Hillsboro R-III board reviews Senate Bill 68 safety provisions and proposed ban on student cellphones during instruction; policy tabled

At a recent Hillsboro R-III Board of Education meeting, trustees discussed implementation of safety provisions in Senate Bill 68 and a proposed change to the district's personal-communication-device policy that would prohibit student cellphone use during instructional time.

Board members said most of the bill's safety requirements align with current district practice. The district’s safety coordinator, Mr. Ramsey, and staff member Miss Woodham have worked on safety protocols and CPR training that the board said put the district “in really good shape” for much of the bill’s requirements. Dr. Drew, a district administrator, told the board the district already has many of the required plans and secure-entrance practices in place.

The discussion focused on the policy language that would treat cellphones and similar personal devices as prohibited during instruction. “The big one that is cell phone use is no longer permitted, during the instruction,” a presiding board member said during the meeting. Board discussion covered how the rule would be enforced, where devices should be stored during the school day, exceptions for approved educational uses, and technical monitoring limits when students are off the district network.

Why it matters: Board members said the change affects daily classroom management, teacher workload and discipline. The district noted a separate change in the law allowing attendance (ADA) to be counted during some out-of-school suspensions — a procedural and financial detail the board flagged as significant for implementation.

How the policy would work - Storage and enforcement: Board members discussed recommending that students place personal devices in lockers upon arrival and keep them there until dismissal. The presiding board member said the locker expectation is intended to reduce temptation and hallway usage. Administrators emphasized the policy is not intended to require principals to physically search pockets but to give staff a clear, consistent enforcement path. - Educational exceptions and procedures: The proposed policy allows authorized educational use of personal devices. Administrators said the district provides Chromebooks and that any additional student-owned device intended for instruction would be subject to an authorization procedure. The board discussed a registration or approval form for personally owned laptops and tablets so building administrators would know which devices are permitted and why. - Device types and monitoring: The policy text under consideration broadens the definition of personal communication devices to include cellphones, smartwatches, personal laptops and tablets. Board members noted the district can monitor devices when students are connected to the district network, but not when students use devices on cellular networks off the district Wi-Fi. That limitation factored into conversations about allowing certain devices for classroom instruction and how to document authorized uses. - Enforcement and disciplinary concerns: Administrators and board members discussed progressive discipline (warnings, detention, possible suspension for serious violations), the role of teachers versus administrators in enforcement, and the consequences if a student records inappropriate behavior. The presiding board member warned that recording a fight or other improper conduct would raise far more serious disciplinary issues than mere device possession.

Questions and concerns raised Several trustees and attendees pressed for clarity on implementation details: whether devices must be in lockers or may remain in backpacks/pockets, how smartwatches would be handled, how classroom teachers would distinguish district-issued Chromebooks from personally owned devices, and whether teachers would be expected to police devices every period. One board member suggested an administrative process that would require teachers who plan to use non-district devices in class to notify building administrators in advance.

MSBA guidance and alignment Board members referenced model language from MSBA included in the packet and discussed formatting the district policy to be broad enough to cover future device types while creating administrative procedures to manage authorized exceptions.

Board action and next steps A trustee moved to table formal approval of the revised language so administrators and building principals could develop clear procedures (including an approval form and a process for teachers to request authorized device use). The board voted to table the item; the transcript does not include a roll-call tally. Administrators will return with drafted procedures and recommended language at a future meeting and at a scheduled board workshop that will include an open-session discussion of the policy.

Ending The board did not adopt the policy at this meeting. Trustees directed staff to draft implementation procedures, including an authorization form and clearer definitions of authorized educational devices, and said they expect the policy to return for further discussion at the next board meeting and the upcoming board workshop.