VOORHEESVILLE — The Voorheesville Central School District has waded into the cellphone-in-the-classroom debate just weeks before it’s due to become law. 

The new state policy mandates that school districts must adopt their own policies concerning students’ use of personal electronic devices by Aug. 1. However, the mandate takes effect Aug. 1 regardless of local adoption; a local policy is required to detail a district’s plan for implementation and enforcement.

The centerpiece of the new policy is a “bell-to-bell” prohibition of all internet-enabled devices on school grounds. This restriction will be in effect from when the first school bell rings to signal the start of the academic day until the final bell at dismissal. The policy also gives the district the option to extend the ban to cover after-school extracurricular activities, an option Voorheesville is not looking to implement. 

The policy also provides guidance on the use of non-internet-capable devices, like Bluetooth headphones. Voorheesville’s board on June 9 was inclined to permit the use of headphones for educational purposes when explicitly directed by a teacher.

The logistical challenge of the new policy is its secure-storage requirement for student devices, which in Voorheesville will be students’ lockers.

Board discussion

The board’s June 6 discussion of the new device policy touched on a number of issues, including the specific language contained within the sample policy provided by the state.

Board President Rachel Gilker took issue with the inclusion of “negative impacts on mental health” as a primary rationale for the restrictions. She said that the scientific link between smartphone use and adverse mental-health outcomes was not definitively established. And presenting a contested claim as a fact could undermine the policy’s overall credibility.

Voorheesville’s policy justification, it was noted, would be more defensible and enforceable if it focused on immediate and observable issues within the school environment, such as classroom distractions, maintaining academic focus, and preventing cyberbullying. 

Several members expressed concern about the potential impact of the new policy on older students who’ve become accustomed to having their phones with them throughout the day. 

It was pointed out that students’ personal devices function as legitimate organizational tools, with students using them for managing academic and extracurricular schedules, accessing online assignments, and coordinating with coaches and employers.

There was also discussion about the broad prohibition implying a lack of trust in the maturity of nearly-adult students, and whether a restrictive ban could hinder students’ development of personal technology-management skills, considered essential for success in post-secondary education and future careers.

Discussion of the smartphone policy — largely prompted by Gilker’s observation about inconclusive scientific research on mental health cited in the state’s sample policy — expanded into a broader conversation about the board’s role when adopting language provided by the state. It was suggested that the board should adopt the state’s template verbatim, which would provide Voorheesville a degree of legal insulation, ensure timely compliance with the state’s mandates, and maintain policy consistency with neighboring districts.

But the verbatim argument ran into a counterargument that the board’s primary obligation is to the local community, that it has a duty to amend state-provided templates to address the district’s specific circumstances and values.

To ensure it meets the Aug. 1 deadline, the board plans to hold a vote on its own policy during its July meeting.