Cannon County board reviews cell-phone survey and proposes adding misuse to code of conduct

Cannon County Board of Education members on Sept. 11 reviewed results of student and parent surveys about wireless communication devices and discussed a proposed technical change to the student code of conduct that would add "misuse of wireless communication device" as a Level 1 misbehavior.

District staff presented data from 154 student survey responses and an unspecified number of parent responses and recommended adding the language to policy 6.3 and cross-referencing the district's cell-phone procedure at policy 6.312 so the code and procedures align.

"You should receive the survey results from the students and from parents," said Miss Julie, district staff, while introducing the findings. She said many parents supported the district's existing rule requiring no phones during school time and that parents expressed comfort with using the office to contact their children.

District presenters told the board the student data showed pockets of perceived improvement in classroom engagement since the restrictions were in place. According to the presentation, 35 percent of students (54 respondents) said they saw increased participation among classmates; 33 percent (51 respondents) reported increased participation for themselves; and roughly 34 percent (53 respondents) said they perceived teachers to be more engaged. The district also reported 58 phone-related disciplinary contacts since implementation, of which 45 were first-time offenses and 13 were second-time offenses; staff said the current average was about three incidents per day.

Board members and school-site staff described classroom and supervision changes since implementation. "I went into the lunchroom just to see what was going on there ... they were talking," said a teacher who reported students returning to conversational and play activities at the elementary level. A middle-school administrator told the board that out of 409 students at that school, there had been only one repeat phone offense during the current monitoring period.

Board discussion focused on what formal approval the board must take to make the code-and-procedure alignment permanent. "As far as approving anything, the only thing that you all would need to approve as a board is looking at our code of conduct policy 6.3 and adding under the misbehaviors to level 1, a statement of misuse of wireless communication device and then cross reference that at the bottom of that policy with our cell phone policy of 6.312," Miss Julie said. She also told the board that handbook language does not require board approval but recommended central-office review to ensure consistency between policies and handbooks.

Board members asked that central office staff verify handbook language and recommended that Miss Alexander review the handbooks for alignment. District staff said they would continue to monitor incidents and provide updated data to the board.

The board did not record a final vote on the policy language during the workshop; staff indicated they would place any formal policy change on a future agenda after the cross-check and handbook alignment.

The conversation included practical classroom examples, teacher emails of support for the current policy and continuing data collection; no statutory authorities beyond the district policies were cited during the discussion.