Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board holds first reading of student device policy to implement House Bill 2299; members raise legal questions about "inaccessible" storage
Summary
At first reading the board reviewed policies to regulate staff social‑media communications and implement House Bill 2299 requiring student devices be powered off and stored; members discussed locked pouches, whether pouch-on‑person satisfies 'inaccessible,' and implementation logistics for middle/high and elementary schools.
On first reading the policy committee presented two policy updates: limits on staff private social‑media contact with students and a student personal electronic device policy designed to comply with House Bill 2299. The new device policy would require students to power off and securely store personal electronic devices away from the student's person during the school day; the committee's implementation plan centers on locking pouches for middle and high schools and a different approach for elementary classrooms (wall shoe‑bag or locked cabinet).
Board members raised legal and operational questions. One member, speaking with a legal focus, noted the bill language requires devices be "away from the student's person" and "inaccessible," and questioned whether a pouch carried by a student but locked would meet that statutory standard in the face of possible litigation or legislative scrutiny. Policy committee members and staff responded that vendors and other districts operate with magnetic locking pouches and that those systems have withstood similar legal review elsewhere; staff said implementation details, spot checks, training and discipline procedures are part of planned procedural rollouts.
The committee said implementation will include vendor demonstrations, an implementation coach visit to Emporia sites to plan pouch placement and training, and a second reading with procedural detail and purchase authorizations in a subsequent meeting. No final vote was taken; discussion highlighted the tradeoffs between legal risk and operational feasibility under an unfunded state mandate.
