Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Cannon County board tables disciplinary phone rules, rejects allowing phones at lunch
Loading...
Summary
Board members debated a three-part motion on wireless-device rules; they rejected allowing phones at lunch but voted to strip disciplinary language from the handbook and remove the agreement clause pending a liability waiver and attorney review.
Cannon County Board of Education members on Aug. 14 debated changes to the district's wireless-device policy and split on a three-part motion that would have relaxed some restrictions and delayed others.
The board considered a proposal to (a) allow students to use mobile devices during lunch, (b) strike the handbook's disciplinary language and table revisions to next month so the district could align with state law, and (c) remove the handbook’s agreement-of-rules section until the board and its attorney approve a separate liability waiver. An unidentified board member introduced the motion; Miss Trammell formally appeared as the mover and Mister McMackins as the seconder in the public record.
After extended debate over the past week’s limited observations and questions about who is authorized to confiscate student devices, the board voted on the three parts separately. Motion (a), to allow phone use at lunch, failed on a 2–1 vote. Motion (b) passed unanimously among members present; the board voted to strike the disciplinary language from the handbook and table revision of the disciplinary policy until the next meeting to ensure compliance with TCA 49‑6‑4002. Motion (c) also passed, removing the handbook’s agreement section until a separate liability waiver is drafted and approved by the board and its attorney.
Directors and trustees questioned the short observation period used to assess the policy. One trustee urged a broader data collection, noting the district enrolls “1,900 kids” and suggesting surveys of students and parents should precede major policy changes. District counsel and TSBA templates were cited during the discussion; the chair said templates from the Tennessee School Boards Association explained why the district presented two template options and that staff had consulted Ben at TSBA for statutory guidance.
Board members also raised liability concerns about staff confiscating personal property and recommended clarifying who is authorized to handle confiscated devices. The board directed staff to pursue the legal review and return to the full board in September for further action on policy 3.33 and the handbook’s disciplinary language.
The decisions leave the district without the handbook’s current disciplinary language on device handling while administrators plan to apply the general code of conduct for student discipline pending formal revisions.
