Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Discipline Wireless Devices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts wireless device policy to comply with state law; questions remain on enforcement
Summary
The Montgomery County Board of Education voted unanimously June 24 to approve a district wireless communication device policy required by Senate Bill 92 (the Focus Act). Board members raised practical questions about locker access, implementation and state guidance before the vote.
The Montgomery County Board of Education on June 24 unanimously approved a district policy on wireless communication devices to satisfy Senate Bill 92, known in discussion as the Focus Act. The board recorded the vote after district staff and legal counsel said state law requires boards to adopt a policy by July 1.
Ms. Wilson, a district staff member who presented the draft policy, told the board the Focus Act "requires us to approve this on by July 1." Attorney Powell confirmed the district had reviewed the draft policy and advised it be adopted to meet the statutory deadline. Superintendent Dr. Berg supported bringing the policy forward for approval and said the district would follow up with detailed implementation steps.
Board members pressed staff about practical aspects of enforcing device restrictions. Board member Portis asked where implementation materials would be posted for parents; Hatch said the guidance and worksheets would be posted on the district website and made visible under the parent section by the start of school. Board member Cloud requested copies be distributed at required Title I parent meetings within the first 30 days of school.
Several trustees raised concerns about locker access in secondary schools. Cloud noted some buildings do not assign lockers to students; Wilson said the district has begun a locker assessment across secondary schools and that the district is developing a plan to ensure equitable access. Board members also asked whether instructional uses of district-issued devices would be permitted; Wilson replied that the policy allows district-issued devices to be used for instructional purposes and that a current acceptable-use policy must be signed before a device is issued.
Board members repeatedly asked whether the district should delay enforcement until state guidance clarified implementation. Ms. Wilson and Attorney Powell said state officials, including State Superintendent Mackey, had acknowledged confusion and were expected to provide additional guidance; district staff said they could add an administrative addendum if necessary and would coordinate with legal counsel. Attorney Powell noted the policy as presented is intended to be compliant with current law and that adopting it keeps the board in legal compliance while implementation details are finalized.
A motion to accept the superintendent's recommendation to adopt the policy was moved and seconded and passed unanimously by a show of hands.
The board directed staff to return with details for communication to families and to work with counsel to develop a definitive code-of-conduct entry once state guidance is issued. No enforcement date beyond the statutory requirement was specified in the meeting record.
