Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dallas SD 2 outlines new student cell-phone policy in response to governor's executive order
Summary
Administrators presented a draft student personal-electronics policy that would prohibit devices during instructional hours 'bell to bell' with medical and IEP/504 exceptions; the governor’s executive order requires adoption by Oct. 31 and implementation by Jan. 1.
An administrator presented a proposed student personal-electronic-devices policy to the Dallas SD 2 board, saying the draft responds to a governor’s executive order intended to reduce in-class distractions and address student mental health concerns. “During instructional time, bell to bell, no cell,” a board member summarized the governor’s direction as the policy’s core element.
The draft defines personal electronic devices (cell phones, earbuds, smartwatches and similar items), lists limited exceptions (medical needs, IEP/504 accommodations and documented requests from parents or guardians), and outlines how devices would be stored (pouches or lockers) and handled as part of progressive, non-exclusionary discipline. The presenter noted a typographical correction in the staff policy portion (it should read “personal cell phones”).
Board members and administrators raised equity concerns: exceptions for students with IEPs or 504 plans could single out students who need devices for glucose monitoring or translation. A board member said the district’s equity advisory committee and a student representative had provided feedback and that administrators will work to avoid disproportionate impacts.
The presenter said the governor’s executive order sets an adoption deadline of Oct. 31 and an implementation deadline of Jan. 1; the district aims to adopt and begin the school year with a policy and implementation process in place to avoid midyear changes for students and families.
Board members asked implementation and logistical questions — for example, how students who drive home at lunch would be handled (students on campus during instructional time remain covered by the prohibition) and how families will contact students during the day (main office procedures). Several trustees praised the administration for moving quickly to develop the policy and resources to support schools’ implementation. No formal policy vote occurred at the meeting; trustees reserved detailed adoption for a future board reading after additional public comment and committee review.
