Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Device Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 18 opens urgent first reading of state-mandated bell-to-bell cell-phone ban
Summary
Facing an Aug. 1 state deadline, the RSU 18 board held a lengthy first reading of a bell-to-bell personal electronic device policy. Members agreed to place procedural enforcement details with administrators but asked for clearer storage and consequence language and public input before final adoption.
The RSU 18 board opened a detailed first reading of a state-required "bell-to-bell" prohibition on student personal electronic devices, moving to meet an Aug. 1 compliance deadline while reserving procedural implementation to administrators.
Board members expressed strong support for the policy's goal but debated whether the board should remove procedural language from the policy text and leave enforcement to the superintendent and building administrators. One member urged the board to avoid drafting procedures in the policy itself: "Some of the language proposals would be extremely hard to put into practice when you're a school," an administrator told the board during discussion.
Several board members called for more structure around storage and consequences. A former teacher on the board noted many districts use grade-level distinctions and offered quarterly implementation timelines, while another member proposed language requiring devices be "powered off and stored in appropriate and secure locations (e.g., locker or pouch) as provided or determined by building administration." The board discussed potential enforcement steps for repeated violations, including exclusion of devices from school after repeated offenses.
A board member proposed three specific amendments intended to meet the law's letter while preserving local control: (1) revise a bullet to state devices must be powered off and stored "as determined by the school board" rather than building administrators; (2) delete a procedural list of possible disciplinary responses from the policy text; and (3) replace language assigning procedure development to the superintendent with assignment to the school board. Administrators cautioned that making the board responsible for operational procedures could render the policy unenforceable and recommended the board delegate implementation to the superintendent and principals.
Members agreed on a pragmatic path: adopt a concise policy statement that meets the state's requirement by Aug. 1, remove procedural detail from the policy core, and form a small working group (administration, teachers and one or two board members) to draft implementation procedures and present them at upcoming meetings and public forums.
What happens next: the board signaled it would advance a policy meeting the state deadline but continue iterative edits via the policy committee and public input; the policy will return for second reading and formal adoption after procedures are drafted and vetted.
The discussion included references to a $5,261 state grant for implementation support and a noted estimate of up to $40,000 for comprehensive measures in some districts; board members asked administration to compile procedures and sample language from peer districts for the next policy meeting.
