Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Policy Cellphones topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates stricter student cellphone rules; no final vote
Summary
Trustees and students debated Policy 5209 options for student wireless devices — the board discussed a bell‑to‑bell ban versus minimum state‑law compliance, raised logistics and equity concerns, and asked staff to return with revisions and community engagement.
The Dexter Community School District board held an extended discussion May 18 about draft changes to Policy 5209 (Student Use of Wireless Communication Devices) but took no vote.
Policy committee members presented two options that conform to state law: Option 1 mirrors minimum statutory requirements (district may permit student custody of devices, with certain exceptions); Option 2 prohibits devices bell to bell with narrow, defined exceptions for instruction and safety. Board members, staff and student representatives described challenges and tradeoffs for the high school in particular, where lunch, passing time, lockers and larger building traffic complicate implementation.
Students and staff who spoke during the meeting described on‑the‑ground enforcement problems with the current policy and said many classrooms drift from strict enforcement after the first weeks of the term. A student representative urged stronger rules, and staff said some teachers want clear, consistent enforcement authority. Parents at the public comment period asked for a pragmatic middle ground — support for no phones during class paired with access at passing time and lunch for urgent family communications and college application logistics.
Board discussion covered operational questions (locker use, phone caddies in classrooms, theft or parking‑lot storage concerns), exceptions for teacher‑approved instructional uses, district‑provided alternatives (iPads, Chromebooks), and the need for clear community education and rollout plans. Several trustees said they favored a more restrictive, bell‑to‑bell approach for the high school with careful advance communication; others urged more study of logistics before committing to a single district‑wide approach.
The board directed policy committee staff to collect additional input, work through enforcement logistics and draft a proposed policy for further review; trustees asked that staff return with implementation details and community engagement plans before a final vote.
Next steps: policy committee to meet in early June to do a deep dive and return recommendations to the full board.
