Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Device Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees review optional Chromebook protection plan and stricter discipline for intentional damage
Summary
District staff proposed an in‑house $25 annual protection plan for middle school take‑home Chromebooks (family cap $60, $15 for low‑income students) and a protocol that would impose progressive discipline and possible restitution or community service for intentional damage; trustees asked for more data on opt‑in rates, fund handling and proof of intentionality and directed staff to return with details.
Merced City School District staff presented an optional device‑protection plan and a companion disciplinary protocol for intentional damage to district‑issued Chromebooks used by sixth through eighth graders.
Deputy Superintendent Romo and Dr. Ken Cooper outlined the proposal as an in‑house program rather than a third‑party insurance product. The suggested premium is $25 per device per year with a $60 family cap and a reduced $15 premium for students directly certified as low income. Coverage would include accidental damage, hardware failure not covered by warranty, and theft; loss and intentional damage would not be covered under the protection plan, officials said.
Dr. Cooper described progressive discipline for intentional damage: a first violation could result in a one‑day suspension, a second in two days and six weeks without a device, and repeated violations could result in three to five days' suspension or site placement alternatives. The district would seek restitution for intentional vandalism; when families cannot pay, students could perform community service at a district‑approved rate (the presenter cited $17/hour as a reference point tied to local minimum wage assumptions).
Trustees pressed staff on several operational details: whether a third‑party vendor would reduce district workload (Trustee McCutchen), whether parents may opt out and use their own device (no, staff said, devices must be district‑configured), how premium funds would be tracked and used, and how the district would prove intentionality in investigations. Staff supplied incident data: 34 incidents of intentional damage across the district in the previous year at a reported cost of roughly $6,500 for repairs and replacements; staff emphasized a baseline year was needed to measure parent response and opt‑in rates.
Director Linda Parker said premium proceeds would be tracked in a local resource and used to offset repair and replacement costs. Multiple trustees asked for clearer examples of fund management and for the district to return with specifics on administration, expected opt‑in rates and comparisons to neighboring districts' approaches.
The board did not vote on the protection plan at this meeting; trustees indicated general support for holding students accountable for intentional damage but asked staff to return with: baseline opt‑in projections, an accounting plan for collected premiums, comparative vendor options, clearer cost estimates for intentional incidents, and protocols to protect students with documented behavioral needs during investigations. Staff said they will bring these details back at a future meeting.
What’s next: staff will gather baseline participation data and vendor comparisons and return with recommended accounting language for any premium funds and clearer due‑process steps for determining intentionality.
