Policy review committee delays adoption of draft cell-phone rules after questions on enforcement, storage and scope

The ISD 190 School Board policy review committee considered draft Policy 5.24 on personal electronic communications devices and cell phones during its April 15, 2025 meeting and agreed to return the policy to staff for revisions and clarifications before bringing it back to the committee.

The draft, presented by Dr. Chris Belmont, relies on Minnesota School Boards Association (MSBA) model language and distinguishes expectations by age group: K–8 students are expected to keep devices “away for the day,” while grades 9–12 are restricted primarily during instructional time. Dr. Chris Belmont said the district “started with the MSBA model policy” and worked with school administrators to adapt language after site-level conversations beginning last June.

Committee members asked for specific edits and clarifications. Director Ault asked whether the storage examples in section 3(f)—“in the student’s backpack, in the student’s locker, locked pouch, or designated place in the classroom”—were sufficiently inclusive of other common items such as purses or handbags, noting that not all students carry backpacks. “Do we think that that is all the backpack and that terminology is all encompassing?” Ault asked. The presenter said staff would review and adjust wording as needed.

Members pressed for clarity on the policy’s operational details and enforcement mechanics. Several directors questioned whether staff would need to return to the committee when site-level procedures change, how to record or document approvals or overturns of grade changes tied to discipline, and who—teacher, student or administrator—would physically bring a seized phone to an office. Dr. Belmont said the policy aims to give administrators discretion while pairing policy with the student handbook, but the committee asked staff to tighten language around enforcement steps and chain-of-custody for devices.

The committee also debated the policy’s language on device state. Dr. Belmont summarized administrative feedback: “The intent was for it to be non disruptive…and they had real concerns about how to enforce that policy language, that they don't have the resources nor the wherewithal to differentiate if something's turned off or silenced.” Directors discussed whether requiring devices to be “turned off” rather than merely “silenced” would be more enforceable. One director noted the counterargument that if a device “buzzes” or “rings” it is plainly not silent.

Members raised questions about the policy’s prohibition on using devices “to record, transmit, post audio, videos, on school grounds” and asked how that would apply to sporting events or other extracurricular activities held on school property. A director said the current wording could be read to forbid routine recording at athletic events and asked staff to clarify whether exceptions for extracurricular events, athletic contests or noninstructional times were intended.

Committee members also discussed practical options for secure device storage. Staff described classroom or school-level solutions and referenced “Yondr” style pouches used elsewhere. The presentation included an approximate cost estimate for a districtwide pouch system for grades 6–12: about $150,000 in initial launch money and roughly $20,000 in annual upkeep and maintenance. The committee asked staff to provide a more detailed cost breakdown and alternatives.

Several administrators shared anecdotal evidence about student behavior: one administrator told the committee that a ninth-grade team “saw a remarkable difference between last year's ninth graders and this year's ninth graders because they had the cell phones away.” But directors emphasized the need to balance consistent districtwide expectations with differing building schedules and cultures; they asked staff to remove references to “school buildings” where the policy is intended to operate by grade level rather than by individual sites.

The committee instructed staff to revise the draft to clarify storage language (including whether items besides backpacks should be named), tighten enforcement steps and custodial procedures for devices, clarify the recording/transmitting prohibition for extracurricular events, provide a cost/benefit analysis of pouch systems and confirm cross-references with policy 6.34 (screen time and acceptable use). The chair indicated the item will return to the committee after those revisions.

Ending: The committee did not adopt Policy 5.24 at the April 15 meeting. Staff were directed to return with revised language, legal clarifications and implementation cost estimates; the committee also noted the possibility of state legislative changes that could require further adjustment.