Seymour schools outline phased cell-phone procedure; board seeks consistent policy and education component

The Seymour Board of Education reviewed a proposed phased procedure to restrict student cell‑phone use in Seymour High School classrooms and common areas, with staff planning to return a formal policy for board approval.

Board members and administrators described a two‑phase approach. Phase one centers on an education module delivered in advisory during the first marking period to teach digital citizenship and set behavior goals; limited instructional uses of devices would be allowed at the teacher’s discretion. If agreed benchmarks are not met by the end of the year, the district would move to phase two with stricter classroom enforcement and disciplinary steps including verbal warnings, confiscation to the main office and detention for repeated violations.

The proposal includes classroom‑level procedures (out of sight and powered down at the start of class) and a system of one verbal warning per class followed by escalating consequences. Staff emphasized that instructional exceptions would remain possible when a teacher requires a device for learning. The administration said it intends to meet with student council throughout the school year while piloting the education component and that the board will revisit the procedure before moving to phase two.

Board members raised concerns about inconsistent application among teachers and coaches. One member asked that phase one require devices to be stored together (for example, in a single box) rather than leaving the storage method to individual teachers, saying varied teacher practices could pit teacher against teacher and reduce effectiveness. The administration acknowledged the point and suggested moving discretionary storage options into a later phase to preserve consistency early in implementation.

Members also referenced an external model labeled “CADE” in the materials, noting that it supports limiting non‑instructional device use and recommending policy alignment. The board asked staff to craft a formal policy (rather than only a procedure) that clarifies roles for the board, superintendent and building leaders and to bring a finalized proposal back for review and a vote in coming months.

The discussion occurred during the policy/procedure review portion of the meeting; no final board vote on a district‑wide cell‑phone policy was recorded at that session. The administration said it will continue consulting student council and teacher committees and return with a wrapped proposal for board consideration and likely adoption timing in the summer or the next school year.