The Sartell-St. Stephen School Board spent substantial time reviewing potential changes to its cell‑phone practices in district schools, including whether to restrict phones "bell to bell" (during the school day), adopt classroom-level enforcement, or pursue technical and logistical solutions.

Students presented compiled peer feedback and literature summaries. Student representatives told trustees that top concerns among peers are "cyberbullying, distraction, loss of productivity, and then just less interactions overall with your peers face to face." They also said students value phones for quick contact with family, to reduce anxiety about last‑minute rides, and as a coping tool in some cases.

Board members and staff discussed research findings summarized in the packet: some studies show gains in academic outcomes for lower‑achieving students after bans, while higher‑achieving students show little change; teacher surveys cited in the packet reported high levels of teacher concern about classroom distraction. District staff also cited survey excerpts: a majority of parents support some in‑class restriction (62 percent in one figure cited) and 74 percent of teenagers reported social media makes them feel more connected to peers (figures came from materials in the board packet).

Administrators and the technology staff described enforcement options, including teacher-managed approaches (phone carts, pouches, or collection), Wi‑Fi filtering and network controls to limit non‑district data usage, and commercial "away for the day" storage devices. Trustees raised cost and enforceability concerns about large-scale device-storage options and emphasized the existing difference across buildings (elementary schools already restrict devices; middle and high schools have varied practice). The board discussed decoupling social‑media access from device possession (for example, blocking social apps while allowing limited device uses), the limitations of controlling devices outside school hours, and equity and coping considerations for some students.

No formal policy action was taken. Board members requested staff provide policy options, implementation scenarios, enforcement cost estimates and a proposed timeline; trustees discussed a planning window that could include a first reading of policy language by March and final adoption ahead of the next school year if the board elects to move forward. The board also asked staff to gather additional teacher input and to route student and community engagement into policy development.