Bell-to-bell cell policy consequences discussed

By JEFF MORRIS

A discussion of how the district is handling the state’s bell-to-bell cellphone ban, which all school districts have been ordered to implement this year, came up at the July 30 Bedford Central Board of Education meeting.

The subject arose during a review of district policies, which included the district’s “Code of Conduct,” due for such review this year after having last been amended July 12, 2022.

Trustee Blakeley Lowry, who along with Betsy Sharma and Lisa Mitchell serves on the board’s policy subcommittee, was asked by Board President Gilian Klein, “With the new bell-to-bell technology ban, will the policy committee be putting how that’s handled or what the consequences will be into the code of conduct? Or will you be discussing whether you’re going to be doing that?”

Lowry said she believed they were going to discuss it. “We have a separate policy for it; we just want to be sure it’s consistent with whatever’s being talked about,” she said.

Klein said she thought that since students, per se, did not read policy, even if there is not a separate policy it is important to include the policy and how it is going to affect kids, in the code of conduct. Superintendent Robert Glass said he believed the code of conduct, as written, is broad enough to include all of that.

Trustee Steven Matlin, however, wanted to know if violations of the ban were being treated consistently, and was looking for a description of consequences at a more granular level. He asked whether punishments for a first, second, or third violation of the ban are covered in the code of conduct, and whether different students would be treated differently when it comes to either first or repeated violations.

“The way the code of conduct is written,” said Glass, “it doesn’t get to the granular level where it specifies exactly how a particular offense is going to be handled.” He said it was very open-ended and does not get prescriptive, and would be coded as insubordination, or another offense. “That would be communicated,” added Glass. “That wouldn’t go in the code of conduct.”

“That’s what I’m concerned about,” Matlin responded. “Shouldn’t a student who takes their phone out for the first time in the middle school be treated the exact same way as a student who violates the policy the exact same way in the high school?”

Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment, Amy Fishkin, noted that the code does reference this offense.

The district’s current code of conduct lists under section 7310.25, Prohibited Student Conduct, “Engage in conduct that prevents others from being able to learn, focus, or be engaged in their work.” Two of the examples given are “Failing to comply with the reasonable directions of teachers, school administrators, or other school personnel in charge of students,” and “Display or use of personal electronic devices, such as, but not limited to, cell phones, I-pods, I-pads, digital cameras, in a manner that is in violation of district policy.”

Matlin still wanted more detail. “If we don’t treat everybody the same, based on the first, second or 15th violation of this thing, we’re going to start getting complaints,” he said, and asked where the penalties were enumerated.

Fishkin referenced the disciplinary actions cited in the code, which states, “Consequences and disciplinary action, when necessary, will be firm, fair and consistent so as to be the most effective in changing student behavior.” It goes on to say that in determining the appropriate disciplinary action, school personnel authorized to impose disciplinary consequences will consider the student’s age, the nature of the offense and the circumstances which led to the offense, and the student’s prior disciplinary record.

Klein interjected that the code lays out some parameters, but also allows for some professional judgment in terms of the specifics of the event, “so it’s not totally cookie cutter.” Fishkin agreed there is a range of consequences, depending on the severity of the offense. Klein pointed out that this applies to all types of behavior, not just cellphones.

Glass eventually resolved Matlin’s concerns, saying he appreciated the question and the discussion, but that the change at the middle school will essentially be none, so it will be a nonissue. “At the high school there’s going to be some change, and they already have a letter prepared saying ‘first violation’s likely going to be this, second violation’s going to be that’ — but that’s not going to go in policy, that’s going to go in the letter that the high school principal and the administration send out,” said Glass.

Glass said it would be the same at the elementary schools, with no change in policy except that watches will be added, which is something that will have to be communicated. 

“It may have to be modified,” he said. “There will be communication coming out from me shortly that will outline in general terms how we expect them to store the phones; if that needs to be modified as the year goes along, under our policy we have latitude to modify it.”

Right now, under the policy, Glass said, they can be clear about what is going to happen at a particular school.

Jeff Morris has been a reporter for The Recorder since its inception, and previously wrote for The Record-Review, The Lewisboro Ledger, and business periodicals, and even edited jokes for Reader’s Digest.