Saint Paul staff present second reading of districtwide cell‑phone policy; third reading set for Feb. 18

Saint Paul Public Schools staff brought a second reading of a districtwide policy on cell phones and personal electronic devices to the board on Jan. 21, summarizing staff and student focus‑group feedback and recommending language to balance consistency, equity and classroom management.

"On the front end I do want to share, as we as I have had, continuing conversations with community members, 1 thing that did come up recently is, a mistake in the engagement information that you have," said Jody Danielson, director of teaching and learning, correcting a published engagement item and previewing the policy discussion.

District staff told the board the policy is required under a Minnesota directive that districts adopt a district‑wide approach to personal devices and noted that research shows devices can impair student attention and learning. Danielson said the policy defines "personal electronic devices," describes allowable exceptions and sets expectations for schools to publish local documented plans when they need adjusted practices.

Key elements presented to the board:

- Single building approach for 6‑12 schools: principals told staff that six‑to‑twelve campuses are intentionally grade‑integrated and prefer a single experience for students across the building; staff recommended that any modified plan be reviewed annually. - Exceptions: the draft specifically accounts for transition programs (students who use a phone for travel or employment related to instruction), emergency responders and medical exceptions. - Discipline and implementation: the policy text emphasizes positive, instructional and restorative approaches and calls for tiered discipline consistent with the student rights and responsibilities handbook, while noting schools must give families clear instructions for communicating with students during the day. - Searches: district counsel advised that any search for content on a device must be reasonably related to the purpose of the search (for example, investigating cheating should not extend to unrelated personal data).

Staff reported mixed views on tools for securing phones during the school day. Some schools described box or bag systems that have worked locally; others said such tools add administrative burden. A board member later noted a district estimate of about $750,000 per year to provide device‑holding hardware districtwide, a cost staff said was not part of the draft policy.

Students and staff who participated in focus groups told the district that consistent rules and strong administrative backing are the most important determinants of successful implementation. Students reported better focus and fewer classroom disruptions where rules are consistently enforced but raised practical concerns, including how families will contact students and whether district network restrictions (on iPads or school devices) can hamper legitimate classroom work.

Board members asked staff to refine language on consistency and the scope of permissible searches before the third reading. There was particular interest in how 6‑12 campuses will implement a single approach given intergrade activities; several directors said they expect implementation guidance and a toolkit (scripts, predictable staff responses and onboarding materials for substitutes and partners) to accompany adoption.

The policy will return for a third reading and possible adoption on Feb. 18. Staff said implementation guidance and school‑level tools will be provided during spring and summer if the board adopts the policy.