Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Siloam Springs High School reports fewer phone violations after enforcing device policy 4.54
Summary
Administrator presented enforcement data for Board Policy 4.54 showing 401 student device incidents in the fall semester and 104 incidents to date in the spring; policy requires phones be off and put away 'bell to bell' and sets stepwise discipline that resets each semester.
Dr. Miller, speaking to the Siloam Springs School District Board, presented data the high school compiled after implementing Board Policy 4.54 governing personal electronic devices.
Dr. Miller told the board that Policy 4.54 requires ‘‘students are required to have their phones turned off and put away from bell to bell every class period.’’ She described the established disciplinary progression: a first violation results in a warning and confiscation with parent pickup; second violation is after‑school detention and confiscation with parent pickup; third is in‑school suspension and confiscation; fourth and fifth are two in‑school suspensions; sixth is three in‑school suspensions; and the cycle repeats with the semester resetting the counts.
Dr. Miller said the high school recorded 401 total incidents during the fall semester (Aug. 19–Dec. 20). Her breakdown for the fall: ninth grade 66 total incidents (119 warnings recorded across incidents for fall), 28 ASDs and 19 ISS; sophomores 95 incidents (66 warnings, 20 ASD, 9 ISS); juniors 89 incidents (46 warnings, 30 ASD, 13 ISS); seniors 51 incidents (39 warnings, 12 ASD, no ISS). For the spring period she cut the count at March 10 (36 school days of the semester) and reported 104 incidents to date: freshmen 33 incidents (31 warnings, 2 ASD), sophomores 17 incidents (14 warnings, 2 ASD, 1 ISS), juniors 25 incidents (22 warnings, 2 ASD, 1 ISS) and seniors 29 incidents (26 warnings, 3 ASD).
Board members commented that the fall data trended down into the spring and that strong front‑end enforcement appeared to have produced compliance. Dr. Miller noted the discipline count restarts each semester and that some repeat offenders account for multiple entries in higher‑level discipline categories.
No policy change or board action was taken at the meeting; the presentation was described as an informational report and board members thanked staff for the analysis.
