Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cell Phone Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord-Carlisle board refines cell-phone survey after hours of student and public input
Summary
Following student presentations and public comments urging strict limits, the Concord-Carlisle School Committee agreed to rework a draft cell-phone survey, define clear policy options ("caddy" system, "away and out of sight," and "bell-to-bell" variants), and return with a polished survey for a May rollout to parents, students and staff.
The Concord-Carlisle Regional School Committee spent most of its meeting debating how to ask the community about a possible new high‑school cell‑phone policy, assigning staff to rewrite and format the questionnaire before a May release.
Students, parents and teachers all took part in the discussion. Student representatives described how the current “caddy” system (phones stored in class caddies during instruction) works in their classrooms but said enforcement varies by teacher. Parent speakers and community members urged stronger rules. "Protect the current generation and all those who follow by passing and enforcing a meaningful bell‑to‑bell inaccessible smartphone policy," said parent Adrian Principy, who founded the nonprofit Turning Life On during public comment.
School officials and committee members agreed the survey needs a neutral prologue that clearly defines the policy choices being considered — labeled in the draft as “caddy system” (current practice), an "enhanced caddy" option, “away and out of sight,” and two "bell‑to‑bell" variants that would either allow or forbid off‑campus phone use. Committee members also said the prologue should note automatic exemptions (for medical devices, documented IEP/504 accommodations) and include visuals or a short description so respondents understand terms such as "caddy." Dr. Hunter, when explaining the process for required hearings, stressed that implementation details belong to administration, not the committee.
The group debated who should receive the survey. Students and several committee members recommended at minimum that it be sent to current high‑school students (several members suggested starting at grade 8), parents, and staff; others favored a broader community distribution so interested residents could respond. Committee members agreed that the survey must allow demographic filtering and that some questions need rewording to remove bias and improve usefulness.
Administrators were assigned to tighten language and create a filtered electronic form that shows only relevant questions to each respondent group; a draft will be circulated before the May meeting. The committee asked that the survey run for a short, defined window (members suggested two weeks) once released so the administration can analyze results and bring them back for policy deliberation.
The discussion followed a lengthy public comment period in which Emily Lines, citing district Youth Risk Behavior Survey results, said adopting a bell‑to‑bell, off‑and‑away policy would likely "support both learning and mental health." Committee members emphasized that the survey results would inform rollout and education for families rather than automatically dictate policy.
Next steps: administration will rewrite the questionnaire, add clear definitions and examples (including an image of a phone caddy), and present a near‑final draft at the committee's May meeting; the committee will then decide the distribution list and final timing.
