Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mobile Device Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Piedmont board backs on‑campus "bell‑to‑bell" phone ban; asks staff to return with lockers plan and staffing costs
Summary
After hours of public comment, the board directed staff to draft a policy that would ban smartphones while students are on campus (allowing off‑campus lunch access), pursue full‑size lockers if funding is secured with backpacks as an interim fallback, and budget for enforcement staffing.
After an extensive presentation and public comment period, the Piedmont Unified School District board directed district staff to prepare a first reading of a mobile device policy that would prohibit smartphones while students are on campus.
District presenter Jen summarized state guidance (the Phone Free Schools Act, referenced in discussion as AB 3216), local survey results using a Stanford instrument, and several implementation options — Yondr pouches, phone‑size lockers, full‑size lockers, phone‑in‑backpack rules, and cell‑signal detectors — with cost and staffing tradeoffs. "Any device that connects to the internet" is covered under the state guidance, she said, and the board and staff noted legal ambiguity about how to ensure emergency access under the current law.
Public comment split along predictable lines: several student speakers and some parents urged maintaining the current policy that allows phones during off‑campus lunch and questioned the practicality of pouches or locker systems; parent groups including Piedmont Unplugged and several clinicians and parents urged a bell‑to‑bell ban to protect attention and mental health. Student surveys shared by speakers showed high student opposition to a more restrictive policy but teacher and parent groups reported improved classroom behavior under restrictions in other districts.
After deliberation, the board coalesced around the following guidance for staff: draft a policy that implements a bell‑to‑bell prohibition on smartphones while students remain on campus (phones allowed off campus at lunch); pursue full‑size lockers as the preferred storage/implementation mechanism if fundraising or funding can be secured, with backpacks as a fallback interim option; make enforcement a priority via a zero‑tolerance confiscation policy for phones used on campus; and include staffing cost estimates (the presentation cited a rough estimate of an additional campus supervisor at approximately $75,000/year) and legal analysis of emergency‑access procedures. The board also asked staff to return with a first reading in the coming meetings.
Quotes from students and parents highlighted the tradeoffs: student board members said the current policy has improved peer interaction and that off‑campus lunch is an important safety and convenience feature; supporters of a ban cited national and international guidance linking smartphone use to adolescent anxiety and measures of improved well‑being following bans in other districts.
Next steps: Staff will draft a policy for board review that reflects the board's direction, outline costs for lockers and staffing, and include a legal assessment of compliance with state guidance and emergency‑access requirements. The board asked administration to seek funding sources for lockers (parent fundraising was mentioned) and to return with a PD/implementation timeline.
