Northeast ISD defends local cell‑phone policy as TEA opens review under HB 1481

The Northeast Independent School District Board of Trustees spent more than an hour on Oct. 6 discussing the district's cell‑phone policy after the district received a Sept. 24 letter from the Texas Education Agency (TEA) initiating a review related to House Bill 1481.

The board's written policy currently prohibits student use of personal communication devices during instructional time while allowing use during noninstructional periods such as passing periods and lunch. A series of parents, students and community members told trustees that local implementation balances classroom focus with family communication needs.

"My children aren't allowed to use cell phones during instructional time, which supports their learning," said Chiquita Gresham, a parent from the Reagan and Johnson clusters, adding that limited access during passing and lunch "allows me to send quick updates about after school tutoring, PSAT study sessions, sports ... and emergencies." Katie Wilkie, another parent, told the board she supported "local control" and urged trustees to resist a statewide, one‑size‑fits‑all policy.

Trustees said the district had proactively worked with parents, students and staff before the law passed. "We started restricting cell phones long before House Bill 1481 was passed," Superintendent Dr. Micah said, describing a year of campus‑level pilots that, he said, were developed with parent, staff and student input. The superintendent characterized the TEA notice as an "alleged violation," and said the district submitted a written response on Oct. 1; the district has not received TEA's final determination.

District legal counsel summarized TEA's current position to the board: "Their contention is that we don't have the discretion to define the terms in the statute and that it is meant to be a bell to bell cell phone ban," he said, describing TEA's reading that "school day" should be interpreted as the entire day students are on campus.

Board members pressed staff and the district attorney for clarity on next steps but did not take any formal action at the meeting. President Beyer said the board had invited TEA to the meeting for dialogue but had not received a response. Several trustees and speakers urged the agency and legislators to provide clearer statutory language rather than leave key terms undefined.

Board members and staff noted accommodations are in place for students with documented medical or emotional needs. "Maintaining occasional contact provides reassurance and stability that supports their emotional well‑being and focus in class," said Jaree Williams, a parent who requested individualized accommodations for students with anxiety or medical needs.

What happens next: the district's attorney told trustees TEA may issue either a finding of no violation or a notice of corrective action; there is no fixed state timeframe for that response. The board said it will await TEA's written finding and may take further action if required.

The discussion did not result in any change to district policy at the meeting. The board recorded the item as discussion only and noted the district has already submitted its Oct. 1 response to TEA, which the superintendent and counsel said they would share with the public once TEA takes action.