Glen Ellyn SD 41 superintendent leans toward extending device restrictions to K-8 after community survey

Jeff McHugh, superintendent of Glen Ellyn School District 41, said the district is likely to recommend expanding and enforcing its existing K-5 rules on student personal devices to K-8 after community engagement and surveys showed widespread support for stricter in-school limits.

"I'm probably 80%. Maybe 75, 80 percent," McHugh said when describing his current view of a possible recommendation. He told roughly 100 attendees at the March 3 Committee of the Whole meeting that he would aim to present a board recommendation by the March 17 meeting or, at the latest, the April meeting.

The recommendation under consideration would keep personal devices — defined by district staff as cellphones, smartwatches and AirPods — permitted to be brought to school but require they be out of sight and not used during the school day. McHugh said that under his tentative plan, smartwatches could be brought to school but would not be allowed to remain worn on a student’s wrist during the day.

District survey results and engagement shaped the discussion.

Eric DePorter, assistant superintendent for finance, facilities and operations, summarized participation: "We have 3,100 families in our in District 41 ... we had 630 responses. So we're floating around about 10%" of families; staff responses were about 50 of roughly 500 staff members (about 30%). The student survey included roughly 1,400 fourth- through eighth-grade responses, McHugh said.

Survey and focus-group findings presented at the meeting showed broad support for full-day restrictions. McHugh said more than three-quarters of parent and staff respondents favored stricter, full-day limits at the elementary level; at Hadley (the district's junior high level addressed in the survey) 53.6% of parents and 51% of staff favored full-day restrictions.

Students’ self-reports were mixed. McHugh said about half of students reported devices were not distracting, while "48.2% said they are sometimes distracting, and 3.5% said they are very distracting." He added that about three-quarters of students said they want phones in school and nine out of 10 said they want watches; many students told administrators they wanted devices for "emergencies."

Ethan, a member of the student superintendent advisory council, said students meant major safety events when they cited emergency access: "Maybe it was bigger, like, a school wide shutdown, maybe?" he said.

Principals and staff described enforcement challenges. Steve Dively, principal of Hadley, said classroom appearances can be misleading: "When an adult walks in, it all looks great, right? What's happening under the desk ... the watches don't seem like a major disruption, but I also see the same data that everybody else does." Several teachers and administrators told table groups that smartwatches in particular complicate enforcement because they enable discrete texting and other interactions.

Table discussions and public commenters raised recurring themes: the need for consistent enforcement across schools and grades; parent and student education on responsible device use; clear, districtwide communication about rules and consequences; special-education and medical-waiver exceptions; and consideration of alternatives for emergency communication so families can reach children without students having continuous device access.

During table report-outs, attendees suggested specific approaches such as phone pouches in classrooms, limited check-in windows (morning, lunch, end of day), a pilot year for policy changes to allow adjustment, and parent education sessions explaining the rationale and procedures.

Public comments at the meeting also tied the device discussion to a separate but related concern about instructional technology. Chris Martelli, a parent and former educator, urged the district to balance screen time and in-person, problem-based learning. Student commenters noted Chromebooks are used for homework and other instruction, and some parents asked that the district consider limiting Chromebook free-time and provide guidance to parents on device management at home.

McHugh said instructional-technology questions (Chromebooks and classroom devices) will be the next phase of community engagement and that the district plans broader work on that topic. "The instructional technology part is gonna be bigger," he said, and said he expects further convenings and a working group to follow.

McHugh closed by asking community members to submit any additional written feedback and reiterated that the board will decide whether to adopt any policy changes. He emphasized the process: community input would be reviewed, the administration would refine a recommendation, and the board would vote on any formal change.

Ending: The board’s next regular meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 17; McHugh said he expected to bring an initial recommendation on student personal-device policy at or before that meeting and would follow up publicly with detailed proposals and any proposed administrative procedures before a final board vote.