Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Board approves first reading of ‘bell-to-bell’ cell-phone policy required by Senate Bill 78
Summary
The Whitley County Con Schools board gave unanimous first-reading approval to revised policy 51-36 to implement Indiana’s Senate Bill 78, requiring student devices be stored and powered off during the school day; board members and teachers raised enforcement and consequence concerns.
The Whitley County Con Schools board on May 4 approved the first reading of board policy 51-36, adopting language to implement Indiana’s Senate Bill 78 and require students to keep cell phones and similar devices stored, powered off and inaccessible during the school day.
At the meeting, a district administrator explained the policy adopts Indiana School Boards Association recommended language and extends the prior restriction from “instructional time” to “bell to bell” — for example, 7:45 a.m. until the end of the school day — and requires that devices “must be stored away, must be powered off, must be inaccessible during the day.” The policy includes limited exceptions for instructional use with teacher permission and for students who need devices for multifactor authentication for dual-credit courses or while at work-based learning sites.
The change responds to state action. The administrator described Senate Bill 78 as the state law that now requires district policies to cover bell-to-bell device storage; the board treated the item as a first reading to allow edits before a final vote.
Teachers and board members pressed staff on enforcement and consequences. A teacher asked what parents should expect and whether police would be involved, saying, “I doubt a police officer getting involved,” and expressing concern about supervising hundreds of students during passing periods and lunch. Another board member asked about consequences and whether the student handbook should spell out graduated responses; staff replied that the student handbooks contain stepped consequences and that confiscated devices would most often be returned to parents rather than students.
One member raised the risk of damage during confiscation and suggested requiring a parent liability acknowledgement if a device is damaged after a staff confiscates it; staff acknowledged the concern and said handbook language and procedures will be clarified.
Board members approved the first reading unanimously. Staff said the policy will be refined as needed and returned for a subsequent vote after handbook alignment and summer conversations with building staff.
The board did not adopt final implementation details at the May 4 meeting; handbooks will be updated to reflect the policy language and outline specific consequences and processes for confiscation and return of devices.
