communication protocols for families, private spaces for students who need to use a device for urgent personal matters, and exploring parent‑education options such as a districtwide book study on youth technology and mental health.

Policy placement and next steps: the policy committee recommended keeping policy 5.24’s authorization that lets the superintendent create procedures and placing the current cell‑phone procedure into a school board procedure (e.g., 5.24a) so it has a permanent, searchable home. McAndrews said principals will continue to review the procedure midyear and annually and that principals will lead building‑level remediation to improve consistent enforcement.

Ending: the board heard the mixed survey results, applauded the increased student interactions reported by middle‑school principals, and asked staff to return later with clearer emergency‑communication language and outreach options for caregivers.