Laguna Beach board hears parents push for K–8 smartphone ban; staff cites state law limiting discipline

Emily Rolfing, a parent of three Laguna Beach Unified School District students, urged the school board to “consider a comprehensive examination of our current board policies regarding the use of devices, specifically smart phones on school campuses and transportation,” asking the board to adopt “a smartphone free policy for grades K through 8 with a 0 tolerance approach” and a stricter in‑class rule for high school. Rolfing told the board the group’s informal survey received 250 responses and that “over 91% of parents were very likely or likely to support a cell phone ban during school hours.”

The request prompted a lengthy board discussion about legal limits and enforcement. District staff explained the governing statute, saying “the law is specific to, 48901.7, which essentially is what you see in our policy, which is that a student can have a phone, should be turned off during instructional time,” and noting the statute lists circumstances when possession or use cannot be prohibited. Staff and trustees discussed common exemptions — medical needs, individualized education program (IEP) provisions and safety uses such as diabetes monitoring — and emphasized that state law restricts disciplinary authority over possession in some circumstances.

Board members pressed for further information before moving to rewrite the policy. Trustees asked staff for grade‑level breakdowns of the survey, site‑level data (principals’ observations and confiscation counts), and a campus walk to inventory how phones are used during noninstructional time. Several trustees said the board could add a philosophical statement — a clear expectation that devices should not be visible during the school day — while preserving legally required exemptions and ensuring reasonable parent access in emergencies.

Trustees also debated implementation details: whether to retain “phone zones” at middle schools, how to accommodate instructional apps or assignments that rely on personal devices, sanctions such as confiscation or Saturday school, and how enforcement might interact with recently changed discipline laws. One trustee urged the board to ‘‘reiterate what the legal limits are’’ for parents and staff to avoid confusion.

Next steps: the board declined to take immediate action on BP 5131.8, asked staff to bring back more detailed data and draft regulatory language, and agreed to place a fuller discussion on a September agenda so trustees could consider a draft policy and related administrative regulations.