RSU 18 takes first reading on state-required bell-to-bell cell-phone ban amid debate over enforcement

RSU 18 held a first reading of a state-required bell-to-bell personal electronic device policy that must be adopted by Aug. 1. The draft follows state guidance mandating a prohibition on student use of personal electronic devices during the school day; the board discussed how prescriptive the policy should be and who should develop enforcement procedures.

At the policy committee's recommendation, the board reviewed the draft that includes language requiring devices to be powered off and stored during the school day. Board member Chelsea (who participated at the policy meeting) urged the board to add structure for implementation, arguing the draft lacks specifics about storage solutions and how rules should differ by developmental level. "I do not feel as though this should be passed as written," she said, citing examples from other districts that use age-appropriate storage or lockers.

One board member proposed amending the draft to change references from "building administrator" to the "school board" for certain enforcement lines and to remove end-of-page procedural bullets about consequences, arguing those are implementation details not policy. Administrators in the room cautioned such edits could make the policy unenforceable: one administrator said replacing administrators with the board "would be extremely hard to put into practice when you are in school."

Members noted the timeline: the law requires a policy by Aug. 1, and while the policy itself can be adopted quickly the implementation procedures will need staff input and time to be practicable. Multiple board members proposed a two-track approach: adopt a concise policy that meets the statutory requirement (bell-to-bell prohibition) and instruct administration and the policy committee to develop procedures, testing options such as pouches, lockers or other storage systems and a progressive-consequence model.

The board discussed public input, suggested convening administrators, teachers and parents for procedure development, and considered an ad hoc or policy subcommittee to craft practical language. No final vote to adopt the policy occurred at the meeting; members agreed to continue work and, if necessary, to bring the policy back for a second reading with concrete procedural recommendations.

Next steps: the policy committee and administration will continue drafting implementation procedures; the superintendent and select board members were asked to deliver proposed procedural language and a plan for public input before the August deadline.