District policy panel trims explicit "before and after school" device language, emphasizes code‑of‑conduct and staff direction

The Creighton Elementary District policy committee on April 2 reviewed draft policy 5‑305B governing student wireless communication devices and agreed to remove a sentence that would have explicitly allowed personal phone use "before and after school." Committee members said the change avoids a burdensome, inconsistent definition of the "school day."

"Students may use their wireless communication devices before or after school for personal use, including on school transportation, but may not film other students," read Committee member (S2) from the draft. After discussion, members supported crossing that sentence out and instead tying device use to the district's student code of conduct and to staff direction.

Committee members cited practical scenarios where narrow exceptions are needed — for example, a student contacting a parent about pickup or a staff member asking a student to use a phone for an urgent call. "I just want it to be very clear and delineated for all of our audiences," said Committee member (S2), adding that unclear wording previously created disputes between parents and staff.

Members emphasized that the policy's chief concern is filming and posting other students on social media. "It’s more about the filming and the social media," said Committee member (S5), urging the draft to explicitly prohibit filming and posting other students without permission. The group agreed to retain a prohibition on filming other students and to add a narrow classroom exception when use is directed by staff for instructional purposes.

A member who joined late asked whether a recent Arizona law limiting student cell phone use affects the district’s approach. Committee members said the new law’s "spirit" could inform local policy but stressed that any enforcement must reflect district authority and legal limits. Staff member (S7) noted the district has more enforcement latitude when there is a demonstrable disruption to the learning environment.

The committee also discussed whether individual campuses should retain site‑level rules. Some members argued for systemwide clarity so parents and staff know what to expect; others worried that a single standard would not fit every campus. The compromise supported in the meeting was to tie the policy to the student code of conduct and the ability of school staff to grant situational permission.

Members directed staff to update the draft text (removing the explicit "before and after school" sentence, keeping the prohibition on filming/posting other students, and adding an affirmative line that students use devices "in conformity with the student code of conduct and as directed by school staff"). The committee postponed additional language work and scheduled follow‑up discussion at the next meeting.

The committee adjourned after confirming scheduling and next‑step notes; the motion to adjourn was made and seconded on the record and carried by voice vote.