Anoka‑Hennepin board debates strict limits on student cell phones; split over enforcement and exceptions

The Anoka‑Hennepin School Board spent more than two hours on July 14 debating a draft of Policy 507 that would restrict student cell phone and personal technology device (PTD) use during the school day, with sharp disagreement over how the rule should be enforced.

The draft, presented by district general counsel Tim Palmitir, states that “student cell phone use . . . is not permitted in the classroom or during instructional periods” while allowing limited exceptions for instructional uses and for certain technical programs. Palmitir said the policy would also add consequences for violations, including “temporary confiscation of the phone and requirement of meeting with the student's parent or guardian as a precondition to return to the device.”

Board members and staff said a policy is intended to reduce classroom distractions and improve student learning. Director Odette argued the evidence shows phones have “a direct link” to worsening student mental‑health and behavior problems and said she remains “committed to a total ban of phones in schools.” Several board members emphasized the district should avoid putting enforcement burdens on teachers. Director Arco repeatedly urged a parent‑led enforcement model and proposed that if a student refuses to surrender a phone the district hold the device until a parent meets with administrators.

Administrators described limited exceptions. Palmitir said career and technical classes sometimes need students to collect photos or work samples using phones while working off‑site, and the draft tries to preserve those uses. The policy also narrows emergency exceptions to “actual real emergency situations” rather than routine parent‑student contacts, Palmitir said.

Board members debated whether to require district‑provided storage in classrooms, allow building‑level discretion, or pilot specific solutions. Several speakers suggested magnetically sealed or lockable pouches (referred to in the discussion by a vendor example) as a way to keep phones on students but inaccessible during the school day. Director Simon and others recommended pilots be school‑led (schools volunteer to test a solution) and urged clear guidance so that enforcement does not fall to classroom teachers. Director Arco proposed piloting his stricter, parent‑enforcement approach at one or two high schools and asked other members to consider parallel pilots.

Superintendent McIntyre and multiple board members asked staff to refine the language and bring a revised version back; McIntyre noted the board has a work session scheduled for Aug. 11 and suggested that timeline as a target for a revised draft. Several board members also asked for clearer procedures describing progressive discipline, administrative roles in enforcement, and communications that would inform families ahead of the school year.

Public comments earlier in the meeting included high‑school‑aged speakers who urged either classroom integration of phones or protections against overuse. Student Cedar Kilby said “integration of cell phones is the best way to sort of handle them in schools.” Recent graduate Emily McCuller urged instruction on responsible phone use alongside preservation of arts and extracurriculars.

The board did not vote on the policy; members directed staff to redraft the policy language and implementation guidance, involve building principals and teachers in the next steps, and return with options at an upcoming work session.

The board's continued deliberations indicate the district intends to adopt a clearer, enforceable policy before the start of the 2025–26 school year.