Parents urge Sioux Falls board to ban cell phones; another speaker calls for removal of DEI policies

Two members of the public used the district’s nonagenda comment period to press the Sioux Falls School District board on separate issues: one urged a bell-to-bell cell phone ban in classrooms, and another urged the board to remove diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) language and policies from district materials.

Robin Shores Foster, a parent and clinical social worker, told the board she supported a bell-to-bell ban on student cell phones so students would be less distracted and better able to focus in class. “If you are looking at your cell phone or your cell phone is pinging or buzzing in your backpack, then it’s going to be hard to pay attention to what the teacher is trying to teach you,” Shores Foster said, adding that phone restrictions could reduce video-recorded fights and encourage in-person socialization.

Shores Foster also said limiting phone access could help mental health, citing research linking smartphone and social-media use with increased anxiety and depression among teens. She suggested practical measures such as phone lockers or requiring students to turn phones into first-period teachers.

Chad Bishop, who identified his residence in Sioux Falls, echoed some of Shores Foster’s points but raised additional concerns. Bishop said he understood parents’ safety reasons for providing phones but argued broader curricular changes as well: he urged making George Orwell’s 1984 required reading for juniors and seniors and recommended adding propaganda studies to social studies.

Bishop also urged the board to “completely and permanently eliminate” all DEI language and policies from the district. He cited a Feb. 14, 2025, letter from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights that, according to his remarks, directed entities receiving federal funds to remove race-based practices and gave a 14-day compliance window to do so; he said that letter set a Feb. 28, 2025, deadline for policy changes. Bishop warned that noncompliance, he said, could risk federal funding the district uses for special education, nutrition programs and operations.

Board members did not take action on either public comment item during the meeting. One board member responded to Bishop’s remarks by saying she had not witnessed discriminatory hiring practices among her colleagues during her six years on the board and invited further private discussion.

Earlier in the meeting, the board president read the district’s public-comment rules, noting time limits, restrictions on complaints about individual staff or students, and the process for follow-up responses by administration or board members in writing or at the meeting.