Laredo ISD trustees discuss enforcement of Texas House Bill 1481, seek state grant for student-device storage

Laredo — Trustees and district leaders on Aug. 13 discussed how Laredo Independent School District will implement Texas House Bill 1481, which restricts student electronic communication during instructional time, and reviewed a state grant the district may apply for to purchase secure storage for student devices.

The district’s legal counsel, Dr. Óscar Pérez, told trustees the law prohibits communication during instructional time and that the district’s current approach is to require students to keep devices powered off and stored for the duration of the school day — from the first bell to the last bell, including passing periods and lunch. Pérez said administrators and campus behavior coordinators were briefed and that exceptions for students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) or 504 plans will remain in place and handled through the usual special-education processes.

Why this matters: HB 1481 changes which device behaviors are punishable during instruction and requires districts to adopt feasible, legal procedures that protect instruction while respecting due process. The Laredo ISD discussion addressed who may seize or hold devices, storage logistics during testing and non‑backpack days, and how to notify families and staff.

Trustees and administrators emphasized enforcement will mostly be an administrative function. Classroom-level management and teacher interventions remain the primary first steps; confiscated devices are to be labeled and turned into campus administration, which will follow the student code of conduct’s progressive consequences for first, second and third offenses. Pérez said the district’s prior practice — confiscation for devices that disrupt instruction — remains relevant under the new law because the statutory violation centers on communication, not mere possession.

On law-enforcement involvement, Lieutenant Camarillo (Laredo ISD police) cautioned that officers may not use force to take a student’s phone unless a crime or safety exigency is occurring. “If a crime is not committed, the officer cannot use force to take away the student phone,” he told trustees, adding that officers are intended to secure safety and then hand incidents to administration rather than make seizures that could escalate into arrests.

The board also discussed practical storage options and grant funding. District staff identified a Texas grant program that will allocate roughly $20 million statewide to help districts buy secure storage solutions. Perez described the district’s preliminary scoring under the grant rubric and the tentative funding math the district used for a draft application: - The district’s socioeconomic index was reported as about 97.13, earning several points under the scoring rubric; combined with other factors staff preliminarily count 7 of a possible 10 points for Laredo ISD. - Using October PEIMS counts cited in the presentation, district staff produced preliminary per-student estimates for grant awards by grade band: $12.50 per student for roughly 65% of 9–12 enrollee counts, $10 per student for a 25% slice of 6–8 counts, and $7.50 for an estimated 10% of K–5 counts. Those calculations yielded a preliminary total in the range of about $68,080.13. Pérez said the district had not yet submitted the application and would confirm all PEIMS numbers before any filing.

Administrators raised operational questions that the board asked staff to resolve: whether devices may always remain in backpacks (what to do on days when backpacks are not permitted), how to handle two-factor authentication or testing scenarios where a phone might be needed briefly, whether charging cabinets or locked cubbies are permissible under the grant, and how to identify campus “hot spots” that need monitoring. Pérez and other staff said they would survey campuses for hot spots and gather more detail about storage options before finalizing an application.

Trustees asked about special-education implications and documentation. Pérez said staff would review each campus’ IEP and 504 rosters and handle accommodations through the established ARD/504 processes. He advised that if parents request device exceptions for students, ARD committees would need to address and document those accommodations.

What the board directed: Trustees did not take a formal vote on a local policy change during the meeting. Instead they asked staff to refine procedures and prepare materials — including a clear parent and staff communications plan — and to return with specifics about the grant application and recommended storage options. Pérez and other administrators said the district would continue outreach via media and campus communications while seeking clearer implementation guidance from the state and documenting campus-level protocols.

The next steps include finalizing the grant application numbers, collecting campus hotspot maps for enforcement planning, and preparing recommended administrative regulations and any necessary student-code amendments for board approval. The district has already updated and reapproved a student code of conduct on July 24, and staff said they would align any new enforcement procedures with that code.

Ending: Trustees stressed the importance of clear communication to parents and staff about what HB 1481 requires, how exceptions will be handled, and who will be responsible for enforcement at campus level. The district continues to develop its storage plans and has not yet submitted the state grant application.