Cellphone committee recommends limiting phones in academic settings; staff to update discipline matrix

A district cellphone committee that included parents, students, teachers, principals and administrators reported survey-driven recommendations to the Sioux Falls School District 49-5 board at a work session, proposing clearer limits on student cellphone use and recommending updates to the district’s discipline matrix.

Dr. Nold, the staff member who led the committee, said the group of 36 conveners collected roughly 12,100 survey responses — including nearly 4,900 parent responses, more than 1,200 teacher responses and nearly 6,000 student responses from middle and high school — and used those responses, committee discussion and research studies to form recommendations.

Key committee recommendations were: - Elementary: Cellphones and similar personal devices should not be used during the academic day. The committee recommended that phones not be used on district-operated buses for elementary students; however, the committee recommended not treating bus use as an automatic disciplinary offense unless the phone’s use creates a disruption. Dr. Nold explained enforcement on buses is difficult and said principals can review onboard video when needed to investigate disruptive incidents. - Middle school: Students may possess and use cellphones on district buses but should not use them during the school day (start to finish), a position the committee recommended be enforced at school-level staff and team levels. - High school: The committee recommended permitting personal-device use in commons and lunch areas and, by a narrow margin (committee vote 16–14), permitting use during passing time. The committee recommended cellphones not be used during academic class periods except for rare, principal-approved occasions; the committee said Chromebooks issued by the district provide devices for instruction and principals should approve exceptional classroom use.

Dr. Nold said the committee began work on how these recommendations would appear in the discipline matrix and has begun revising language in consultation with principals. He told the board that changes to the discipline matrix do not require board action unless the board chose to adopt cellphone policy in district policy instead of carrying changes in the matrix.

Board members asked about enforcement and consistency across buildings; principals and staff said schools would publicize expectations before the school year and that building administrators would carry out enforcement and handle many issues at team or school level. Several board members and committee participants emphasized consistent application across classrooms and schools would be critical to avoid uneven enforcement.

Why it matters: The recommendations aim to limit device-related disruptions in instruction while allowing some student access in non-academic settings. Changes will be implemented through administrative updates to the discipline matrix unless the board directs a formal policy change.

Next steps: Staff will finish revisions to the discipline matrix, communicate expectations to schools and families in July–August, and monitor enforcement during the school year; the board may elect to place any policy change on a future meeting agenda if it prefers policy-level action.