CMCSS board reviews broad updates to student code of conduct, weighs stricter cellphone limits

The Clarksville-Montgomery County School System (CMCSS) Board of Education on a study-session night received a first reading of proposed updates to the student code of conduct for the 2025–26 school year, including a new districtwide limit on student cellphone and personal electronic device use and additions for unapproved artificial‑intelligence use in academic integrity cases.

The proposed revisions, presented by Matt Sleight, a CMCSS staff member, would prohibit student use of personal communication devices during the instructional day, move such violations from a Category 1 offense to Category 2 (with escalating consequences for repeat offenses), and clarify that teachers — not only administrators — may confiscate devices. The changes also add “unapproved AI use” to cheating/plagiarism/forgery language, specify remand ranges of 30 or 90 days for Category 4 offenses, and clarify bus‑fighting consequences including a 5–15 day bus suspension and potential out‑of‑school suspension at the principal’s discretion.

Why it matters: school leaders said the changes aim to protect instructional time and align consequences with new state requirements. Vice Chairman Lanier, who led the cellphone recommendation, described multiple ways devices disrupt instruction and student safety, including "filming and sharing videos of other students without their consent" and coordination of fights via text messages. The district also cited results from Kenwood High School’s no‑cellphone policy: "a large change in the instructional learning atmosphere," and early data the presenters said showed decreases in some behavior incidents after Kenwood’s policy was implemented.

Details of the proposal and board questions

Sleight said the district’s annual review includes input from department chairs, legal counsel, school administrators and broad stakeholder surveys. On cellphones, the draft would require students to turn phones off or set them silent and keep devices out of sight during the instructional day; principals could allow device use during specified times such as lunch or for documented medical accommodations. The draft states that "school administration may search and review electronic devices" if there is suspicion of a rules violation and that students have "no expectation of privacy for cell phone use." It also says students "assume all responsibility for lost or stolen devices."

Vice Chairman Lanier, who presented the cellphone language, argued for stricter enforcement and said schools that restrict phones at all times reported quieter, more focused classrooms. "These devices can be a distraction in the learning environment during instructional time," Lanier said.

Board members asked about consistency of enforcement across schools and whether the lunch exemption should remain. Board member Mabry asked why lunch was left as a possible exception; Lanier and staff said the district is trying to balance approaches used at different schools and that some principals have found limited cellphone use at lunch reduces tensions in the cafeteria. Board member Bryant asked about tracking results; staff said discipline incidents are recorded in PowerSchool and that the district "keeps data on everything." Board member Garland asked for demographic breakdowns of cellphone‑related discipline; staff agreed they could provide incident data disaggregated by demographics and offense type.

Other substantive revisions include: - Academic integrity: unapproved use of AI would be explicitly added to cheating/plagiarism/forgery language and handled through referral and consequences; - Advanced Placement/dual‑enrollment: proposed alignment to college/university standards, including a 0 for a plagiarized assignment and possible removal from AP/dual enrollment after repeated offenses; - Category clarifications: removal of redundant modifiers (for example, deleting the unnecessary word "derogatory" in profanity categories) and clarification that Category 4 remandments are limited to defined 30‑ or 90‑day placements; - Bus fights: clarity that building‑level discipline applies and that transportation consequences (5–15 day bus suspension) and counseling referrals may follow.

No formal vote was taken; the item was presented as a "first read" for further consideration. Board members repeatedly emphasized the need for consistent enforcement across schools and clear communications to families and staff ahead of any implementation. "As we find that balance and continue to refine our student code of conduct… we continue to work towards guarding our instructional time as much as possible," Sleight said.

Next steps and context

Presenters said the draft also references a recent state law requiring districts to adopt a cellphone policy; the board’s legal counsel confirmed the legislature now requires districts to adopt such policies. Staff recommended more training and implementation work over the summer so teachers and principals can apply the rules consistently. Board members requested follow‑up data comparing behavior under the older points‑based system and the current category system, excluding the COVID years if possible, and asked staff to return with reports on discipline trends after implementation.

The first‑reading status means no policy change has been adopted. The board will consider further revisions and a future reading before any policy becomes final.