Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Phone Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Biddeford school board tables proposed cell-phone ban after hours of public comment
Summary
After an extensive public-comment period and debate about safety, equity and enforcement, the Biddeford School Committee voted to send the proposed student cell-phone policy back to the policy committee for revision; the motion passed with five in favor and one abstention.
The Biddeford School Committee on July 31 paused action on a proposed district policy to limit studentsuse of cell phones during instructional time, voting to send the measure back to the policy committee for further work.
Superintendent Jeremy Ray introduced the proposal as a response to classroom distractions and concerns about studentsmental health and bullying. "We did receive a successful bid for the BPS edition that came in at about $9,000,000," Ray said while opening the meeting, shifting quickly to explain the cell-phone materials were part of broader staff work. Ray and administrators described a classroom "phone box" system that would require students in grades 8through 12 to place phones in mounted slots during class, with limited access during passing time and lunch and exceptions in declared emergency conditions.
The proposal drew substantial public comment. Several parents and administrators supported a ban during instructional time as a way to improve focus and social interactions, while students and other speakers warned of unintended harms. "This policy would make a lot of situations worse," said Anne Latioung, a Biddeford High School student who argued phones can provide evidence in bullying cases and are essential for coordinating rides and sports. Teachers also testified. "I implemented a no cell phone policy in my classroom last year. Ninety-five percent of the students were completely in compliance," said Lauren Winn, a high-school special-education teacher, who urged clear consequences and consistent enforcement.
Board members debated scope and logistics: whether the rule should cover only the high school or be districtwide, how to treat eighth graders, how to define "reasonable suspicion," and who would be responsible for damaged devices stored in classroom boxes. Member Lisa cited research on academic effects and mental-health concerns and said districts have adopted different enforcement solutions; John pressed for more transparency about how the draft was developed and argued the public should have had earlier opportunities to weigh in.
After extended discussion, board member John moved to table the JICJ policy and send it back to the policy committee to incorporate public feedback and clarify procedures; the motion was seconded and passed on a voice vote with five in favor and Marie abstaining. Mayor/Chair noted the committee will post a policy-committee meeting and indicated staff will try to produce clearer options for the committee to consider. Superintendent Ray flagged logistical constraints: ordering and installing the physical phone boxes could take time (he estimated about 110 boxes for the high school campus) and may not be achievable before the opening of school if the board presses an accelerated timeline.
Next steps: the board tabled the policy back to committee, and members asked the policy group to schedule publicized meetings, solicit written feedback and return with clarified policy language and implementation options, including alternatives for middle-school grades, clear consequence levels and responsibilities for device damage.
The motion to table was procedural; no policy change was adopted at the July 31 meeting.
