Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education:cellphone Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Teachers and students tell Ithaca school board cellphone ban works inconsistently; some urge bell‑to‑bell collection
Summary
Teachers, students and support staff told the Ithaca City School District board that the new bell‑to‑bell cellphone ban has uneven implementation: teacher pulse and student surveys show reduced use but confusion about enforcement and punitive responses. Several speakers urged clearer written procedures and stronger administrative support.
Katherine Shiner, president of the teachers association, told the Ithaca City School District Board of Education that a quick pulse survey of 70 teachers found a majority did not view student cellphone use as a major problem but indicated uneven implementation and gaps in enforcement. “This pulse survey was responded to by a wide variety of teachers,” Shiner said, adding the data should be considered alongside broader information gathering.
The board heard additional public comment from Ithaca High School teachers who described inconsistent enforcement and ambiguous consequences. “Cyber pouches... were not used by students for very long,” said Scott Reese, an English teacher at IHS, describing the initial rollout as “pretty much a disaster.” Christopher Carver, another IHS teacher, said the policy’s value depends on bell‑to‑bell enforcement and proposed students turn phones in at the start of the day and retrieve them at dismissal.
Student representatives presented a larger IHS survey — 617 student responses and 52 teacher responses — reporting that about 72% of students said they use phones less in school than last year, but many students rated the ban’s overall community impact negatively. Student presenters also said the punishment procedure is unclear: when phones are confiscated students reportedly receive an automatic referral, a discrepancy that students and teachers interpret differently.
Why it matters: Board members said the district must decide whether issues stem from the policy itself or from inconsistent implementation. Several trustees asked administration to collect more representative data and to provide clearer, written guidance for administrators and staff before pursuing substantive policy changes.
In response, board members acknowledged the limits of the 70‑teacher pulse sample and the larger student survey, and urged staff to return with representative data and clearer descriptions of enforcement and penalties. The board did not change policy at the meeting but discussed placing a fuller implementation review on a future agenda.
