Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Device Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses tighter wireless-device rules for K–8 and restrooms, will revise procedure
Summary
Trustees debated updates to Procedure 5-305 on student wireless devices and directed staff to redraft text clarifying that personal phones and smartwatches be stowed during class for K–8, allow limited passing-period use for high school, and explicitly ban cameras in restrooms and locker rooms.
Mesa Public Schools trustees spent substantial time on July 8 discussing Procedure 5-305, the student code-of-conduct rules for wireless communication devices. The board did not vote on a procedure (procedures are administrative), but trustees gave staff direction to clarify language and expectations before the procedure is posted in two consecutive status cycles.
Several trustees recommended stricter rules for younger students. Member Chaffee proposed extending a bell-to-bell restriction from K–6 to K–8 so elementary and middle-school students would keep personal devices in backpacks during instructional time. Member Walton and others urged explicit language making personal devices (phones, smartwatches) distinct from district-issued laptops and clarifying that district devices intended for classroom use are permitted.
Trustees agreed to add a firm prohibition on the use of personal devices with cameras in restrooms and locker rooms; district counsel noted that while monitoring every restroom use is unenforceable, taking and sharing images in those settings is already prohibited and grounds for disciplinary action. The proposed procedure will also specify that parents seeking to contact students during the school day should contact the school office rather than directly text the student, except in an emergency. Board members asked staff to tighten definitions, explain how medical devices and medical alerts will be handled, and prepare consistent start-of-year training materials for principals and staff to ensure uniform implementation.
Superintendent Matthew Strom and district counsel Casey King said they will incorporate the board’s feedback, refine the procedure language (for example clarifying “personal device” vs. “district device”), and post the revised procedure for the required status-review period. The board directed staff to return with a final text and communications plan describing expectations for the first weeks of the school year.
