Bradley County Schools board adopts state-required cellphone policy, removes fees but keeps 7- and 15-day hold periods

BRADLEY COUNTY, Tenn. — The Bradley County Schools board on Aug. 5 adopted policy 6.312 on the use of wireless communication devices, a move board members said was required by a new Tennessee law that took effect July 1, 2025.

Miss Lee, a member of the Bradley County Schools board, moved to adopt the policy and waive a second reading, saying the change was necessary to comply with "public chapter 103, House Bill 932." Dr. Cash, speaking for district staff, described an updated high-school device plan for 2025–26 that aligns with the policy and the state law.

The approved policy allows students to possess personal electronic communication devices on campus but requires they be silenced and stored out of sight during the instructional day (the district listed the school day as 08:15 to 03:30). The procedure includes exceptions for documented health needs, individualized education plans (IEP/504) and teacher-authorized instructional use; it also requires an emergency communication protocol so parents can be contacted when necessary. The board retained administrative procedures that permit a second violation to result in a phone being held for seven calendar days and a third violation to result in a device being held for 15 calendar days; however, Dr. Cash said the district removed an earlier fee that had sometimes been associated with early retrieval.

Daniel Marlowe, a parent and resident of District 2 who spoke during public comment, urged the board to rethink parts of the plan. "Seizing the private property and holding it without prompt notice or a clear avenue for review while demanding payment for its early return raises due process concerns," Marlowe said, adding that the policy could place a "disproportionate burden on low-income families" and could sever students' lines of communication during emergencies.

Board members and district staff responded that the administrative procedures — developed by principals at the district's secondary schools — were intended to protect instructional time and give school administrators leeway to work with families. Dr. Cash said the updated plan explicitly cross-references board policy 6.302 to ensure due-process safeguards are respected. "We also recognize that principals and administrators have the leeway to work with parents in different situations," she said.

Miss Lee and the presenting attorney also cited prior legal guidance when discussing retention authority: they referenced a 2007 attorney general opinion and a U.S. District Court opinion from Middle Tennessee that, in the attorney general's language read to the board, noted that "parents may fully protect their personal property interest in cell phones used by their children simply by forbidding the children from bringing them to school." Board members cited those authorities while acknowledging the district shortened the retention window compared with the 30-day retention upheld by the court.

Several board members said they supported adopting the required policy while expressing discomfort with the administrative timeframes for holding devices. Board member Mister Taylor said he supported the policy because the state requires a local policy but recorded on the public record his disagreement with the length of time devices might be held. Multiple board members noted administrators had reported that fees were rarely collected and supported removing the fee from the procedures.

Mister Shoemaker, the district's secondary supervisor, told the board principals and supervisors designed the procedures after multiple meetings and that principals reported little or no collection from a past fee. Shoemaker also described incidents and classroom-management challenges — including social-media-driven disruptions that administrators said informed their recommended approach.

After discussion, the board took a roll-call vote and recorded the following: Mister Clarkson — yes; Miss Lee — yes; Miss Gullins — yes; Miss Cason — yes; Mister Taylor — yes; Miss Beatty — yes; Mister Smith — yes. The chair announced "7 yes, 0 no," and the motion passed.

The board did not change the administrative procedures at the meeting; members said the procedures remain within the superintendent's and principals' authority to implement, and the board asked staff to bring concerns back if operational problems arise. The chair closed the meeting with routine announcements and adjourned.

The board scheduled its next meeting for Aug. 14 in the board office.