Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policy Cell Phones topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board debates mobile‑device policy; teachers urge 'bell‑to‑bell' no‑phone rule, members flag enforcement challenges at high school
Summary
At first reading the board discussed proposed policy 5131.8 on mobile communications devices. A teacher letter urged a strict 'bell‑to‑bell' ban K–12; some board members endorsed stricter limits for elementary/middle schools but flagged enforcement difficulty at the large high school.
Get email alerts on the Policy Cell Phones topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The board held an extended first reading of proposed policy 5131.8 (mobile communication devices) during its meeting, with several board members, teachers and administrators weighing competing priorities of instruction, student safety and enforceability.
A teacher's letter read into the record urged a coherent, strictly enforced bell‑to‑bell no‑phone policy across grades K–12, saying social media and phone access have materially changed student behavior and classroom culture. Board member Mr. Snelling and others said they were sympathetic: "Students need to talk more to each other and learn," one board member said after recounting an observation of students in class focused on phones.
District personnel told the board that both middle schools currently enforce bell‑to‑bell no‑phone rules and that the school sites have developed different classroom management strategies (phones in backpacks, collection points, classroom shoeboxes, use of Chromebooks for instruction). But administrators and some board members said the high school’s campus size (and the number of students) presents logistical enforcement challenges and that a phased or differentiated approach might be necessary.
Board members discussed additional measures the district could take: stronger parent engagement and communications, additional training for staff, campus‑wide designated phone‑free zones for lunch and social time, and a digital‑citizenship curriculum. Several board members asked staff to engage further with principals, teacher councils, classified staff and parent groups before the policy’s next reading.
The item remained a first reading; the board signaled the issue deserves additional study and consultation and did not adopt a final policy at the meeting.

