MMSD hears calls for tighter phone rules as student researchers and board debate tiered ban

Madison Metropolitan School District officials heard sustained public comment and a student research presentation on May 4 as the board took a first read of a district wireless-device policy required under Wisconsin Act 42.

Parents and teachers in online public comment urged a strong, easy-to-enforce ban. "We cannot expect high schoolers to police their own use of these devices that are designed to steal their attention," Amy Martino, an MMSD parent, told the Instruction Work Group, urging "away all day" storage for students and removal of broad teacher‑discretion exceptions. Several other parents recounted classroom and safety incidents and said current proposals were toothless because enforcement was left to teachers.

A team of students from the La Follette School of Public Affairs presented a semester-long capstone summarizing the research and district data. They reported three common ban models in other districts (full campus bans; bell‑to‑bell/off‑campus storage; and instructional‑time bans that allow phones at passing/lunch) and summarized early empirical findings: device restrictions are linked in some studies with modest gains in test scores and attendance, but some districts saw a surge in recorded discipline the first year as rules were enforced. The students also analyzed MMSD incident records and found overrepresentation of certain groups—particularly low‑income students and students of color—in recorded device infractions, and recommended implementation steps to reduce such disparities.

District staff presented a draft, tiered policy designed to meet Act 42’s requirements while trying to limit campus disruption. The draft would: define wireless communication devices broadly (phones, smartwatches, tablets and other devices with recording/transmission capability); treat K–8 as "bell‑to‑bell" non‑accessible storage (devices off and stored during the school day); and require high schools to keep devices turned off and either stored or secured in classroom storage during instructional periods while allowing use during passing periods and open lunch. The draft includes mandatory exceptions for medical needs, IEP/504 accommodations and teacher‑authorized instructional use, and a proposed progressive discipline matrix to standardize responses across buildings.

Board members and staff debated points that will shape revisions: how to define "instructional time" for off‑campus field trips and extracurriculars; whether storage should be classroom baskets or purchased pouches (the students' research and board discussion noted pouch costs of roughly $30–$50 per unit in other districts); and how to avoid a disproportionate disciplinary impact on students of color or students with disabilities. Several board members asked staff to build an implementation plan that includes parent communications, teacher training, alternatives for students who rely on devices for safety or transport coordination, and pilot options for incentives or positive reinforcement in addition to consequences.

District staff said they will continue consultations with principals, special‑education staff and student representatives and return with a revised draft and an implementation timeline; a reminder from district counsel: Act 42 requires boards to adopt a policy before July 1. The board took no final vote on the draft policy at the first read.