LCSD1 trustees agree to share staff cell-phone survey with principals as policy review begins
Loading...
Summary
Trustees reviewed results of a district staff survey on portable electronic devices and directed the superintendent to share school-level results with building principals for local review before any formal policy change.
The Laramie County School District No. 1 Board of Trustees on Monday discussed staff survey results on student use of portable electronic devices and directed Superintendent Newton to distribute school-specific survey data to building principals for follow-up.
Trustees said the survey — completed by more than 300 certified and classified staff — showed widespread concern about in-class distractions and uneven implementation of the district's existing cell-phone policy. “Of the 355 people that responded, 68% of them mentioned at least once that they'd like to see a policy change,” a trustee reported during the meeting.
The discussion followed a staff update that Trustees Cook and Claussen described as prompting next steps. Trustee Cook said secondary principals told her they would “welcome stronger, more clearly worded policy” and proposed keeping phones out of K–8 classrooms. “I would propose that there's no cell phones from k through 8,” Cook said. Trustee Humphrey and others supported sharing the data with building administrators first so principals can assess how the district policy is being implemented.
District technology director Mr. McKinney answered a question about whether district-issued iPads block AI services: “we do not block any AI services,” he said, noting the district had discussed equity concerns when ChatGPT first appeared.
Board members repeatedly framed the issue as two separate problems: (1) whether the policy language needs revision, and (2) whether existing policy is being implemented with fidelity at every school. The board did not vote on policy changes.
The board directed Superintendent Newton to send each school's survey responses only to that school's administration and asked principals to review the data and report back with implementation feedback. Trustees emphasized they expected principals and administrative teams to return recommendations before any districtwide policy revision was drafted.
The discussion did not produce formal amendments to Board Policy at Monday's meeting; trustees said any draft revisions would come later after principals' input and additional staff conversations.
Trustees said the staff survey was distributed to certified and classified staff in mid‑March; the district estimated roughly 600 certified staff and reported more than 300 responses overall, which trustees characterized as a strong response rate.
