Board hears first reading on proposed cell-phone policy; discussion focuses on equity, enforcement and 6'12 buildings

The St. Paul Public School District Board of Education held a first reading and extended discussion on proposed board policy 550, covering cell phones and personal electronic devices, at its Jan. 7 meeting. Staff presented survey results, stakeholder feedback and a draft policy that would restrict device use during school hours and allow high schools to develop documented, school-level plans for limited use.

Jody Danielson, director of schools and learning, summarized community engagement conducted in November and December, including surveys of students, staff and families and meetings with parent advisory councils. Danielson said staff found students generally prefer less restrictive rules while parents and school employees favor tighter limits; respondents also urged clearer, consistently enforced policies and accommodations for special programs and family communication needs.

Under the draft language presented, the district would prohibit personal electronic devices during school hours for all grade bands by default, but allow schools that include grades 9'12 to develop a documented plan, with stakeholder input, permitting use at passing time, lunch and before or after school. Danielson said the intent is to teach older students responsible device use rather than creating a blanket prohibition as students age into colleges and workplaces.

Board members raised multiple implementation questions during the discussion. Director Chantal Allen stressed the need to avoid policies that increase exclusionary discipline, saying the district cannot "resort back to the same thing that's causing the same disparities." She pressed staff for details on how discipline would be operationalized and how rights and responsibilities would be updated to avoid escalating suspensions or unequal enforcement.

Directors asked whether a single building could have different expectations for middle-school and high-school students in a combined 6'12 facility, a point that drew repeated attention. Director Carlo Franco urged that "all sixth graders follow a middle school expectation" even if they share a building with older students, citing concerns about uneven application and age-appropriate expectations. Vice Chair Bridal Ward and others noted practical complications, such as staff having to distinguish students by grade in passing areas, but agreed the board should explore guidance for 6'12 buildings before the second reading.

Board members also requested clearer language on annual school-level review of any documented plan. Director Franco and other members asked that plans include measurable goals and an annual review requirement so a school will revise a documented plan that does not reduce in-school device use or produce the intended outcomes.

Other topics raised included: how emergency use of devices would be handled in school emergency operations plans, how parents would contact students if phones are restricted, the role of student voice in school-level plans, and the potential to use positive incentives and MTSS (multi-tiered systems of support) tools to reduce device use rather than rely solely on punitive measures.

Danielson closed by outlining next steps: additional focus groups with students and staff to inform implementation details, a second reading of the policy on Jan. 21 with proposed edits reflecting board feedback, a third reading Feb. 18, and a district implementation plan with rights and responsibilities updates to follow if the board adopts the policy.

The January session was a discussion-only first reading; no new board policy was adopted at this meeting.