Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Devices topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents, counselors and students urge District 196 to adopt bell‑to‑bell device ban
Summary
At the March 9 Rosemount‑Apple Valley‑Eagan school board meeting, multiple parents, a counselor and a student urged the board to extend the district’s K–8 bell‑to‑bell phone ban to high schools, citing research on attention, lost instruction time and student mental health.
Several parents, a district counselor and a senior pressed the Rosemount‑Apple Valley‑Eagan School Board on March 9 to extend the district's existing K–8 bell‑to‑bell personal‑device ban to all grades.
Grant Eustace, a parent, high‑school teacher and member of Dakota County United Educators, told the board he and other union members were advocating for “a full‑day ban on personal devices for all District 196 students, grades K through 12.” He argued that schools are curated learning environments and that unrestricted access to social platforms during passing time and lunch undermines instruction, citing research on cognitive switching costs and teacher reports of lost instruction time.
The request was echoed by Michelle Gustoson, who identified herself as a parent and district counselor. She said the district’s K–8 ban is having positive effects, that stronger policies elsewhere have produced gains in classroom focus, and that a seven‑hour daily break from phones is a low‑cost intervention that could immediately improve students’ development and school climate.
A senior, Lewis Gustoson, described the student experience: seeing peers isolated with heads down on phones, missing hallway and lunch interactions, and feeling that most adolescents cannot reliably self‑regulate phone use. "Having a time during the day where you're not allowed to have it actually is a good relief," he said.
Tracy Wahlberg, a parent and middle‑school counselor, framed the issue as a mental‑health concern. She described social media as driving avoidance and anxiety, noted a classroom exercise in which students asked why high schools lack phone‑free days, and argued that schools have a responsibility to help students stop harmful patterns.
Why it matters: Board policy on devices affects daily instructional time, school safety protocols and student well‑being. Advocates at the meeting anchored their recommendation to research on attention, district practice for younger grades and examples from other states.
What the board heard from administration: No immediate policy change was adopted at the meeting; public comments were part of the special communication period. The board and administration did not advance a formal motion to change the device policy at this session, so any next steps would require agenda placement and formal board action.
What to watch next: Whether the district schedules hearings, staff recommendations or policy committee review to address the request for a bell‑to‑bell device ban.
