Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Piedmont board holds first reading of proposed phone policy amid strong public debate
Summary
The Piedmont Board of Education held a first reading of a proposed mobile-device policy that would restrict phone use during instructional time and limit high‑school use to before school, lunch and after school; parents, students and local professionals offered sharply divided views.
The Piedmont Board of Education held a first reading of proposed board policy 51 31.8 on mobile communication devices, presenting a draft option that would bar phones during instruction for all grades and allow high-school students to use devices before school, at lunch and after school.
Superintendent Hahn framed the proposal as a response to recent state-level changes, citing “what is now known as AB 32 16, the Phone Free Schools Act,” and said the policy is intentionally high level while implementation details will be spelled out in student handbooks. She emphasized exceptions in the draft for emergencies, teacher permission, medical necessity and IEP requirements.
Public comment filled the room. Ben Wharton, a parent, urged a stricter approach at lunch, arguing that “Lunch in particular is sort of the one time during the day where kids have the free opportunity to socialize,” and said phones undermine that social development. By contrast, Alyssa Welch, a member of the district’s phone-task force, said the task force “never made a recommendation” to adopt stricter limits than option 1 and warned that requiring a lunch ban would be “inconvenient and impractical” for students and families.
Therapist and parent Allison Gantz urged stronger limits, saying the goal is not punishment: “This isn’t about punishment. It’s about creating a learning environment where students can be fully present,” and cited mental-health and attention concerns from clinical practice.
Student speakers urged board engagement with student perspectives and described mixed views: some supported instructional-time bans while many asked to keep lunch and passing periods available for family communication, work and social contact. Several board members said they want robust student involvement and data collection during implementation. Because this was a first reading, the board took no vote; staff said they will return with a second reading after collecting feedback and refining implementation details.
