Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laguna Beach Unified weighs limits on student screen time and tighter mobile‑device rules
Summary
Board members heard presentations on two technology policies and a staff proposal to limit in‑school screen time. Students defended selective phone use for instruction and emergencies; staff proposed unit‑design limits, parent tools (Securly) and further stakeholder outreach before returning a formal policy for board review.
Laguna Beach Unified School District trustees spent a large portion of their Aug. 14 meeting discussing two related policy updates that would limit students’ in‑school use of mobile phones and set guidelines for instructional technology.
Staff framed the proposals as a response to growing research and local survey data showing more in‑class screen time. Dr. Michael Mayberry summarized the mobile‑communication policy (BP 5131.8), which differentiates by grade: elementary students are restricted from phones during school; middle schools may provide supervised ‘phone zones’ for urgent calls at lunch; and high school usage is limited to teacher permission and scheduled breaks. Mayberry noted four legal exemptions that remain in place: medical necessity determined by a physician, an IEP accommodation, emergency use, and teacher‑granted instructional permission. Recent California bills (AB 272 and AB 3216) were cited as confirming the district’s authority to set local limits, subject to those exceptions.
District instructional leaders then presented a broader policy (BP 6163.4) that addresses students’ daily screen time and instructional technology. Staff described a three‑tier instructional framework (consumption, contribution, inquiry), shared app usage data (iReady averages roughly ten minutes per student per day in class), and warned of an upward trend in students reporting three or more hours of in‑class screen time. To reduce passive screen use, the district proposes: requiring unit plans to list no‑tech alternatives; convening teacher, parent and student working groups; piloting student self‑monitoring tools (a small ‘‘brick’’ device in pilots); and offering a parent‑facing product (Securly) that reports Chromebook site activity and enables offline scheduling.
Student representatives who spoke at the meeting urged caution about blanket bans. Ivy Dabbs and Logan Marshall said phones can be an instructional backup when Chromebooks fail and stressed the role of phones in emergency communication. ‘‘When it doesn’t work on our Chromebooks, what do we use? We use our cell phones,’’ one student said, urging nuance rather than an outright ban.
Trustees debated feasibility and equity. Questions included whether the district can realistically meet a suggested three‑hour in‑school screen‑time target, how after‑school athletic schedules affect students who rely on late deadlines, and whether parental controls could block necessary work. Superintendent Dr. Glass said staff will bring a policy draft back for a first reading after targeted community outreach and legal review, and recommended pilot steps (parent workshops, teacher unit‑design work) before any binding limits are adopted.
What’s next: Staff will survey principals and teachers, expand parent workshops to explain tools such as Securly, and return a draft policy for board consideration. The board did not take final action on either policy at the Aug. 14 meeting.
