Lakota board reviews draft cell-phone policy that would ban phones 'bell to bell' for instruction

Lakota Board of Education members on March 4 reviewed a draft district cellphone policy that would prohibit most student phone use during instructional time while allowing limited use during passing periods, lunch and teacher-directed classroom activities.

Staff presenter Christina (staff member) told the board the document is still a draft and that the district is watching possible state legislation that could impose a uniform ban during the instructional day. "I do just wanna reiterate this is in draft form," Christina said, adding that the district might have to revise the policy if the legislature acts.

The draft separates elementary (K–6) from secondary (7–12) rules and frames the baseline expectation as "out of sight, out of mind" for devices during class time. For enforcement the district is proposing a progressive-discipline approach: verbal warning, confiscation and storage, confiscation until the end of the day, or requiring parent pickup. The draft also describes teacher-directed exceptions for instructional activities such as QR-code tasks.

Board members and staff discussed three enforcement and equity concerns: whether phones should be stored in lockers (some board members said locker access could be impractical in a safety emergency), whether teachers or principals should retain classroom-level discretion, and how to accommodate students who have Section 504 plans or individualized education programs (IEPs) that include needed phone access during the day. Christina noted the draft allows exceptions tied to a student’s 504 plan or IEP, and reminded the board that those protections would need to be respected if state law changes.

On storage and daily routine the board discussed several operational alternatives. The draft proposes classroom-mounted clear pockets (described in the meeting as the back-of-door "shoe holder" style) where students would drop phones on entry and reclaim them at dismissal; some board members said numbered pockets ease accountability and speed transitions during class. Several members urged that staff model phone expectations and that the district consult association leadership to adjust staff norms and expectations before launch.

Board members also flagged process and timing issues. The presenter warned the board the state biennial budget could change the legal requirements and that the district may need to alter the draft: "We might have a policy that gets gets overwritten," Christina said. The board discussed a timeline to return a revised draft to the policy committee, hold a policy reading and seek board approval in the spring so the update could be included in 2025–26 student handbooks or parent communications over the summer.

Next steps the board directed staff to take the board's suggested edits back to the policy committee, clarify teacher- vs. principal-level discretion in the draft, confirm how the policy would interact with students' 504/IEP accommodations, and return with refined language and an implementation timeline (including quantities and procurement plan for classroom storage pockets) for a future board meeting.

The board did not take a formal vote on the cellphone policy at the March 4 meeting.

Ending: Staff will refine the draft and return it to the policy committee for further review; the board discussed aiming for a policy read and possible approval in spring so summer communications and updated handbooks can reflect any new rules for 2025–26.