Half Moon Bay board hears committee recommendation to limit smartphones during instructional time

The Half Moon Bay School Board on Monday heard a committee recommendation to limit student smartphone use during instructional time and to encourage school sites to explore a full bell‑to‑bell ban. Vice principal Cesar Vega, who co-led the committee, said the work began last spring and included surveys, site visits and a review of other districts' policies.

"We started in May ... we distributed [the survey] through district means," Vega said, summarizing the committee's outreach. The committee reported strong staff support in four schools for a bell‑to‑bell approach but far less student support: "only 4% of students who responded were in favor of a bell‑to‑bell ban," Vega said.

The committee described Terra Nova High School's pilot using storage pouches (commonly described and marketed as Yondr pouches) and relayed Terra Nova staff accounts that the pouches improved student focus and classroom consistency. Committee members recommended a district policy requiring smartphones be turned off and put away during instructional time — not on a student's person — and to add a clearer definition of emergencies in policy language.

"Ultimately, the committee made recommendations to the current board policy to limit cell phone usage during instructional time," Maritza Torres, Oceana High principal and committee member, told the board. She added that while the committee felt a bell‑to‑bell ban was "what's best for students," it decided to recommend a narrower, districtwide requirement that phones be stored during instructional minutes while leaving implementation details to school sites.

Trustees discussed tradeoffs between districtwide uniformity and site flexibility. One trustee cited first‑semester data from Terra Nova that, according to the trustee's remarks, showed the ninth‑grade failure rate fall sharply (from 29.4% to 6.89%); trustees said they found such preliminary results compelling but noted the data source and time frame were described during oral remarks rather than supplied as a board exhibit.

Board members asked for the committee's redline of the current policy. Presenters said a redlined draft exists but was not uploaded for the meeting and committed to placing the redline on the next agenda and following the board's typical two‑step process (discussion followed by consent action). "You need to see the red line before you can do anything," one trustee said; presenters agreed.

Board members and teachers raised concerns the board flagged as important to resolve before formal adoption: ensuring translators and English‑learner supports for instruction, accommodating individualized education program (IEP) needs, clarifying emergency unlocking procedures for storage pouches, covering implementation costs so schools are not disadvantaged, and developing teacher professional development to support any new rule. The superintendent's stand‑in said if the district recommends the policy the district would cover costs so sites could implement the procedure.

No vote on a policy was held. The board directed staff to provide the redline policy and supporting materials at the next regular meeting for further consideration.