Bradley County Board adopts state-aligned policy limiting student cell phone use; debate centers on confiscation period

The Bradley County Board of Education on Aug. 5 voted unanimously to adopt Policy 6.312, updating rules on the possession and use of wireless communication devices in schools to comply with state law referenced in the meeting as “public chapter 103, house bill 932.” The motion to adopt the policy, made by Miss Lee and carried on a 7-0 roll call, included waiving a second reading.

The policy requires students to have personal devices silenced and stored out of sight during the instructional day and establishes an emergency communication protocol required by the new state law. Bradley County staff described the policy as aligned with guidance from the Tennessee School Boards Association and with existing district due-process protections in Policy 6.302.

The adoption came after a public comment from Daniel Marlowe, a parent and resident of District 2, who said the proposed administrative consequences could create legal and equity problems. “This policy raises troubling legal and ethical and practical questions,” Marlowe said, adding that many phones are owned and paid for by parents and that seizing devices “places a disproportionate burden on low income families.” He also warned that confiscation could cut off families’ ability to contact older students in emergencies or to use tracking apps parents rely on to confirm location.

District staff described the policy and the high-school administrative device plan in detail. Dr. Cash said the school day is set from 08:15 to 03:30, and that devices must be silenced and stored out of sight or placed in a teacher-designated area such as a backpack or box. “Wireless communication devices do not include school-issued devices being used for academic purposes,” Dr. Cash said, and listed the statutory exceptions added to the procedure, including documented health needs, IEP or 504 accommodations and use of assistive technology.

Administrators outlined the graduated administrative consequences that will live in building-level procedures: on a first classroom-level violation a teacher turns the device over to administration, the parent is called and the device is kept until the end of the day; a second violation results in the device being held for seven calendar days with a parent pickup required; a third violation leads to a 15-calendar-day hold and potential loss of the privilege to bring devices on campus. Violations are entered into the student information system (Synergy) and may trigger disciplinary referrals for defiance if a student refuses to surrender a device.

Board members and administrators emphasized that the board was voting only on the policy, not the building-level procedures, and that principals retain discretion to work with families. Miss Lee and other administrators said the fee that previously appeared in older versions of procedures (a $50 or $100 charge to retrieve a device early, as raised in public comment) was removed before the vote. Miss Lee said administrators reported the fee was rarely, if ever, collected.

During discussion several board members said they supported the policy’s goal of protecting instructional time but expressed misgivings about the length of the confiscation windows. “I just don't like the idea of the 7 the 15 day confiscation,” said one member, who emphasized support for teachers but questioned whether those time frames impose an undue burden on families. Board members asked that the administration monitor implementation and return if adjustments are needed.

Miss Lee referenced a 2007 attorney general opinion discussed in the meeting that concluded it is permissible for schools to confiscate student cell phones; she also cited a U.S. District Court case in Middle Tennessee in which the court rejected a parent's claim that the school could not retain a device for 30 days. Those legal references were presented in support of the district’s chosen confiscation periods, which are shorter than the 30 days cited in the court decision.

The board approved the motion to adopt Policy 6.312 (first and second reading), with the roll call recorded as: Mr. Crackson — yes; Miss Lee — yes; Miss Gollins — yes; Miss Cason — yes; Mr. Taylor — yes; Miss Bacon — yes; Mr. Smith — yes (7 yes, 0 no). The board noted that the administrative procedures were developed collaboratively by principals across the secondary schools and that principals would continue to have leeway to work with families on individual situations.

The policy includes an emergency communication protocol the district said was added to comply with the new state law, and the district noted it will not be responsible for loss, damage or theft of devices. Members said they will watch implementation and expect the administration to report back if procedures prove problematic.

Votes at a glance: Policy 6.312 (Use of Wireless Communication Devices and Electronic Devices): motion to adopt and waive second reading carried 7-0; mover — Miss Lee; second — not specified in the record; outcome — approved.

The board moved on to announcements after the vote; principals and administration said they would continue to refine procedures and inform the board of any recommended changes.