Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Technology And Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worthington board reviews large student, parent survey as it readies cell-phone policy
Summary
Worthington Schools presented survey results showing strong phone access among high school students and broad concern from staff and families about classroom distraction; board directed further review and possible midyear survey before policy committee work this winter.
Get email alerts on the Student Technology And Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Worthington Schools board members on Oct. 20 reviewed the results of district surveys about student cell‑phone use and discussed next steps for district policy ahead of a state implementation deadline in mid‑2025.
The district collected feedback from three groups — high‑school students, families and staff — to inform a local policy after Ohio Governor Mike DeWine signed statewide legislation requiring districts to adopt rules on cell‑phone use during the school day. The presentation showed roughly two‑thirds participation from the district’s 9–12 population in the student survey and indicated most students bring phones to school daily.
Why it matters: board members said they want a consistent policy that reduces classroom distraction while preserving emergency access and recognizing varied family needs. The state law sets a timeline for local policy adoption; Worthington leaders said they prefer to ground any change in the district’s own survey data and instructional practice.
Most important facts
• Participation and main findings: The district reported about 2,000 students (roughly two‑thirds of high‑school enrollment) completed the student survey; 94% of respondents said they bring phones to school daily and 84% cited communication with family as the most common reason for having a phone. Approximately 2,500 parents responded; about 1,000 were high‑school parents. About 462 staff members answered, including roughly 150 high‑school staff.
• Shared themes across groups: Emergency access, educational use at teacher discretion, concerns about distraction from learning, calls for consistent enforcement and interest in education about responsible use. Families expressed stronger concern about mental‑health impacts, with 69% reporting negative or very negative impressions of phone impacts on student mental health at school; 82% of families cited distraction as a primary concern. Among staff, about 89% flagged distraction and 87% said phone use had a negative impact on students during the day.
• Current practice and differences by level: Middle schools currently require phones and smartwatches to be stowed; high schools revised practice this year to ban phones during class time (bell‑to‑bell) while allowing access between classes, at lunch and during academic prep periods. The district said high‑school principals report the change tightened expectations and reduced classroom distraction compared with a prior “stoplight” approach of red/yellow/green.
Board response and next steps
Board members and staff agreed the district should pair any policy wording with education on responsible digital use. The board directed the policy committee to review survey results and the current practice over the winter so it can be prepared to propose policy language by summer 2025 if needed. Board members also asked staff to consider a midyear follow‑up survey to check implementation and compliance, and to report back on smart‑watch practice at the elementary level (the district said elementary principals will ask families to keep smart watches stowed during the school day, with exceptions for IEPs or other documented needs).
Context and constraints
District presenters noted that student phone activity in school can often be completed on district‑issued laptops, and that some student requests reflect wanting phone access during downtime (academic prep or lunch). The district emphasized there will always be exceptions for medical or individualized‑education reasons, and that final policy language must reflect both legal requirements and local implementation realities.
What’s next
The policy committee will review practices and survey findings this winter; the board requested that staff consider a midyear survey to measure compliance and student adjustment. Any formal policy change would follow the board’s standard two‑meeting approval process.

