Chico Unified board directs staff to draft districtwide no‑phone policy and administrative regulation

The Chico Unified School District board voted May 1 to ask staff to prepare an updated district‑wide board policy and accompanying administrative regulation that would prohibit student use of mobile communication devices during the regular school day, with exceptions required by state law.

The directive followed a staff presentation on the district’s current board policy and site practices and a review of options ranging from classroom pouches and check‑in models to stricter AR enforcement. Staff presenter Domley reminded the board that existing board policy cites Education Code language that allows the governing body to limit or prohibit smartphone use on campus but also lists explicit exceptions such as emergencies and IEP‑required devices.

"The Ed Code says the student has the right to have [a mobile device] in the case of an emergency or perceived threat," Domley said, summarizing statutory exceptions the district must honor. The board asked staff to craft an approach that balances safety, classroom management and enforceability.

Staff presented estimated start‑up costs for a pouch system that secures phones in classroom pouches and releases them via a magnet at school gates or classroom magnets. Depending on the deployment model, staff gave a range of startup estimates: roughly $120,000 (high school‑only), $185,247 (middle and high schools) and up to about $388,000 for a broader fourth‑through‑12th grade deployment with per‑classroom kits and replacements. Staff and board members also flagged recurring costs: pouch replacements, magnet maintenance and additional campus supervision or administrative time to manage check‑in and unlock processes.

Public commenters supported clearer district rules and teacher empowerment but questioned the cost of technology solutions. "When we’re talking about how this could possibly cost us up to upwards of $400,000 — and we can’t afford certain instructional supports — that’s lopsided," one speaker, Michelle Cooper, told the board during public comment.

Board discussion ranged from cultural approaches (student education and PBIS) to enforcement logistics. Several trustees emphasized that a district AR would give staff clearer, consistent steps for first, second and third offenses, reducing ad hoc enforcement differences among sites. Trustee Landau asked whether a full ban could run afoul of Ed Code; staff answered the board can adopt limits but must preserve identified legal exceptions.

Board President moved a substitute motion directing staff to prepare both a revised board policy and aligned AR specifying no cell‑phone use from the start to the end of the school day during regular hours, with explicit Ed Code exceptions and a public‑input process. The substitute motion passed unanimously; staff indicated they could return to the board with drafts in June (June 12 was mentioned as a target meeting to begin review).

Other board actions that followed included approval to excuse an April absence under a separate resolution and a 4–1 vote to cancel the July board meeting; those votes were procedural and not tied to the cellular‑device directive.

What happens next: district staff will draft proposed board policy language and administrative regulations, solicit input from staff, students and families as requested, and return with recommendations and cost/implementation implications at an upcoming June meeting.