Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Acceptable Use Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews first reading of acceptable‑use policy changes covering cell phones and AI
Summary
At the Feb. 10 meeting the Roseville Area School Board received a first reading of revisions to Policy 400 (acceptable use) to add a section directing administration to set cell phone rules and to incorporate AI guidance. The board did not take action; staff said building‑level rules will be adaptable.
At the Roseville Area School Board meeting on Feb. 10, staff presented a first reading of revisions to Policy 400 — the district's acceptable‑use policy — that add a new section directing the superintendent and administration to establish rules for student possession and use of cell phones and to incorporate guidance on artificial intelligence (AI).
"The superintendent and school district administration will establish rules and procedures regarding student possession and use of cell phones in schools," the draft policy reads, according to Associate Superintendent Melissa Sonnick. The policy language directs that the rules "seek to minimize the impact of cell phones on student behavior, mental health, and academic attainment" and allows administrators to craft rules specific to grade levels and buildings.
Sonnick and RAS associate principal Mike Schrader described the operational guidance staff developed in collaboration with principals. For grades K–8 staff proposed a "away for the day" approach: elementary students would check phones with the teacher or main office, and middle‑school students would keep phones silent and stored in backpacks or lockers during school hours. For grades 9–12 the guidance calls for a "time and place" approach, with phones stored at the start of class but allowed during passing time, lunch and before/after school.
Sonnick told the board the committee incorporated the Minnesota cell phone toolkit and was mindful of the 2024 Minnesota law that requires districts to adopt a policy on student possession and use of cell phones by March 2025. "This approach enables administrators to craft flexible and specific rules that are specific to grade levels and buildings," she said.
Students interviewed by staff described mixed reactions to fall changes implemented at Ross. One student said, "At first, I was pretty shocked and surprised… I didn't like it. I just like having my phone near me and, you know, I didn't wanna miss any notifications or messages." Other students said the change helped focus learning: "I feel like I get more work done without it… I've just been doing my assignments and turning them in and not procrastinating." Several students suggested practical adjustments — such as assigned pockets or keeping phones in backpacks rather than bins — to address concerns including access during an emergency lockdown.
On AI, Sonnick said district technology leaders recommended embedding AI guidance into Policy 400 rather than creating a standalone policy. "We don't see the necessity for a separate policy, specifically addressing artificial intelligence," she said, noting that AI features are already embedded in common productivity tools and that other districts have likewise not adopted separate AI policies. The draft also references plagiarism language in Policy 520.
Board members asked how staff would communicate changes and how the district will handle accommodations for students with IEP or 504 plans. Sonnick said site leaders would handle building‑level implementation and that accommodations for individual plans would be followed.
The board did not vote on the policy at the first reading; staff will incorporate feedback and return the item at a future meeting.
