Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Cell Phone Ban topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public calls for bell-to-bell cell‑phone ban at Albany board meeting
Summary
Parents, a pediatrician and members of a district task force urged the Albany City School District Board of Education to adopt a bell‑to‑bell student cell‑phone ban, citing classroom distraction, mental health and links to student fights. Board members pressed for logistics and noted the district is studying other districts’ experiences.
Dozens of residents and members of a district task force told the Albany City School District Board of Education that a firm, bell‑to‑bell ban on student cell phones would improve learning and safety. Public comment at the meeting focused on the proposed policy change; speakers included parents, a pediatrician and task‑force members who said the district should move ahead despite expected logistical challenges.
The first written comment read by the board came from Jennifer Lang, a parent and former board member, who said she supports “a cell phone ban for our students during academic hours in the City Albany City School District.” Another written commenter, Eliza Kent, wrote that “Our phones now feel as much part of us as a hand or an eye,” and argued that phone and social‑media design intentionally captures attention.
A parent, Alicia Sears, told the board she moved a child to private school because of classroom distraction and wrote in a letter that she “support[s] a district‑wide implementation of a bell to bell phone ban because all families should be able to send their kids to school in an environment without the distraction of cell phones.”
Dr. Gina Madden, a pediatrician who said she serves on the district’s cell‑phone task force, urged the board to act on health and learning grounds: “Phones are first and foremost addictive. It's correlated with poor academic performance, particularly for our most vulnerable and struggling students,” she told the board. Dr. Madden also said teachers favor restrictions because they want to teach without students scrolling or watching videos in class.
Doreen Solot, a parent and task‑force member, cited research and other districts’ experience, saying a U.K. study found that “the lowest achieving students did a lot better” after bans. She listed U.S. districts that have implemented bans and are often cited as models: Baltimore, Houston, Los Angeles, New Haven, New York City, Philadelphia and nearby examples such as Troy High School, Poughkeepsie and Holyoke.
Board members acknowledged the strength of public comment and raised implementation questions. Vice President Tabitha Wilson and board member Smith emphasized that a stated commitment to equity must be backed by actions; Danvers Mann and others asked practical questions about how coaches and parents would receive timely communications if phones are collected or prohibited during the day. Board staff and task‑force members said those logistical questions—how to communicate with families, tiered consequences that avoid out‑of‑school suspensions and how coaches reach athletes—are precisely what the task force is studying.
No vote on a district‑wide ban was held at the meeting. Board members said they will continue to review task‑force findings and examples from other districts before advancing any formal policy to the policy committee or the full board.
