Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews proposed cell-phone restriction for instructional day, awaits state guidance
Summary
School staff presented an administrative regulation (AR SS 27) to restrict personal communication devices during the school day; the proposal would ban devices for preschool–8 and allow high-school students a 30-minute, principal-designated lunch window. Board members debated enforcement, resource needs and bus/field-trip implications; no final policy vote occurred pending state clarification.
District staff presented a proposed administrative regulation (AR SS 27) and family-friendly guidelines for limiting personal communication devices during the school day, and board members discussed enforcement, resources and next steps.
Doctor Lee, who led the committee that drafted the proposal, described the committee's research and community input: the district's survey had about 2,300 respondents (55% parents, 27% staff) and found 74% of respondents favored limiting cell-phone use during school hours. Doctor Lee said research the committee reviewed showed improvements in mental health and academics and reductions in bullying when student device use was limited.
The draft regulation would separate communication devices (cell phones, smartwatches, earbuds) from other electronics, require devices to be turned off and kept in a nonvisible location, restrict preschool through eighth-grade students from using devices during the school day and allow high-school students a 30-minute lunch window in a principal-designated location to check messages. The draft also outlines updates needed to the discipline matrix and handling of confiscated devices.
Board members expressed support for the research and emphasized the importance of a districtwide messaging and enforcement campaign; several members urged scripts and a single-school culture to reinforce expectations. Mr. Smith raised resource concerns, asking where money and staff will come from to enforce the rule and expressing reluctance to place the burden of confiscation on teachers. Doctor Rodriguez and committee members replied that the district will provide administrators with research and scripts for parent nights and that the district is awaiting clarification from the South Carolina Department of Education on how the state language should be interpreted (instructional time vs. full school day).
The board did not take a final vote on the AR; members asked staff to return with clarified language and implementation steps once state guidance is available.
