Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Student Device Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
RSU 18 holds first reading on state-mandated bell-to-bell phone ban; board splits over implementation
Summary
The RSU 18 board held a detailed first reading of a state-required bell-to-bell prohibition on personal electronic devices (deadline Aug. 1). Members agreed a policy must be adopted but disagreed about whether to leave procedures to administrators or require more explicit district-level direction on storage, enforcement and consequences.
The RSU 18 Board of Directors began the first reading of a state-mandated "bell-to-bell" prohibition on personal electronic devices during the June meeting, acknowledging a statutory requirement that a policy be in place by Aug. 1.
Board members broadly agreed a policy must exist to meet the law, but they were split on how prescriptive it should be. Some members pushed for a concise policy that delegates procedures and exceptions to the superintendent and building administrators; others urged the board to write stronger, more specific requirements into the policy itself (for example, how devices must be stored, whether powered-off is required, and what progressive consequences should follow repeated violations).
"State law requires, by August 1, a bell-to-bell prohibition. That's it," one board member said, arguing the district should set the policy now and let staff develop procedures. Another board member sought to replace the phrase "as determined by the building administrator" with "school board" so the policy would give clearer district-level direction.
Board member Chelsea urged more structural detail and staff resources for implementation, noting differences between elementary and secondary settings and the need for secure storage solutions. Chelsea also highlighted that the state provided $5,261 to support this work but said hardware solutions could exceed that amount.
"Depending upon developmental level, administrators may require devices be placed in a storage unit for a portion or the entire school day," Chelsea said, referencing examples from other districts and urging tailored approaches by school level. (Board member Chelsea)
Several board members recommended keeping procedural consequences out of the core policy and instead asking administration to return with implementation procedures and a timeline. One board member warned the board against specifying procedures it could not feasibly enforce because the board is not on-site to manage day-to-day implementation.
The board agreed on next steps: adopt a concise policy in time to comply with state law by Aug. 1, then either through the policy committee or administration develop detailed procedures, present those procedures to the board and hold public review opportunities. Board members proposed additional review sessions and suggested inviting staff and parents to provide input before final adoption of procedures.
Next steps: board will seek to have the policy on record by the Aug. 1 statutory target and told the policy committee and administration to work on implementation details and return with drafts.
