Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Discipline Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Student presenters say new phone policy is reducing classroom device use but enforcement is uneven
Summary
Student and staff observers reported fewer phones in class after the district’s new cell‑phone/personal device policy, but said follow‑through and consistent enforcement varied by grade and campus.
Student representatives told the board the new personal‑electronic‑device policy has reduced visible phone use in many classrooms, but enforcement depends on staff follow‑through and administrative support.
Why this matters: The district is revising its policy language to replace “cell phone” with a broader term “personal electronic communication device” and principals presented pilot observations for middle and high schools.
A student presenter said “at the high school, there's not a lot of cell phones out while teachers are talking,” and reported increased classroom interaction. The student added that in the middle school “it's a lot less phones in just the school period” but characterized seventh and eighth graders as harder to reach on the new rules.
Students and staff praised teacher and administrator support when the policy is enforced. The student said assistant principals and deans “are really helpful” when situations escalate beyond a classroom teacher’s capacity. But both student and staff observers said consequences after an initial warning are uneven; the student said, “phones aren't even really taken anymore” in some cases compared with stricter enforcement at the start of the school year.
Board discussion aimed at clarifying enforcement outcomes. When asked how students would react if the policy were enforced consistently, the student replied enforcement would initially be met with resistance but “once it becomes a policy, we actually crack down on it and actually, like, say, hey. There actually are consequences... I feel like kids will start to look at it as, like, oh, I really shouldn't have my phone on during class time.”
The superintendent reiterated that the policy update is a two‑reading process and that the board had discussed replacing narrow “cell phone” language with the broader “personal electronic communication device” phrasing recommended by Minnesota School Boards Association. The board will receive a second reading of the policy at a future meeting.
Ending: District leaders said they will continue to monitor enforcement, support staff training and report back to the board on policy outcomes at subsequent meetings.
