Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Student Devices topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Savannah-Chatham board takes first step on new device policy to meet state law, debates scope for high schools

Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education · November 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education on Nov. 5 gave first reading to a sweeping revision of its student electronic-device policy to comply with Georgia's Distraction-Free Education Act (HB 340) and to create a districtwide approach for securing personal devices during instruction.

The Savannah-Chatham County Board of Education on Nov. 5 gave first reading to a sweeping revision of its student electronic-device policy to comply with Georgia's Distraction-Free Education Act (HB 340) and to create a districtwide approach for securing personal devices during instruction.

The policy presented by Chief Academic Officer Derek Butler would prohibit use of personal electronic devices during instructional time for kindergarten through eighth grade (bell to bell) and require district procedures for collection and locked storage of personal devices. For grades 9'12, the draft creates a narrower rule: students may not use personal devices for noninstructional purposes during instructional time but would retain limited access during class change, breakfast, lunch and other noninstructional periods; staff stressed district devices would be provided for instructional activities.

Board members pressed staff on enforcement, equity and practical logistics. Several directors asked that principals be able to implement stricter site rules where discipline or safety concerns warrant; others warned that permitting variation across 11 high schools could create uneven student experiences. Members raised liability and theft concerns around storage, and asked whether storage devices must be provided by the school or could be procured centrally. Staff said many schools already use lockable classroom lockers and that district technology teams are coordinating to ensure a working, consistent one-to-one device provision.

The board and staff also discussed legal limits on blocking personal Wi-Fi and the difficulty of policing recordings and social-media posts captured at schools. Superintendent Denise Watts and staff emphasized communications to families and a phased approach: the board must adopt policy by Jan. 1, 2026 per state law, but full operational implementation would not be required until the 2026'27 school year (no later than July 1, 2026).

Board members asked staff for clearer language distinguishing personal devices from district-provided devices and for specific guidance on exceptions to permit instructional uses (for example, classroom activities that require students to use district-supplied Chromebooks). Staff said they would revise the regulation language and return for a second reading in December.

The board did not take a final vote on the policy at the Nov. 5 meeting; the first reading establishes the policy direction and starts development of regulations and communications needed for districtwide implementation.