Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Phones Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Central Unified board adopts stricter student mobile-device policy to address mental-health concerns
Summary
The Central Unified Board of Trustees voted to adopt revised Board Policy 5131.8 (mobile communication devices) with the stronger restriction option after extended discussion about enforcement, equity, and student mental health. The student trustee recorded a dissenting vote; staff will finalize standard operating procedures before rollout next school year.
The Central Unified Board of Trustees on April 28 adopted an updated school district policy restricting student use of mobile communication devices, including smartphones, on campus and under the supervision of district staff, citing concerns about mental health and classroom disruption.
Superintendent staff member Dr. Lopez told the board the revision aligns the district with AB 3216 and is grounded in research showing smartphone access can harm student mental health and school climate. "The policy was intended to limit the use of cell phones because of the impact they have on mental health," she said, describing work with CAD interns and a safety committee to draft implementation procedures.
Supporters on the board and administration pointed to narrative survey feedback from roughly 2,000 students and 1,000 parents showing concerns about bullying, nonconsensual recordings and social-media harms. Administrators said they intend to pair the policy with a districtwide SOP (standard operating procedure) that will specify whether sites use pouches, lockboxes, or other custodial tools and how emergency access to devices will work.
Student speakers and the student trustee raised concerns about enforcement and fairness, asking how the policy would be applied equitably across campuses and whether teachers could be trained to enforce it consistently. A student trustee asked why the board selected the stronger restriction option when the multiple-choice survey responses favored a different option; Dr. Lopez replied that the narrative feedback favored stricter limits.
Vice President Sellers and other board members emphasized that the current policy had not been enforced consistently and that a clear SOP, professional development for staff and communication with families were necessary before implementation. Board members discussed scheduling, discipline steps, documentation of warnings, and whether the SOP would be in place before the start of the next school year.
The board moved and approved the recommended option two to adopt Board Policy 5131.8. The motion carried; the student trustee recorded a vote in opposition. The board directed the superintendent and staff to finish the SOP, return with implementation details and cost estimates, and provide training so the policy can be implemented districtwide in the next school year.
