Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Technology Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Franklin Regional board gives first reading to student cell phone policy as members debate monitoring and feedback
Summary
The Franklin Regional Board of School Directors advanced a first reading of a new student cell phone policy that gives teachers authority to restrict device use during class while preserving parental choice. Board members discussed national research, teacher discretion, and the need for ongoing feedback before a second reading.
The Franklin Regional Board of School Directors on Oct. 13 advanced a first reading of a student cell phone and personal electronic device policy that gives teachers primary authority to regulate device use in classrooms while recognizing parental control over whether a child carries a phone.
Administrators and board members said the policy is intended to ‘‘enhance academic learning’’ and permit teachers to require phones be stored out of sight, placed in secure classroom locations, or incorporated for instructional purposes. ‘‘Cell phone use during class time is at the discretion of the teacher,’’ an administrator presenting the policy said.
Board members pressing the policy cited national statistics and early results from other districts. One board member cited data from the National Center for Education Statistics indicating that many districts restrict phone use and that administrators report concerns about phones’ impact on mental health, attention and academic performance. That same board member described an informal study of a district that implemented a full ban and reported increases in engagement and student-to-student communication, but said the formal study results will be available in about six months.
Several board members urged the district to build a formal feedback mechanism. ‘‘The biggest stumbling block to make it effective…is feedback,’’ one member said, asking for annual surveys of teachers, parents and students to measure how the policy affects instruction and school climate. Another member suggested nonpunitive classroom strategies such as phone caddies to reduce distraction.
The policy text presented to the board includes several specific provisions: allowing teachers to limit or permit device use for instruction; permitting teachers to require phones be stored in backpacks or designated areas during instruction; and outlining disciplinary steps for noncompliance. The policy also explicitly notes exceptions for medical needs, including diabetes monitoring, and for teacher-directed instructional use.
School officials said the draft is intended to be ‘‘fluid’’ and subject to change before a second reading; the board agreed to move the document to a second reading for final consideration. No final ban or districtwide enforcement protocol was adopted at this meeting.
Board members and administrators said next steps should include creating a way to quantify implementation and teacher compliance so future boards can evaluate whether the policy is meeting academic and behavioral goals.
